Freedom of Information requests are a pain. That is the whole point of them.

****

My colleagues at the Local Government Association have decided they want something done about Freedom of Information requests:

Freedom of information requests are a ‘burden’ on local authorities, and their use should be subject to tighter controls according to council leaders. The Local Government Association (LGA) has suggested fees for requests should be introduced and the time councils have to spend responding to them lowered from 18 hours to eight

No. Just no. The whole point about the Freedom of Information Act is that it provides the means for the public to hold the bureaucrats, technocrats and politicians to account. And this is because that information held by local councils is public information - meaning that the public should have access to said information. As a matter of right not as some big favour granted them by some stuck-up bureaucrat.

If Councils are bothered about Freedom of Information requests being a burden, then the proper response isn't to dream up some cod 'public interest' test but the make a whole lot more information publicly available, accessible and searchable. If you do that then the public doesn't have to go to the trouble of crafting requests that the Council responds to - instead they can go directly to the data they need.
...

Does the public sector see some complainants as trolls?

****

Or something along those lines. Lawrence Serewicz explores this question asking whether the easy way in which the public sector leaps to use the word 'vexatious' in closing off the ability of the public to complain about how that public sector treats us:

The public sector in the UK, which has to do the same or more with a reduced budget, has sought way to limit those customers that take up the most time. These customers were often called “problem customers” or “serial complainers” who, for any number of reasons, take up the organisation’s time and resources. They are considered persistent, prolific, or vexatious applicants and organisations, and their customer services, need a way to deal with them. The preferred approach appears to be to declare them vexatious. Once declared vexatious, the organisation can refuse them services, reduce them or manage them in a specific way.

I suspect Lawrence has a point here - he cites the easy avoidance of Freedom of Information Requests (a good illustration being this one) as a good example of how public bodies avoid what might be seen as their responsibility under the law. As a Councillor I have a little bit of sympathy for public bodies - they can't ignore enquiries or complaints but after the twentieth iteration of the same question it can get to be a little galling. Partly this is because it's not a lack of  'customer service' that drives someone to submit over 50 enquiries about the use of around £120 of council resource (in the case I'm thinking of the motivation might be called the 'politics of vengeance').

However, Lawrence's point is a good one and reminds us that most of the time it's those in authority that hold the cards, can call the cops (and have those cops respond) and are often minded to act to protect their own rather than seek to resolve public grievance.

....

On corresponding with politicians...

****

The other week the people who make sure Bradford Council complies with data protection rules and regulations popped along to talk to the Conservative Group. Not specially as they'd planned visits to other groups too with the aim of explaining what we could and couldn't do, what permissions we needed and how we should keep stuff (electronically and otherwise).

The discussion raised a few splutterings - we were told that, without the person's permission, we couldn't share a constituents letter with our ward colleagues or, technically, with an officer, which until you think about it seems a little daft. But, as anyone dealing with the public's interaction with politicians knows, people do not always behave rationally or indeed contact us with wholly benign purpose.

And, as I'm sure all the journalists and such like know, data protection trumps freedom of information - the letter that Mrs Smith wrote to me isn't governed by those rules, it's governed by data protection rules. And unless she has given me permission to share your FOI request will fall on stony ground.

Indeed why should you believe you have some sort of right to see a private exchange of correspondence between me, as a politicians, and a person who chooses to write to me? It really is - in the true meaning of the phrase - none of your business. It seems reasonable for me to say, if asked, that I have corresponded with Mrs Smith but the content of the letters is a matter between me and Mrs Smith not between me, Mrs Smith and the whole of humanity.

And this is as it should be. Those who believe that every last exchange that every single public official has with anyone and everyone should be made public are not only wrong in law but damage the proper delivery of public service, whether it's the MP or councillor responding to the concerns of a resident about her noisy neighbour, a minister fielding letters from people who think they're more important than they are, or indeed a public official dealing with a complaint about his department.

There's a debate to be had about transparency but it isn't about private correspondence but about the manner in which policy decisions are made and the information on which those decisions are taken. At no point does private correspondence between the politician or official and someone outside government come within the scope of that transparency.

....

Regeneration, development and FoI requests...

***

Southwark Council, in the spirit of openness and cooperation is refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information request about the deal done with Lend Lease to 'rescue' the Elephant & Castle regeneration scheme:

Fiona Colley, Southwark’s cabinet member for regeneration, went on record to say: “There is nothing I would like more than to publish this document and show the world what a fantastic deal we negotiated for the people of Elephant and Castle. However, we entered into those negotiations with Lend Lease on a confidential basis, and I am not willing to break that agreement because a handful of people wrongly think the document contains something sinister. Moreover, the ICO’s decision has huge implications for councils wanting to enter into commercial partnerships with developers across the country.

“We could find ourselves sleepwalking into a situation where developers refuse to work with councils for fear their commercially sensitive information will be forced into the public domain. That wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests, and that is why we’re appealing the ICO’s decision.” 

This is a pretty big deal - I've no issues with the Council seeking to protect commercial arrangements and it will be very interesting to see how the Courts view Southwark's argument. It seems to me (and Jackie Sadek from UK Regeneration seems to agree) that the content of contracts between private companies and public bodies should be in the public domain. I can see the need for confidentiality during a negotiation especially where there is competition for the business. But once the deal is done the contract should be published.

The alternative is that people - in this case the opposition on Southwark Council - will see bogie men, corruption and scandal where there probably isn't any. And simply saying 'the Council refuses to publish they must be hiding something' makes the point eloquently. If that Council replies with 'no we're not hiding anything' then the response is 'publish'.

....

Fiona Colley, Southwark’s cabinet member for regeneration, went on record to say: “There is nothing I would like more than to publish this document and show the world what a fantastic deal we negotiated for the people of Elephant and Castle. However, we entered into those negotiations with Lend Lease on a confidential basis, and I am not willing to break that agreement because a handful of people wrongly think the document contains something sinister. Moreover, the ICO’s decision has huge implications for councils wanting to enter into commercial partnerships with developers across the country.
“We could find ourselves sleepwalking into a situation where developers refuse to work with councils for fear their commercially sensitive information will be forced into the public domain. That wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests, and that is why we’re appealing the ICO’s decision.”
- See more at: http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/jackie-sadek/2013/09/southwarks-silence-raises-interesting-issues/#sthash.Y0ZwXeog.dpuf