Showing posts with label top secret. Show all posts
Showing posts with label top secret. Show all posts

12 August 2014

Top Secret Board Meetings at Barnet Homes & Your Choice

Regular readers will recall the mantra of the Chief Operating Officer of Barnet Council that the default position of the council is to be open and transparent a phrase that gets thrust back at him every time the council fail to reveal or partially reveal something of interest. If a council was completely open and transparent there would be no need for bloggers to root around for information and Barnet is a hotbed of bloggers (and activists) which tells you all you need to know about the actual transparency achieved, or not, by the council.

Barnet Council owns 100% of the Barnet Group, an umbrella body created to hold shareholdings on its behalf in Barnet Homes (who "manage" all of the council's social housing stock) and Your Choice (a misnomer of a company) for providing vital social care and which thinks the best way to balance its is to cut the pay of its not highly paid workforce by originally 9.5% and now 8.31% (both of which threatened cuts have led to ballots for strike action which have had votes in favour of 90%) rather than charge the council the actual cost of the services provided.

Anyway, whilst Mr Mustard was thrashing about their dire websites he came across two Board meetings which he hadn't seen advertised anywhere so, rarely for him nowadays, he fired off a simple Freedom of Information request in the full expectation of a refusal. Here it is with the answer which was provided in 22 calendar days (Mr Mustard told Barnet homes off for always replying on working day 20 in the past and they have decided not to delay this time)


Good afternoon Mr Mustard

Thank you for your request for information received on 2 July 2014, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). I set out your request and Barnet Homes’ response as follows:

Please provide the following details for the Board Meetings of 18 December 13 (Barnet Homes) and 16 January 14 (Your Choice)

- the email or other notice in which notice invited persons were notified of the meetings
- names of persons invited
- any notice given to the public
- the agendas
- the minutes


The meetings held on 18 December 2013 and 16 January 2014 were both confidential meetings and therefore only the Board Members and appropriate officers were invited. In view of the fact that they were confidential meetings we did not issue any notices and there are no agendas or minutes available for public release.

The items discussed are exempt from publication under categories 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. This is because the report refers to information that is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and/or Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person.

In addition, the information about this meeting is withheld because it is considered that the absolute exemption under Section 40 (2) of the FOI Act applies to it.

In doing so, Barnet Homes is relying on the absolute exemption set out in section 40 (2) of the Act in regards to information that constitute personal data. We have applied the exemption because of the condition set out in Section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Act concerning data protection principles as stated in the Data Protection Act 1998.

I hope you find the information above useful.

How the Dickens could a lack of information be useful?

Mr Mustard notes the complete failure to issue any public notices of the upcoming meetings (these are private companies although ultimately council owned). Should the position have been that the meetings were advertised, the public could have attended and then as soon as the meeting opened it went into private session and the public were excluded?

Should the agenda have been published with the substance of the item to be discussed written without any personal data within it?

Should the names of the actual Board members who were invited have been released? The response says "the Board Members" but was the whole Board invited? how do we know?

Shouldn't the names of senior officers who attended be released?

Shouldn't there still be minutes showing the start and finish times, the matters discussed (without personal data) & any votes or decisions taken?

Should councils be allowed to hide things by the expedient of having wholly owned private companies?

Should I ask for a review or let the matter rest? Would suitable experts please comment below.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

20 August 2012

Commercially sensitive - yawn

so not a secret

As a quick follow up to today's joint blogger statement here is an exchange of emails in which Mr Mustard tried to find out what these fantastic new commercial opportunities were that had caused a huge out-sourcing project to suddenly change track and become a Joint Venture opportunity.
 
 
From: Mr Musatrd

To: Wharfe, Pam
Sent: Sat 18 Aug 2012
Subject: my ref #1358 - DRS Dialogue Update

Dear Ms Wharfe

I note the sudden change in direction of the DRS outsourcing to a JV.

