Dear Blogmaster,
Please find attached a letter I have today received by email from Ashley Parker, FOI Coordinator, DLGC.
I shall be grateful if you will post the letter on the Perspicuus Eboracum site and the contents of this email on the regular site.
Mr Parker requests that I reduce the scope of my application. He says that the task of assessing for exempt material the more than 850 documents so far identified 'would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the agency's resources away from its other operations' (like stuffing up proposed amalgamations, I suppose).
He suggests I remove item 15 from my application.
Item 15 is linked with item 14. Together, they read as follows:
(14) Complaints from ratepayers and residents of the Shire of York regarding conduct of Council meetings and other Council activities and processes, including administrative activities and processes, received by the Department since the present Council was elected in 2013;
It appears that 462 documents have so far been identified with respect to item 15. Obviously, they form a significant proportion of the total (about 54%).
Readers intending to follow the fortunes of my application will have divined that item 15 was by no means a mere afterthought. My purpose is to assess whether or not the Department dealt fairly or negligently with complaints defined by item 15, why it chose not to intervene in the council's affairs during the respective presidencies of Crs Hooper and Boyle, why it acted to suspend the council elected in October 2013 and if it then acted on ratepayer complaints or solely on complaints from disgruntled councillors and staff.
Before I reply to Mr Parker, I would welcome advice from any quarter as to what my next step should be.
Sincerely,
James Plumridge
I would certainly drop 15 and maybe save it for a rainy day, the fact the DLGC has identified 460 documents proves what we already knew, the probity audit was 6 years too late.
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, I would accept their invitation to reduce the scope of the application.
Thanks for the advice.
ReplyDeleteThe Department has offered by way of compromise to give me 'a count of complaints '. I'm not sure what that means. I suppose I could take a statistical approach, but a simple count wouldn't cut it. The figures would have to be analysed into categories. E.g. who made the complaints, the general public, councillors, or council staff? What were the topics of complaint? When were the complaints received? What action was taken regarding them? Were the complainants satisfied with the Department's response?
The fundamental issue is this: why did the DLGC do nothing during the 'stalinist' Boyle and Hooper years, when from all accounts the air was thick with ratepayer misery, but chose to intervene against the best and most popular shire president York has had for many years? Who put the boot in, and why? No prizes for guessing, but what I want is proof. If the Department is looking to save time by not having to consult with third parties, that's understandable, and I'm willing to cooperate, but I won't let them off the hook completely.
If push comes to shove, I can always submit a series of FOI applications...
I take the opposite viewpoint, Jim. I believe the content, as well as the number of complaints, is significant. Even the severity of the issues raised in the complaints would have relevance in comparing the 2 time frames. Would the DLGC allow you to go to their office and view the documents, permitting you to request copies of those you decided were most important, as an alternative to copying all of them?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jane. See if you can make an appointment to see the complaints and make an assessment from there. Tell them to get some extra staff in to have them ready for you. It's their problem not ours.
ReplyDeleteReduce the scope to include 1 -13 inclusive and 16. The Department will then be able to prepare an estimate of charges. Don't agree to an extension at this stage as the 45 day permitted period actually ends Thursday 26 February.
ReplyDeleteLodge a separate application for 14 & 15 and pay the $30.00 fee. This can then be dealt with as a new application. It may be worth stating from the off that you are happy for the Department to edit any personal information, this should elevate the need for any third party consultation. When eventually the Department release the records, if amongst them, there are any edited gems then these can be requested with a further application requesting specific unedited records of interest.
At some point it may just come down to a simple commercial decision, so concentrate on the main material of importance and work from them, these records may even highlight other records which may be of interest to you.
It's a good idea of yours to request some breakdown of the complaints into specific categories, I would certainly suggest it to the Department. Such a breakdown may identify a record or group of records of particular interest.
You can be sure the 79 complaints relating to post October 2013 election will relate to Tony Boyle, Ray Hooper, the administration and specific staff and NOT Matthew Reid.
Slow going but we're talking government here.
I suspect that many of the 79 complaints etc. relating to item 14 will have been made by the Fab Four (and what Ray might have called their 'acolytes') about Matthew.
DeletePlenty of good (if somewhat contradictory) advice so far. Please keep it coming. I've a lot of thinking to do before making a decision.
The more important question is 14, which relates to what went on after the new council was elected. There are 79 documents so far that are relevant to that question. What I'm trying to do is find out why the department failed to intervene during the calamitous Hooper and Boyle presidencies, instead biding its time until January 2015 after a year of democratic rule in York.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that material referring to third parties can be excluded from discovery if those people don't agree to its release. Probably quite a few of the 79 docs pertinent to Q 14 would refer to the Fab Four - Ray, Pat, Tony, and Mark. I wonder if they'll raise objections? They shouldn't, if they think they have nothing to hide, but we don't live in a perfect world.
As to Q 15, if the department's problem relates to having to confirm with a multitude of people that they don't mind my having the documents - 462 docs are a lot - I could ask for a detailed statistical analysis while reserving the right to file for further and better particulars later on if what the department gives me doesn't fit the bill. Meanwhile, I could ask the department to specify the topics of complaints, aggregate them under topic headings and rate the severity of each complaint on a scale of 1-10! (Just joking about the last bit.) Or they could just black out identifying information; I'm more interested in the complaints made than in who made them.
"I'm more interested in the complaints made than in who made them".
DeleteExactly!
I realize the significance of securing the most important information quickly, Jim, and prioritizing the rest. Perhaps you will have to lodge another FOI. However, the SoY initially gave me very little when I lodged my FOI re SITA and their interactions with the SoY, which led me to apply for an External Review. The Commissioner of Information Officer who handled my case took months to acquire what documents I now have. When it came to releasing documents from 3rd parties, the SoY attempted to put me off but were instructed to delete / blank out any references to the individuals who sent those documents. You may find the same will apply to your situation.
ReplyDelete"When it came to releasing documents from 3rd parties, the SoY attempted to put me off but were instructed to delete / blank out any references to the individuals who sent those documents".
ReplyDeleteWhich is a good reason to split the application at this stage, if you believe the Department intend to hamper the release of certain documents, don't hold -up the whole application because of it.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
James they have sacked our council with no good reason. Therefore they have to provide all the documents now. End of story. Don't accept their bullnshit excuses. Take it to the ombudsman if they give you the run around and tell the media they won't release them. The time for being fair about it has long gone. If the Minister had read the four files before sacking them his department wouldn't be in this predicament. Play hard.
ReplyDeleteWow, that LG serial number is super impressive. Bet it took a working party many months to decide that as a ploy to make it appear that they deal with a huge number of items.
ReplyDelete