6 December (Part 2) - On a high horse making up rules on the hoof? Looks like it
I don’t know about you but I was getting a little confused about
the numerical allegations surrounding @tony’s Freedom of Information Requests
so I asked for clarification.
Could he really have submitted 115 FOIs in 18 months while I have got by on
only four in 12 years? Probably. @tony has only kept records since last June but
extrapolating that number makes 115 totally believable. He is not going to
dispute that but when I suggested there must have been a lot of duplicates he
said No. Not more than two or three when Council replies were delayed long beyond the
legal time limits; he prefers to ask for a Review which is not the same thing as a repeat.
Were there many duplicates as Ms. Bonham claimed. Let’s assume that @Tony forgot a few but “most” of the time “you asked
further questions”? It doesn’t sound very likely, especially so when the letter came from a Council not renowned for its honesty.
But hang on a minute, Madam Bonham does not dispute that more than 100 of the
FOIs were answered in a routine manner without demur. So they weren’t vexatious
were they? She can’t come back now and claim they were, only perhaps that @tony
is not a cost free zone. Suggesting the former will make her a laughing
stock at the Information Commissioner’s Office when those numbers get to Wilmslow.
Did she not seek legal advice before making up stories on the hoof?
Does the Monitoring Officer ever give good advice?
It is admitted that there are only twelve FOIs held up by this latest act of
stupidity and Ms. Bonham kindly provided their reference numbers and the
relevant Department that was asked to answer. Seven are clearly each on different
subjects, so assuming that @tony has not trawled the extremities of triviality
they cannot be vexatious. Why would he do that on the most recent seven when the
previous 100 plus were perfectly acceptable? To quote the BBC website, @tony may be a very annoying
person but that does not make him vexatious.
Five FOIs were to Member Support and Electoral Services. It is reasonable to suppose that
they are @tony’s enquiries about his proposed road safety petition, the subject on
which the Council Leader said he had been
given an answer on 15 occasions. Well if
they can’t guarantee not to make up new rules at the 11th hour as they did in 2011, what do they expect?
Now we are getting close to the truth. One FOI has got up the nose of the Leader
and (some Tory Councillors) and @tony’s refusal to accept her somewhat
worthless, in my opinion, guarantee that petition procedures would be followed -
they weren’t last time they came into play - has sparked the vexatious label; and maybe this particular FOI is.
But using that single example to put a stop to the other seven as yet unanswered
questions is entirely wrong. Wrong and probably unlawful. As for using the previous 103 which are history now
as supporting evidence; it is a joke, as I am inclined to think Ms. Bonham must be,
although I acknowledge that to preserve one’s job at Bexley Council one has to
kowtow to Teresa O’Neill. (A retired Finance Director told me exactly that.)
If I was @tony I would ease up on the FOIs; what does he do with the
information? Very little of it ends up here so I would judge that most of them
are not terribly important and whilst
answering the average FOI doesn’t cost much,
115 begins to add up. However the response pretty much proves that at its core Bexley Council is as dishonest as it always
has been and I think I know who is at the centre of that rotten apple.