Further comment from Paul Arnott on post below re EDDC, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and disgraced ex-Councillor Brown

Paul Arnott here. I requested this FoI disclosure, and thank the police for their response, made on the twentieth day of the 20 allowed them in law.

I would also like to make clear that this matter ought to be cleared up quickly and if anyone is hanging under an unjust cloud their good name ought to be restored.

That said, what was most noteworthy in the police reply was the confirmation that although the Monitoring Officer made a minuted pledge to provide a joint statement on the status of any investigation absolutely none was ever made, or, it seems, attempted. (I put in an identical FoI to EDDC on this “joint statement” issue. They have two and a half hours to meet their own legal obligation to respond within 20 days)

Did anyone think this could all drift for eighteen months in silence? Did the Monitoring Officer’s boss, or the Leader, or the Cabinet, not wonder about this?

Last night, Cllr Susie Bond asked a number of clear questions about the status of this investigation. The line from the top desk was, the police haven’t told us anything … and, er ….

The other interesting detail in the police reply is about the inital, risible call to the Action Fraud hotline, which it is now confirmed by police was followed up by an EDDC call to local police, and the eventual passing of the file to a former policeman, now the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary’s Senior Fraud Investigator.

What we don’t know is if any actual complaint was ever made, or by whom, or whether there is a vital “crime number”, or whether this investigation has even been entered as an investigation in the Devon and Cornwall Police Public Sector Corruption Register – as should be the course.

Ultimately, a year and a half on, this guarded Freedom of Information response is all we have from our regional police force, of a piece with last night’s three wise monkeys routine from East Devon Council.

What we do know is that this is NOT sub judice., but to deduce that you have to read between the lines. A simple “No it isn’t” would have covererd it.

Don’t know really. Is that the cheese in my fridge going off in the hot weather, or is this growing whiff coming from somewhere else?

EDDC Monitoring Officer has never asked for police interview re disgraced ex-Councillor Brown

And the enquiry is ongoing – here is correspondence between Paul Arnott and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary on the subject, whiich was elicited by a Freedom of Information request via the whatdotheyknow website, this correspondence therefore being in the public domain:

Freedom of Information Act Request No: 3614/14

At a meeting of the East Devon District Standards Committee 14 months ago on 29th April 2013 the Monitoring Officer gave a statement in relation to Councillor Graham Brown and his comments published the previous month in the Daily Telegraph.

According to EDDC’s minutes she “advised that the matter had been referred to the Police soon after the article had been published. The issue was then, on advice from Police, directed to Action Fraud under the Bribery Act 2010 and the Council’s own Fraud, Theft and Corruption policy. Devon and Cornwall Police were continuing to look into the matter and the Monitoring Officer was currently in discussions with them about releasing a joint statement.”

According to the Devon and Cornwall Police published policy D22 Corruption in the Public Sector at point 3.1.4 “A person alleging public sector corruption will, if he/she so requests, be interviewed by an officer not below the rank of Detective Superintendent”

Please confirm the date on which the Monitoring Officer was interviewed by an officer of Detective Superintendent rank or above in relation to her report to the police.

Please provide me with any and all “joint statements” made by EDDC and D&C Police as referred to on 29th April 2013.

Please confirm that the investigation is not sub-judice.

The Crime Department and Press Office have provided the following information:

Please confirm the date on which the Monitoring Officer was interviewed by an officer of Detective Superintendent rank or above in relation to her report to the police.

N/A – No request was made by the Monitoring Officer to be interviewed by a Detective Superintendent

Please provide me with any and all “joint statements” made by EDDC and D&C Police as referred to on 29th April 2013.

No joint press statements were made by East Devon District Council and Devon & Cornwall Police

Please confirm that the investigation is not sub-judice.

A report was initially made to Action Fraud in March 2013 who declared it was not a matter with which they dealt. The allegations were subsequently reported to the local Police by the East Devon District Council who appointed a Senior Fraud Investigator to manage enquiries with regards to third party allegations. These enquiries are ongoing.

