Mr Alan Eastwood - again!

It's funny how one thing leads to another.

In my research and investigation into the Change of Governance at Bolton Council it finally came down to a difference of opinion between myself and the Director of the Chief Executives office, Mr Alan Eastwood.

It would appear that he is the top Legal man at the Town Hall - the link between the Statute Book and the Elected Members and Officers of Bolton Council.

I have already wondered what other instances there might be where his interpretation of the requirements of the law could prove to be somewhat 'dodgy'.

It didn't take much trawling of the internet to find something.

Read on!

...........................................................................................

The Information Commissioner - the chap who rules on what can or cannot be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act - has, on 17th December 2009, found Bolton Council guilty of seven breaches of the FOI Act.

This decision has yet to be posted on the ICO website.

The background to this case relates to a FOI request (not from me) asking for the names of Officers of the Council who have been sent on training courses by the Council provided by an organisation known as 'Common Purpose'

This organisation, purporting to be a charity, holds leadership training courses for potential 'leaders' in areas of Government, Local Government and other Publicly Funded Bodies. People who 'pass' these courses are regarded as 'Graduates' of Common Purpose and have access to a network of other graduates.

The problem is that everything that happens on these courses, and who attends them is subject to what are known as 'Chatham House Rules'. Nothing that is said, nor the names of those who attend can be revealed.

Furthermore, one of the purposes of this organisation is to encourage and promote 'Leadership beyond Authority' - a very sinister phrase when applied to those in Public Bodies.

Bolton Council, in the form of Mr Eastwood finally and grudgingly revealed that they had spent £28,367.71 on sending employees on an assortment of these courses.

It turns out from the invoices that we are talking about up to £6,600 for each individual!

I have gleaned from other sources that this is the likely cost for a three day course.

It only costs £3,000 for a year at University!!!!

Mr Eastwood, however, refused to release the names of the individuals or the positions that they held within the Town Hall.

The Information Commissioner, in a lengthy series of communications, has finally got to the bottom line that seven individuals were involved. He has determined that one name is already known ( I'll find out who), two others are protected by the Data Protection Act but the remaining four must be named within 35 calendar days from the 17th December.

....................................................................................................................

Point 1

Why, when Bolton Council is so strapped for cash, are they spending this kind of money on 'training' and particularly with this organisation?

Point 2

Why, as a result of the secrecy, are we not allowed to know the content of this training to determine whether or not it is in the 'Public Benefit' as required by law.?

Point 3

What is Mr Eastwood and the Council trying to hide by erroneous interpretation of the Data protection Act when other Coucils faced with the same question have divulged the names and job titles of attendees.?

......................................................................................................................


I only came across this Decision a couple of hours ago. By sheer coincidence I've just bought todays Bolton News & lo and behold on page 7:-

.....................................................................................................................


Open up — or face court, council told

Town Hall chiefs have been threatened with High Court action amid claims they have breached the Freedom of Information Act.

Bolton Council is refusing to divulge the names of officers who attended a training course which cost taxpayers almost £30,000.

Now Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith has issued a decision notice against the authority telling it to open up — or face being held in contempt of court.
He has given the council 35 days to disclose the names of the four employees who attended leadership development courses run by training company Common Purpose.

If it does not, Information Commissioner Christopher Graham could make representations to the High Court that the council has breached the act.

Any breach of the Freedom of Information Act can result in a charge of contempt of court. The Act was introduced to encourage openness and transparency from public bodies and give people access to official information.

Breightmet resident John Greenwood submitted a Freedom of Information request in April asking for details of how much the council had spent with Common Purpose, copies of invoices and the names of officers who had received training from the not-for-profit organisation.

The council sent details of the cost of the courses, copies of the invoices it had on record but redacted — blanked out — the name and job title of staff who had attended the various courses.

Mr Greenwood said: “The council has spent more than £28,000 of taxpayers’ money on sending senior officers on these courses and I felt that it was of public interest to find out who exactly these people were.”

Common Purpose meetings have attracted controversy in the past for being held under Chatham House Rule, which essentially keeps the identity of speakers or other participants secret.

Mr Greenwood added: “I do not think this is good for democracy that key decision makers, who are beyond public scrutiny, are attending these kind of courses in secret.”

In his report, Mr Smith said the council had been correct in withholding information such as invoice numbers and bank accounts but had incorrectly withheld the names of four officers, prompting his decision notice.

A council spokesman said: “We have received the request from the Information Commissioner and we are considering our response in light of this request.”

...................................................................................................

Enough for now - but, believe me, there will be more!!

Paul