I am particularly interested in these words of yours "has great potential to generate new commercial opportunities, both in Barnet and further afield."

Please enlighten me.

What are the potential new commercial opportunities?

Yours sincerely

Mr Mustard



Dear Mr Mustard,They are under negotiation as part of the competitive dialogue process and therefore I cannot give examples as they are obviously commercially sensitive matters.
Pam Wharfe Interim Director EPR


to foi@barnet.gov.uk


Dear Sir or Madam
 
Please provide the information requested i.e. a list of the new commercial opportunities
 
Yours sincerely

If the information gets refused under FOI, and one would think that the public interest lies in knowing what our council are getting up to behind closed doors, the request will be sent to the Information Commissioner to decide upon. Mark your diary for about March 2013!

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

1 March 2012

Why was this DPR top secret?

GCHQ - possibly less secretive than Barnet Council
When Mr Mustard sees that a Delegated Powers Report has been issued and it is entirely exempt from publication he firstly thinks "what a load of tosh; it can't all be secret" and then he thinks "I will have to ask for that under FOI" thus a secretive council can expect more FOI requests.

So having seen that the DPR to reorganise, once again, the departments which are now called Environment, Planning & Regeneration, the second game of musical chairs in 12 months, he wants to see the document. Here it is.

1499 Reorganisation of EPR

So now you have seen it, was it really worth keeping secret?

Feel free to explain in the comment box why this document was so secret that only it's existence and the overall subject matter was known.

Naturally you would think that having released the document under FOI it would now be in the published list of DPRs? No, it is still showing as exempt.

Yours openly

Mr Mustard

4 November 2011

GFC - 3 Nov 2011 - 8pm - Redundancy is fun.

The GFC or General Functions Committee was such a top secret meeting that councillors were not to be told any detail. Mr Mustard is surprised that any of the meeting was public at all. He did only get to see 26 minutes of it ( 3 minutes longer than the 7pm meeting he sat through ) and as the council moved into part 2 ( the exempt items which the public can't know about ) he decided that the pub quiz was more attractive than sitting around waiting for part 2 to finish so that he could return to the meeting to hear about the Member Development Programme and Member Role Profiles ( where "member" means "councillor" and isn't a euphemism ). Two members of the public did decide to hang around and go back into the meeting. If you are reading could you add a little report in the comment box please.

A request for governance to consider. When there are 2 items of substantive business to discuss and one doesn't have any secret bits please put that on the agenda first so that when you move into the secret part of the meeting the public can go home. Thank you Mr Lustig.

Anyway, back to the first part of the meeting which didn't seem to be any less secret than the first. It was entitled "People implications of the budget headlines for 2012/13" which in English means "How many people are we going to sack this year"?

The report was presented by Sarah Murphy-Brookman - the Head of Business Partnering & Change ( have you got any idea what she does? - nor Mr Mustard - apart from looking after a large stock of P45's ). The overpaid consultant Jacquie McGeachie was the top name on the report and as the Assistant Director of Human Resources you would think she would be the one to present the really bad news, but no.

Having been cautioned by the chair Cllr Scannell that the only questions allowed were about staffing, and not about budgets, although the 2 go hand in hand, Sarah presented her report. There was bad news for all agency workers. All of their posts would be advertised internally to be available for at risk employees to apply for. Now Mr Mustard presumes that must mean the S151 officer post will be available for any qualified accountants to apply for as it is well known that the £1,000 a day Deputy Chief Executive is supplied through an agency. Perhaps that was why Jacquie McGeachie didn't want to speak, she bills through an agency as well ( not that you would know that from the over £500 spending lists which by some magical accounting trick she does not appear on ).

