Readers know now that he himself writes a blog which is sent round Sadwell Council but which he is now trying to keep secret. Recently, the Halesowen News reported his use of the blog to criticise social workers for his own management's disastrous failure over a number of years in respect of Children's Services. This shitty attack was picked up and commented on by Private Eye Magazine, no less!
It has also become apparent that he has used the blog to slag me off on at least two occasions. In the circumstances, I put in a Freedom of Information Act request to see this great work. He has been at it for some time (which may be why he seemingly failed to notice Hussain's taxi contract bid, a number of bent deals and, as above, the unfolding tragedy in Children's Services - and he was supposed to be intimately involved in that shaming degringolade) but to be reasonable and proportionate I only requested sight of the great man's thoughts since 1st April, 2015.
Now SMBC are spending time, (our) money and energy fighting to maintain secrecy and refusing to give disclosure and I have been forced to appeal to the Office of The Information Commissioner (ICO) yet again in respect of this failing Council! Set out below is my appeal which I would normally place in a technical blog for the delight of Sadwell nerds only but it is worth you scrolling down to the original response from a public servant employed by us taxpayers, one David Haywood. I am used to vitriolic abuse from a number of people connected with Sadwell but I will leave it to you decide whether a public servant - whom I have never met and who does not know me - should write to member of the public in this aggressive and insulting manner....
PS Where's the Wragge Report, Mr Britton?
Here is the FOI appeal:
APPEAL TO THE OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
SANDWELL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Background
I provide a community news service scrutinising the activities of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC). Despite the esoteric subject matter of a blog I write (with help from others) on this subject, it has received over 350,000 views to date.
The Chief Executive of SMBC who is, of course, a public servant funded by the taxpayer writes a blog in Council “time” which is then disseminated via the taxpayer-funded computer system to staff. He is also in a politically-restricted post.
I have requested copies of the blog since 1st April, 2015. The Council have refused my request on the ground that it is vexatious and maintained that stance following internal review.
The Council have not claimed that it would be costly to provide this information and it would not be as it would merely entail pressing a few keys on a keyboard. Indeed, I limited the request to the current Council “financial year” (even though the blog has been running for some time) specifically to keep the request reasonable and proportionate.
It should be noted that the Chief Executive, Jan Britton, has used his blog to personally attack me on at least two occasions. Also, following yet another “inadequate” Ofsted report in respect of SMBC’s disastrous Children’s Service Department, he infamously used this medium to attack SMBC’s social workers and to shift the blame for this failure from his management team onto them. This was reported in the local Halesowen News paper and in Private Eye Magazine and was clearly a matter of both public interest and concern.
Where a (politically-restricted) Chief Executive is using taxpayers’ time and equipment to attack and criticise third parties it is clearly a matter of public interest that this material should be placed in the public domain. It is also in the public interest for taxpayers to be able to assess the efficacy of the management style of the Council where it is deliberately shrouding itself in secrecy in so many areas of its activity (I refer, without prejudice to the generality of this assertion, to the information already forced from this organisation via my other FOI requests to date).
I should also add that, as a community journalist, I take grave exception to the tone of SMBC’s highly personal attack on me in their original response of 9th February, 2016. I have never met nor spoken to the purported writer, David Haywood, Service Manager Governance, and I find it extraordinary that this public servant can abuse me in the manner that he has and to presume to comment on my alleged motivation for writing a long-standing and well-received community blog. The fact that my original request was couched in somewhat flippant terms does not absolve SMBC from complying with the provisions of the Act and does not justify personal abuse and vilification.
Original Request - 6th January, 2016
|
Jan 6
 |   | ||
| ||||
I am aware that the person purporting to be Sandwell Council's "Chief Executive", Jan Britton, writes a "Word on the Street" blog which is disseminated to the unfortunate staff. Clearly this is being prepared by a member of the paid service and is published via the publicly-funded computer system. In those circumstances, please forward copies of all of these blogs for the current "council year" ie from ist April, 2015 until the date of your reply.
Julian Saunders
Original Response - 9th February, 2016
|  Feb 9 |   | ||
| ||||
This information has been marked as: IL1: PROTECT
Dear Mr Saunders,
Please find attached the Council’s response to your above FoI request.
Regards
Stuart Taylor
Governance Services Manager
Governance
Vincent Alexandervich
thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
Dear Mr Saunders
Freedom of Information Request Ref: 1-729108818
The Council is in receipt of your Freedom of Information Request as follows:
“I am aware that the person purporting to be Sandwell Council's "Chief Executive", Jan Britton, writes a "Word on the Street" blog which is disseminated to the unfortunate staff. Clearly this is being prepared by a member of the paid service and is published via the publicly-funded computer system. In those circumstances, please forward copies of all of these blogs for the current "council year" ie from ist April, 2015 until the date of your reply.”