Source:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_protocol_d22_and_east_dev#incoming-542682

So, what DO EDDC know these days? Not much …

Here is a list of the latest Freedom of Information request subjects put to East Devon District Council – and excellent reading they make too, though most of them have yet to be answered as no doubt the poor FOI Officer is snowed under:

Hot desking
Job Descriptions for Senior Officers
Key Decisions
Monitoring Officer Report on [Ottery St Mary] meeting with Persimmon
Exmouth Masterplan
Council Tax arrears
EDDC activities in support of
Budleigh Salterton car park
Redrow Homes
East Devon Business Development Office at Heathpark

Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/east_devon_district_council

More on EDDC v the Information Commissioner (Exeter Magistrates Court, 10 am 28 August 2014)

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Tribunal-rule-Devon-council-blocking-Sidmouth/story-21746589-detail/story.html

Westminster MP adds disquieting information on the missing 6,000 voters

A correspondent has sent an extract from a letter from an MP (Chris Ruane, a member of Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, see post below of 7 July 2014) after he contacted him on the subject of EDDC’s missing 6,000 voters. It makes interesting reading:

“Thank you very much for your e-mail, and your very thorough research.

The example of East Devon is one that I highlight in my work, and also includes West Devon and Mid Devon. On the ERO’s attachment, I have listed all the ERO’s who have failed the compulsory Performance Standard Three to conduct door to door visits, as you mentioned, and you will see that East Devon has failed it three times. …

… On the issue of registration, with the changes to Individual Electoral Registration now in force, keeping tabs on the ERO is more crucial. Last year, every local authority did a test run (confirmation dry run) of comparing their electoral register with the Department for Work and Pensions database. Because to register to vote under IER, you need a National Insurance number, those on the register now have to be checked that they are exactly who they are. So the DWP matching was a way to do this. Local authorities were also advised to do a similar match with databases they have (such as council tax records). Only a quarter did this in the dry run. I have attached the list of those who did to this local data matching, and East Devon is not on there. This was their opportunity to test the system before it went live, as it has done now.

On the issue of an FOI request, this may seem odd, but the ERO does not fall under FOI legislation. I found this out whilst doing my own research, and those ERO’s I knew who weren’t complying, responded to say that they didn’t have to answer. I have raised this with the committee. If you get the same response, please do let me know [the correspondent has confirmed that he did get the same response from EDDC].

Recently I asked a question at Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions, and Greg Clark is now looking into those councils who fail in their duties.

Please let me know how you get on with East Devon.”

An attachment provided by Mr Ruane shows that East Devon has not undertaken the required doorstep canvassing since 2011, and that East Devon did not take part in the very important IT systems dry run for the Individual Electoral Registration process.

What is a First Tier Tribunal?

As can be seen in other postings, EDDC’s representative is due to appear at Exeter Magistrate’s Court at 10 am on Thursday 28 August as the council has refused to make public information about its relocation even though the Information Commissioner has said that they should do so.  It has been decided that this will be decided by a “First Tier Tribunal”.  Here is the official explanation of what that means:

Tribunals are specialist judicial bodies which decide disputes in particular areas of law.

“Appeals to tribunals are generally against a decision made by a Government department or agency. The exception to this is the Employment Tribunal where cases are on a party v party basis (i.e. employee versus employer).

There are tribunals in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland covering a wide range of areas affecting day-to-day life. HM Courts & Tribunals administers many of them although some are the responsibility of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Appeals to the First-tier Tribunal are against the decisions from government departments and other public bodies. The Upper Tribunal hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunal on points of law i.e. an appeal made over the interpretation of a legal principle or statute. Further appeals may be made, with permission, to the Court of Appeal.

Tribunal judges are legally-qualified. Tribunal members are specialist non-legal members of the panel and include doctors, chartered surveyors, ex-service personnel or accountants. Tribunals often sit as a panel comprising a judge and non-legal members however in some jurisdictions cases may be heard by a judge or member sitting alone.

Tribunals adopt procedures that are less complicated and more informal than those typically associated with the courts.”

Source: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/tribunals

Knowle court case update

“A resident’s bid to make the district council disclose confidential details of its plans to leave Sidmouth has resulted in the authority having to argue its case at a tribunal in court.

Jeremy Woodward lodged a Freedom of Information request in November 2012 asking for the minutes of various relocation working parties to be made available to the public.

He also asked that full, unredacted reports from the project manager be released, but both requests were denied by council officials.

The Temple Street resident took the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which accepted the council’s decision to withhold the minutes.

However, it did not agree that the project manager’s reports were covered by the same exception under the Environmental Information Regulations.

The council was told to publish the reports, but has appealed against this decision. As a result, the matter has been referred for an oral hearing by the First Tier Tribunal at Exeter Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, August 28.

Mr Woodward welcomed the news.

