17 February 2012

Loads of assistants but no assistance




Now there is proof that the out-of-office unhelpfulness stems from the top. Having sent Mr Walkley an open letter, to follow soon, about what he should do about the Ed Lester ( Student Loans Company ) non PAYE problem which has been heavily used at Barnet Council, Mr Mustard received an out-of-office message from the top banana, non-stick Nick Walkley. Perhaps he is off at a job interview, you will have to hope Nick that no-one checks you out on the famous five Barnet blogs to be in with any chance of getting a new job.

I am out of the Office on Friday 17th February.
Jeff Lustig (Director of Corporate Governance) is deputising for me. For any urgent items please contact the Executive Office on 0208 359 7001.


Nick Walkley
Chief Executive

Now hold on a minute. You have a personal assistant as you can't be expected to type your own letters, make tea, arrange meetings etc etc. Shouldn't the email have been looked at by him/her and some action taken?

You have a Deputy Chief Executive. Is he out of the office today also?

And what about your Assistant Chief Executive. Is she out of the office also?

Perhaps there is an awayday to dream up a new name for One Barnet (and don't go with Sustainable Communities Strategy as it isn't true or pithy enough)

So Jeff is in charge, but he doesn't seem to deal with things so that is pretty pointless and you don't say if the email has been forwarded or not. Mr Mustard is not here to organise your inbox for you, although your day would be a lot different if he did. 

So Jeff, here is the email that Mr Mustard sent you on 21 July 2011  (what's that, you have been a little busy, OK but perhaps you could get around to reviewing the wording as promised by one of your underlings, say by July 2013)


21 July 2011

Dear Mr Lustig


Although they differ the footers on many emails from the Council enclosing FOI replies contain the following phrase

Information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

You are hereby placed on notice that any copying, publication or any other form of dissemination of this e-mail or its contents is prohibited.

Given that the Council is supplying information that it is obliged to provide on what basis is the prohibition in the final sentence being made ?

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard

So on the bottom of Nick's message was the even longer dire warning.

The information in this e-mail is confidential and may also be the subject of legal privilege. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please reply to the sender. It is an out-of-office message. Why is that confidential? It is an out-of-office so of course Mr Mustard is the intended recipient.

Information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. What a pointless pair of lines. The word "may" renders the whole first sentence useless. If released the email will be redacted within an inch of its life anyway

You are hereby placed on notice that any copying, publication or any other form of dissemination of this e-mail or its contents is prohibited. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted, the recipient must use their own virus checking software. On what grounds is information provided under FOI or under Business as Usual (BAU) prohibited from being published. That virus message is a statement of the bleeding obvious.

So there we are, proof from the top that it is OK to do nothing whilst you are out and to suggest other staff in your out-of-office who won't do anything either. Part of the ruthless drive for efficiency that is just a mantra and nothing else.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

3 comments:

  1. Let's be honest: Mr Lustig runs the council anyway, and if Non Stick and Blackhole were to run away to say, Bangalore, and never be seen again, no one would notice & we would be a quarter of a million pounds a year better off.

    While you are there, though, Jeff, could you answer our letter re the councillors' declaration of interests, please? In between the photocopying and putting the kettle on. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your Grant Thornton partnership prospects are going down Mrs Angry. Blackhole bills £1,000 a day for about 220 days in a year and non stick get £200,000 + pension contribution so the spend if these two were to sadly wave goodbye to us would be more like half a million a year.

    I don't think Jeff has a kettle Mrs A as when his assistant babysat us during our recent visit to NLBP which lasted over 2 hours he didn't even offer us a cup of tea, let alone a biscuit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh dear, Mr Mustard. Yet again I have proved that I am the perfect external auditor for the LBBarnet, with my appalling lack of mathematical ability.

    You're right. They were not awfully hospitable, were they?

    ReplyDelete

I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.