Under the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests. Where a request is classified as vexatious, the public interest test does not apply.
A public body may consider and determine that a request is :
- so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will be obviously vexatious; or
- likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
(source ICO Guidance 20141120)
The blog that you refer to in your request is an informal tool used by the Chief Executive to share his personal views on professional matters as pertaining to the Authority, and deliver messages to employees on matters in which he thinks staff may have an interest. The blog is not disseminated to all staff. Access to the blog is by individual choice. Employees may also choose to subscribe to bulletins.
The Council is aware that you gather information through various sources including FOI which you then use in your several personas to publicly pursue your personal derogation of the Council, named employees and named elected members. The Council considers that you do this because of a personal grudge. The Council also considers that your actions cause disruption, irritation and distress and that you take pleasure in doing so.
The Council considers that your current request is without specific purpose, as demonstrated by its broadness. The Council considers your request is solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed.
The Council believes that by requesting the entire content of the blog for a twelve month period you are simply looking for subjects that you can then use as ‘hooks’ on which to hang further requests for information in order to pursue your ongoing personal grudge and your repeated desire to disparage the Council, its officers and its elected members at every opportunity under the pretence of acting in the public interest.
The Council also considers that you are looking for personal commentary by the Chief Executive and other senior officers which can then be used, including by being taken out of context, for the sole purpose of undermining their professional standing and further attacking their personal reputation and that of the Council. The Council considers that providing you with the information you ask for may lead to further irritation and distress to individuals.
The Council considers that the disparaging and opinionated terminology that you use in your request serves to support the negative intention beyond your request.
The Council considers that the effort required to meet a request of vexatious intent is unreasonable and that any reasonable person would not expect the Council to direct its resources from its primary purposes simply to comply with a request of this nature. The Upper Tribunal in the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council ruled that the purpose of Section 14 [of the Act] must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of the word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA.
In accordance with Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Council has determined your request to be of vexatious intent and will not be responding to the request.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your request, and should be addressed to:
Information Management Unit
Sandwell Council House
Freeth Street
Oldbury
West Midlands
B69 3DE
Email – info_management@sandwell.gov.uk
If you are not content with the outcome of an internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours faithfully
David Haywood
Service Manager - Governance
Request for an Internal Review - 9th February, 2016
|
Feb 9
 |   | ||
| ||||
I am patently not a vexatious applicant as my earlier FoI's have shown. Important information - which you have attempted to shield from public view - has been flushed out.
As of today, my well-respected blog relating to the Council has had nearly 340,000 views and it is an important means of letting the people of Sandwell see what is really going on.
The fact that you do not like the style or content of my blog is irrelevant to the operation of Freedom of Information Act 2000.
For the record, I have not made applications via a variety of persona. I previously used What Do They Know to make requests in my own name and then started making applications via this gmail account all signed "Julian Saunders".
If anything is "vexatious" it is your personal attack on me.
In the circumstances, please take this mail as a FORMAL request for an internal review pursuant to the Act.
Julian Saunders
Reply to Request for an Internal Review - 15th March,2016
Request for an Internal Review 1-732085669 [IL0: UNCLASSIFIED]
Inbox
|
x
|
|
5:23 PM (16 hours ago)
 |   | ||
| ||||
This information has been marked as: IL0: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Saunders
Review of Freedom of Information Request Ref: 1-729108818
I have completed the requested review of the following Freedom of Information Request as follows:
“I am aware that the person purporting to be Sandwell Council's "Chief Executive", Jan Britton, writes a "Word on the Street" blog which is disseminated to the unfortunate staff. Clearly this is being prepared by a member of the paid service and is published via the publicly-funded computer system. In those circumstances, please forward copies of all of these blogs for the current "council year" i.e. from 1st April, 2015 until the date of your reply.”
I can confirm that the Freedom of Information Act provides that a public body may consider and determine that a request is :
- so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will be obviously vexatious; or
- likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
As a public body, Sandwell Council is permitted to apply the vexatious provisions to a Freedom of Information request.
Where a public body applies the vexatious provisions, it is not obliged to provide detailed reasons. The Council in its initial response has, however, offered explanations as to why it is applying the provisions and I am satisfied that the Council has acted reasonably by providing an explanation of its application of Section 14 of the Act and that those explanations demonstrate a reasoned approach to the application of Section 14.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Council has acted within the rights conferred upon it as a public body.
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any communications with the ICO.
Yours faithfully
Stuart Taylor
Governance Services Manager
Governance
Ext 3715
End. 16th March, 2016
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!
PROUD TO BE TROLLED BY DARREN COOPER AND ANDREW HIPKISS.
email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com facebook: Julian Saunders
Confidential phone no: 07599 983737
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.