Now it was a lady councillor, possibly Cllr Hutton ( from the public gallery Mr Mustard was looking past the backs of councillors at the chair - there are some he would like to see the back of but not this forthright lady ) who wanted to know the detail behind the table on page 18, you can download it here. which summarised the 92 employees at risk of redundancy. Sarah told the councillor that she knows who is at risk but won't tell the councillor any detail! Do officers think they are councillors? Officers, remember you work for councillors, not the other way around. If they want to know something you tell them. If it is secret you say very politely, "yes councillor I have that detail but as it relates to individuals who don't know they may be losing their jobs I will have to tell you in part 2 when the public have gone home."

Now Councillor Hutton ( it was she, Mr Mustard remembered about the photos on the council website; doesn't she remind you of Miss Marple? carry on with your questioning Cllr Hutton, you will find out who did it in the end  ) wasn't finished. She said that she was being asked to approve redundancy payments of £2million and how could she make a proper decision if she didn't have the detail. The payments would be £4million but someone has decided to only be half as generous this year.

What officers could and couldn't say about staff at risk was a football which was kicked around for a while. Pam Wharfe was able to say that the number of park-keepers would go down as instead of having their own park to play in they would be roving from now on. So that will be increased vandalism then in the future and the parkie's time wasted driving around Barnet.

Cllr Rams piped up. Mr Mustard inwardly groaned and then little Robert, bless him, said the most sensible thing that Mr Mustard has ever heard him say. Robert pointed out that most of the detail about who was at risk was in the 128 pages of the report ( which he must have at last glanced at). Perhaps time spent on the receiving end of a public meeting and the feeling of powerlessness in front of an Enfield councillor has made him realise how the public feel - well done Robert.

There were more pertinent questions about the school leaving age increase affecting the future number of staff required and the answer was the government were likely to reduce the council's role in this area. Hurrah. 

The drastic cut in the "Youth Offer" ( eh, oh, things for young people to do and keep them out of trouble ) was mentioned. Barnet are going to target the real problem families and there would be less universal provision. There is probably a programme to stop the young turning into bloggers - what do you think Mrs Angry?. 

No the voluntary sector aren't going to pick up the neglected pieces of the youth offer as their budgets are being slashed.

I have told a reader that I am going to stop mentioning Cllr Thomas because I have made the point that his claim that Mr Mustard cost the council taxpayer £40,000 in 6 months answering FOI requests is utter tosh. Now Mr Mustard has a problem because last night Cllr Thomas asked Sarah "Did the staff enjoy the process last year" i.e. was the worry of whether or not they would have a job in 3 months time a really fun experience, and Mr Mustard thinks people, especially the voters of Finchley Church End, need to know how much Cllr Thomas cares for the workforce.

The serious answer was that people left with dignity and those who remained were engaged with the council. That will be why it leaks like a sieve then?

copyright : http://files.sharenator.com


8.26pm came and a motion to exclude the public was the usual formality. Mr Mustard went off to the quiz and had some overdue fun.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

19 October 2011

Top Secret Audit Report

Recently Mr Mustard had to leave a committee meeting as councillors wanted to discuss exempt business. Mr Mustard doubted that the matter was so secret that he, as a council tax payer, couldn't know about it. He therefore submitted a Freedom of Information request. 

You don't like Mr Mustard making FOI requests do you Cllr Thomas but what choice was there? The council hide two little charts; of course Mr Mustard will want to see them. 

Was this request answered promptly? No, it took from 21 September to 17 October for a response.

Did it take 9 hours to answer? No, it took 9 minutes.

Has there been a single request yet that took 9 hours? No, how is the apology coming along Cllr Thomas? Knowing Barnet Council it will have to go through 6 drafts before it can be released.

Here is what he wasn't allowed to see at the meeting 

click to enlarge; back to return

Were these two charts really worth the trouble of passing a motion that the public ( only Mr Mustard was actually in attendance ) be excluded from the meeting.

You are high on your own self importance Barnet Council and you are getting it all wrong.

Will Barnet grind to a halt now that the public can see these two charts? Correct, no they won't.

Is Audit patently under-staffed? Yes it is.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard