14 January 2022
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
As usual, Hughenden Parish Council’s meeting on 11 January started with members of the public given the opportunity to make comments or ask questions.
One member of the public complained about my requests to HPC for information under the Freedom of Information Act. This, she said, meant officers had no time to do other work. She said that I had asked 245 questions under the Act which had placed a huge burden on officers and councillors. She added that Hughenden had a population of 9000 people and Buckinghamshire 546,000. HPC had received requests equal to 1 question for every 36 people while Bucks Council received 1 request for every 464 people.
I was puzzled by this complaint. Where on earth did this figure of 245 questions come from? I said at the meeting that I thought it was about 10. I offered to send the resident a list of my requests but she hasn’t taken me up on my offer.
And where on earth did the figures on questions per population come from? That, I thought, must have taken some time and work.
It was only after the meeting that I realised the figures came from Appendix 35 of the bundle of papers prepared for the meeting. I did not have time before the meeting to read all 37 Appendices. I fell asleep and missed Appendix 35.
So well done that resident who found Appendix 35, worked out it was me referred to in the Appendix, and asked me to account for placing a “huge burden” on officers and councillors.
I have repeatedly said councillors should account for their decisions and actions. So that’s what I am going to do.
In brief, I have 9 outstanding requests for information with HPC and 2 more have been completed. I have difficulty understanding why these requests have, apparently, placed such a burden on HPC, although I do see that the bureaucratic, unnecessary procedures HPC has put in place have created problems.
Of course, the simplest way to free resources is to promptly provide the information that I, and others, have requested.
The background
The councillors’ Code of Conduct requires councillors to take well-informed decisions.
My expectation, as a new councillor, was that papers provided before meetings would explain the background and set out the details. If, as a new councillor I needed more information, I could meet the Clerk or phone her up or drop her an e-mail before meetings to get up to speed. And I would be able to ask questions at the meeting if I still needed to.
But anyone reading my blogs will realise it hasn’t been like that.
The Clerk banned me from the office and would not meet me so all my requests had to be by e-mail. The papers for meetings have regularly arrived late; have provided little, if any, information on many agenda items and the Clerk has failed on numerous occasions to provide the information I have needed, and failed on numerous occasions to even respond to my requests. When I have asked questions at meetings I have been shouted at and threatened. It’s getting better but that’s the background.
It's not just me who needs this information. Residents should be able to see why the Council are taking decisions and they too should be provided with the information they need to understand the Council’s decision-making.
Freedom of Information requests
After some months of receiving such poor support, I decided to use the Freedom of Information Act; I am nothing if not determined to do the job.
I did not want to do this. It is time consuming and tedious to have to use the law to get information which should be provided as a matter of course. But I saw no alternative.
Completed requests
1. A copy of HPC’s policies and procedures on freedom of information (foi) requests
On 27 September, I asked for a copy of this policy as I could not find it on
HPC’s website. 5 weeks later I received confirmation that HPC doesn’t have a policy or agreed procedures on foi requests.
I think it speaks volumes that a Council, reputedly weighed down with foi requests, has no policy or procedures for dealing with them and, and despite my repeatedly suggesting it, has been unwilling to even discuss the problems.
The solution to the problem is simple. When people ask the Council for information, the Council should provide them with the information promptly or explain why the Council can’t do it.
The Freedom of Information Act requires the Council to do this within 20 working days.
If the Council doesn’t provide the information, the requester can then ask for an internal review. And this is where the Council has set up a bureaucratic nightmare.
For each request for an internal review, Council is asked to appoint a review panel of three councillors (or, as councillors are thin on the ground, a combination of councillors and officers). This might mean a delay of weeks.
Then, the Council struggles to get a quorum to agree to the appointment of the panel. More delay. Then the panel has to discuss the request, agree how to action it and prepare and agree a report. That all takes time and resources.
Surely the Council could appoint one councillor do to all the internal reviews and report back to Council? That councillor could start work immediately. Quicker and less resource consuming.
If someone is dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, they can make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). By then, Council will have had 60 working days to provide the information. So, it really should not come to that.
2. A copy of a report on the safety of streetlights in Widmer End.
I asked for this report on 14 September, the day it was to be discussed at Council at short notice. I was told the report was confidential. I eventually received the report on 13 October, 1 day after the statutory deadline.
Internal reviews pending.
After HPC had failed to provide the information I asked for within the statutory 20 working days, I asked for an internal review on my request for information on the following:-
1. Maintenance contracts.
On 1 November, the internal auditor said the Council was non-compliant with the Public Contract Regulations. So, on 22 November, I asked some basic questions about the four maintenance contracts and a contract with Bucks for what is known as devolved services.
My rough estimate for the expenditure on these contracts is about £50,000 - £60,000 (yes really, contracts for £50,000 - £60,000 and Council was provided with virtually no information).
2. Payment by HPC to the solicitors of Hughenden Community Support Trust (HCST)
On 1 November, the internal auditor made recommendations on these payments. So, on 17 November, I asked some questions, including how much was paid to HCST’s solicitors over the years.
The internal auditor also made recommendations about the authorisation of payments.
The only authorisation which has been identified for payments to HPC’s solicitors was made in 2017. Council delegated authority to Hughenden Community Support Trust (yes really, HPC delegated authority to HCST to authorise payments to HPC’s solicitors).
4. Legal advice on the payment of £31,000 of rent to HCST
5. A copy of the Clerk’s resignation letter.
Complaints with the ICO
After HPC failed to carry out an internal review satisfactorily, or at all, on four of my requests for information within the statutory 40 working days, I complained to ICO. These requests were: -
1. Information on a Thames Valley Community Payback Scheme and a project at HPC’s burial grounds;
3. Information about the full and final cash settlement of £8,400 to Hughenden Valley Village Hall; and
4. Information about the handling of the transfer of land.