A council spokesman said it would not be appropriate to comment on the matter with the hearing pending.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/court_to_hear_knowle_case_1_3680513

How NOT to undertake a police investigation: a cautionary tale

There is an ongoing scandal in Carmarthenshire, where the question of unlawful payments to the Chief Executive of Carmarthen Council became a national scandal. For the background on this see:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/police-launch-investigation-unlawful-payments-6701913

As a result it was decided that there would be a police investigation. However, it was decided that because council and police in the area had many joint undertakings, the investigation would be undertaken by an outside force. Gloucestershire and Avon police were chosen to do this investigation:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gloucestershire-police-to-investigate.html

After three months, the police called off the investigation saying there was no case to answer:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/police-call-off-investigation.html

However, a local blogger was not satisfied with this and asked the police how they had come to this conclusion:

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/unlawful-payments-police-foi-response.html

Here is what she says:

Following the conclusion of the police investigation I made a freedom of Information request to Gloucestershire police. The response came today and there is a link at the end of this post.

I asked for;

1. A list of any persons interviewed, and /or job titles, and whether any of these were 
interviewed under caution 
2. Correspondence between Gloucestershire Constabulary and Carmarthenshire County 
Council
3. Whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service were involved and if so, any relevant correspondence. 

The responses were that;

….nobody was interviewed,
….there was no correspondence between the council and the police and
….the CPS weren’t involved.
This was, you recall, a three month long criminal investigation….

I also asked for;

4. The final report following the conclusion of the investigation 

5. A list, or summary, of all documents in either paper or electronic form which formed part 
of the investigation.

These were refused under the Section 30 exemption in that the release of this information may jeopardise police tactics in the future…presumably they’re expecting a flurry of similar local authority unlawfulness.

A thorough investigation? We’ll have to take their word for it. I remain of the view that in both instances there was, amongst other matters, the deliberate prevention of proper scrutiny as documented in the two Wales Audit Office reports.The full FOI response can be read here.
I am now considering whether to request an internal review of their response.

Those missing 6,000 voters haven’t moved to Mid-Devon

Remember, that for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 East Devon’s voting population remained stable at around 104,000 and then plummeted in 2014 to around 98,000.

In Mid-Devon it seems that no such dramatic change occured:

FOI 03058

Information Commissioner says most environmental and land information should be on council websites and not subject to charges for it

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19071:ico-revises-guidance-on-charging-and-access-to-environmental-information&catid=58&Itemid=26

Cabinet meeting on 2 July: almost half the agenda to be discussed in secret

Never seen so many Cabinet items to be discussed in secret! At this rate the Cabinet will be soon meeting in a secret bunker!

Click to access 020714_cabinet_combined_agenda_-_public_version.pdf

8 items in public, 7 items in secret. Is this a record?

Would the Information Commissioner agree?

£850,000-plus East Devon Business Centre to be demolished to make way for supermarket in Honiton

Where will Economic Development Manager and former Hon Sec of the East Devon Business Forum be decanted to one wonders?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/value_of_it_contracts_placed_wit#incoming-532767

EDDC accounts: public inspection of accounts – dates and procedures

in. public notice in today’s Express and Echo, EDDC has announced that the annual period during which the public can inspect its accounts will be

1 July 2014 – 28 July 2014
between 08.30 and 5.00 pm Monday – Friday

This refers not only to accounts but also to other documents referred to in Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Requests for unaudited accounts should be made to Simon Davey (Head of Finance) at the usual council address or by email to: sdavey@eastdevon.gov.uk or telephone 01395 517490,

The unaudited accounts will be on the council website on 30 June 2014.

Notice is also given that Grant Thornton (the council’s auditing body) has been appointed.

Tuesday 29 July 2014 at 10.00 am as the date on or after which local government electors for the EDDC area (or any representative of such elector) may exercise their right under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act to question the auditor about or make objections to the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2014.

Any objections to the accounts must relate to the matter in respect of which the auditor could take action under section 17 of the Act (namely, an unlawful item of account or failure to bring the amount into account) or to make a report in the public interest Section 8 of the Act.

No objection may be made by or on behalf of a local government elector unless the auditor has received written notice of the proposed objection and the grounds on which it is made. In addition an elector is required at the same time to send a copy of any notice of the objection to East Devon District Council.

The addresses of the auditor are:

B Morris, Appointed Auditor, Grant Thornton UK LLP, Hartwell House, 55-61 Victoria Street, Bristol BS1 6FT

EDDC:
Simon Davey, Head of Finance, EDDC, Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 8HL

A copy of the Audit Commission Act 1988 is here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/18/contents

and a very useful FAQ about the workings of the Act is here:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/

Seeds of change

In this period of rebellion in the ballot box, the incumbent East Devon Member of Parliament may be expecting to have a battle on his hands at the next election, less than twelve months’ from now  (May 2015). As signalled in our earlier post, one very popular, Independent, County and District Councillor, a signatory of the EDA Charter, has today declared her intention to stand against him, and others may of course follow ( We’ll keep you informed).  This was how Councillor Roger Giles, the long-standing and much respected District Councillor for Ottery St Mary, introduced her to the assembly in Sidmouth:

“A very warm welcome to everyone. Welcome to the Dissenters’ Room, which was provided by Annie Leigh Browne. Annie Leigh Bowne is a local heroine who not only gave Sidmouth the Byes and the Cottage Hospital, but was also a leading suffragist who successfully led the national campaign for women`s representation in local government, which was achieved in 1907.

A very appropriate location for the launch of Claire`s parliamentary campaign!

Many of you will know of all the fantastic work that Claire has done whilst she has been an East Devon District Councillor. She has been a beacon in the cause of openness and transparency and fairness at EDDC – often in the face of animosity and hostility from conservative party councillors.

One of her great successes was to expose the undue influence of East Devon Business Forum members on EDDC`s planning policies, and also the undue influence in their own members` planning applications. The Chairman of EDBF was former Councillor Graham Brown.

When Claire raised this matter at the EDDC meeting on 25 July 2012, she was accused by senior Conservative Councillors of:

“impugning integrity”; of engaging in “speculation, misinformation and
innuendo”; “debating through the media”; and making “scurrilous”
allegations.

There never has been an apology. Not even after the Daily Telegraph exposure of March 2013.

Claire has been amazingly energetic and persistent. Just look at some of the things she has done:

* Successfully campaigned to retain maternity services at Honiton Hospital

* Provided the first play park at West Hill

* Pressed for better protection for trees

* Fought against the Government relaxation of planning policy (NPPF)

* Vigorously opposed unnecessary and damaging levels of development on
greenfield sites in East Devon

* Got EDDC to allow recording of its meetings

* Pressed for the creation of a cycleway from Feniton to Ottery to Tipton to
Sidmouth on the disused railway line

* Regularly engaged with and sought the views of people, young and old

* Communicated extensively with electorate by various means, including the
extensive use of her excellent blog

* Opposed planned cuts to local services, and is currently fighting to save
Ottery`s youth centre, childrens centre, and library

* Pressed for openness and transparency in planning at EDDC, demanding
that planning committee members reveal if they have been lobbied

* Fought EDDC`s vanity project to relocate its offices at a cost of millions
of pounds of taxpayers money at a time when EDDC is slashing the
services it provides to the public
That is an amazing level of energy and determination.

Claire`s work was recognised by the electorate of the Ottery Rural ward in the Devon County Council elections of May 2013. She obtained 74% of the vote. She got the biggest vote; the biggest share of the vote; and the biggest majority of any councillor in the South West.

We know what you have done Claire – and we thank you for it.

And we are delighted to come here today to endorse your campaign to be the next Member of Parliament for East Devon.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Claire Wright – our next MP.”

More comment, with photographs of today’s campaign launch at http://susiebond.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/cllr-claire-wright-launches-her-campaign-for-a-seat-at-westminster/

 

 

Concern over EDDC interpretation of Freedom of Information requests

Concern has been expressed, over an annual report by EDDC officers, as to to how the council carries out its duties in dealing with requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

An EDA member, Tim Todd, has submitted a question to tomorrows meeting of EDDC Cabinet, at which the internal report is to be presented.  He has noticed that the report, when listing to all the complaints made to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) ,EDDC appears to have failed to mention an important complaint about which the Information Commissioner was critical of the council’s handling of his request

He points out that the ICO ticked EDDC off saying:-

“….. However, the handling of this request was less than satisfactory in a number of respects and the Council will need to use this case as a learning tool to avoid similar procedural issues arising in future”.  …..

When the council did respond with some of the information Tim had sought about EDDC’s £50,000 plus buy out of Exmouth’s Seaside Covenants from Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC presented their reply, after a delay of more than eight months, in a manner in which EDDC suggested they had revisited the question on their own initiative. They made no reference to the ICO’s involvement.

Tim says “Aside from the fact that EDDC’s last reply made no mention of the involvement of the ICO, the omission of any reference of to my ICO complaint in EDDC’s annual FOI report, suggests to me that not only have EDDC failed to take the ICO’s advice on board but their actions may now be seen as to extend to misleading councillors, the public and the press”. He also adds that no mention is made of the excessive number of times FOI requests go unanswered well beyond the statutory 20 working day deadline.

The ICO complaint forms part of

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_background_papers_re_50k#comment-47067
The EDDC agenda item is at

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/cabinet_040614__-_public_version.pdf

(pages 86 onwards)

———————————–
For your information, Tim Todd’s question for Cabinet on 4th June,  is as follows: (He has requested Diane Vernon to arrange for it to be put, in accordance with Equality Act provisions, as he is unable to be present himself.)

Will the chairman arrange for an investigation into the production of the annual report on Freedom of Information Act requests 2013/2014 (agenda item 23, pages 86 to 88)?

The report as proposed is likely to mislead members, the public and the press, as to the operation, by EDDC, of their duties under the Act. It is incomplete and inaccurate, and suggests all has been well during the year in question when that is demonstrably not the case. Specifically, in stating that five (listed) complaints were considered by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) in the period, it omits mention of a important complaint made to the ICO, (their reference FS50512425.)

It is a significant omission for a number of reasons, not least its criticism of EDDC’s handling of the FOI request.

The ICO’s letter to EDDC, dated 23 January 2014, includes the words “However, the handling of this request was less than satisfactory in a number of respects and the Council will need to use this case as a learning tool to avoid similar procedural issues arising in future.”

In omitting all references to this complaint in their FOI report, and with other pertinent omissions, those concerned might be deemed to have mispresented  the situuation to the council, the press, and the public with a misleading annual account of EDDC’s compliance with both FOI law and their more general openness and transparency obligations.

Public access to EDDC accounts

We are once again approaching that time of year when the public have the right to inspect the council accounts for 20 days, full details of which rights can be found at

Click to access Council-accounts-Know-your-rights-July-20132.pdf

This right is a powerful tool and gives exceptional public access to this material, so we are encouraging people, a few weeks beforehand, to seriously think about what accounts information might be useful and how they might use it to their best advantage.
Those who wish to examine any accounts should make their own arrangements, as EDA is not able to make enquiries for other individuals or campaign groups.
When making an enquiry, please try to be specific as possible with regard to the information you want to look at, as the staff need to find what you want, rather than give you a pile of papers to fish around in. The lady at EDDC is most helpful and giving early notice of what you might like to examine is strongly recommended- not least as it gives time for follow up requests before the statutory 20 day period is expired.

The start date is variable, so we will be keeping an eye on the public notices in the local press and as soon as we have confirmation of the dates, we will let you know.

Knowle relocation news: Richard Cohen to reveal all at Cabinet meeting next Wednesday (4th June)

Well, maybe not quite all? This, and other highlights of the Cabinet agenda, are listed at http://saveoursidmouth.com/2014/05/29/latest-knowle-relocation-update-by-deputy-chief-executive/

EDDC – Knowle relocation secrecy – important update

Following a Freedom of Information request in November 2012 for the full minutes of various ‘relocation working parties’ on Knowle and for the full, unredacted reports from the Project Manager, Sidmouth resident Jeremy Woodward was told by EDDC officials that if he wanted these publishing, he would have to go to the Information Commissioner – which is what he duly did. And last month, they ordered EDDC to release the full reports on the plans to relocate from Knowle

See: http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/office_relocation_freedom_of_information_battle

EDDC have now appealed, and the case (number EA/2014/0072) is now before an Information Rights Tribunal – and will probably be heard in early August.

See: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/information-rights/current-cases/register-cases.pdf

EDDC have meanwhile submitted further documentation – and they are absolutely determined that the reports on the relocation project should not be published.

In the original ‘decision notice’ where the Information Commissioner tells EDDC to publish the reports, they make it clear that the Project Manager of the firm appointed as consultants produced documentation for EDDC as a third party – and being from an outside consultancy, Davis Langdon, they should be made available to the public. EDDC will be making the case that the Project Manager was producing material which is commercially confidential and that he worked as an ‘insider’ – so his reports should be treated in the same way at the minutes of the ‘relocation working parties’, which the Information Commissioner has said should not be published.

See: http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50498100.pdf

In the meantime, there have been new, separate Freedom of Information requests made for the full minutes of these working parties – now that EDDC, a year and a half on since the original request, have clearly made the decision to leave Knowle and relocate to Skypark.

See: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/knowle-relocation-project-further-foi.html

With this Tribunal, together with the further delays over Rights of Way and the Village Green application at Knowle, EDDC will have their hands full as they try to prevent anything from derailing their ‘relocation project’.