Decision notice. The Bullying of Disabled Council Staff

[stupidfrustration]

In fact - I now regret posting the above post - I dont know enough about the issues here to pass comment with any real knowledge of these cases.

 

Apologies to all. 

 

Dippy made me do it. 

[Chris Chappell]

I have spent today investigating this matter. I already thought I was aware of some of the details. I am not prepared to say much, partly because it is the wish of the victims that there is no further discussion on the matter, and partly because I had to use up most of my good will to find out what the facts are. I have been asked not to identify my contacts, which I will respect.

 

I understand the bullies have gone. Some of the bullied left, some have stayed and are content with their job. Compensation was involved. Some Councillors, representing the public, were involved. There are officers and retired council officers on this site who would be aware of the protocols involved. I believe that at least one has contributed to this blog!

 

Sorry but that's all your getting, I can not break confidences. Please can this be the end of the matter.

[Cambo]

Chris I don't think it's going to go away that easily? But thank you for informing us of wot you've managed to find out. But I would like to make a suggestion if in future there are any whispers as you call them & they are of a serious nature I think that cllr's have a duty to investigate to find out if there is any truth in whispers which maybe of a serious nature?! As thing like this should never be allowed to happen otherwise we could end up with a situation like they have in Rotherham?

 

Mr Cardin we don't know each other but I admire your will to seek the truth & to not give up so I'd like to say although I am no lawyer either I do hope that you do appeal the decision?!

[WirralPC]

Thanks Cambo.  I'm still considering what to do.  Councillor Chappell got it wrong by the way, when he said, "compensation was paid".

 

If bullied members of staff bring well-founded claims against their employer because they've been deliberately targeted by a group of thugs, as an employer, you CAN'T 'compensate' them.  You're thinking about your OWN reputation - which is what dodgy councils do first and foremost.

 

Because the stakes have been raised, you offer them enough public cash to buy their silence; and if you're clever about it, you may carefully slip in mention of how lucky they were not to become 'voluntary' redundant last time around, and how, if they sign on the dotted line, they'll get this cash plus a favourable viewing during the next round of redundancies; and how if they go ahead with their E.T. claim, things might just get a little uncertain re: their future employment at the council, so...  let's have your loyalty.  You know what to do, there's a good boy / girl.

 

Compensation? NO.

Hush money? YES.

 

I suspect if those bullied staff want all this laid to rest, as the councillor mentioned, then there'll be very good reasons for that - see above.

 

But what about the staff who remain after the axe has fallen?  This behaviour won't go away, and there's a risk 'employment issues' will worsen.

 

If you're mendacious enough, you'll VALUE getting away with it, SAVOUR the ICO protection you craved, and you're in the clear to fill your boots once again.

[gdj]

Chris I don't think it's going to go away that easily? But thank you for informing us of wot you've managed to find out. But I would like to make a suggestion if in future there are any whispers as you call them & they are of a serious nature I think that cllr's have a duty to investigate to find out if there is any truth in whispers which maybe of a serious nature?! As thing like this should never be allowed to happen otherwise we could end up with a situation like they have in Rotherham?

 

Mr Cardin we don't know each other but I admire your will to seek the truth & to not give up so I'd like to say although I am no lawyer either I do hope that you do appeal the decision?!

 

I appreciate your efforts Cllr Powell.  However this leaves some serious unanswered questions - questions that don't need to break confidences.

 

- Were the "bullies" that left paid what you call `compensation' in relation to their leaving?

-Were the "bullies" that left assured of confidentiality in relation to the reason they left?

- This issue obviously cost the council a lot of money and caused a lot of distress. Was anyone disciplined?

-Why is it the case that an elected councillor trying to find information about a serious scandal - bullying and the waste of large sums on the IT system - unable to do so without using up his reserves of goodwill?  

 

The phrase "that's all you're getting" is worrying.  It reflects the culture of secrecy and the blocking of serious and genuine concerns.  Is it your phrase or that of the cabinet?

[WirralPC]

I don't think everybody will have looked in detail yet at the original FoI request I made on 8th November 2013.

 

It's worth looking at because you'll get a 'window' into the poor behaviour of these public servants.  They were dishonest more than once in their response dated 9th December 2013 - probably not the person who actually sent the response, but whoever wrote it.

 

Making false statements represents CLEAR breaches of Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act (the section dealing with fraudulent responses, concealment and/or removal / alteration of information).  I knew they'd fibbed straight away, but it was later confirmed publicly when, during the internal review dated 12th February 2014, they described the inconsistencies as 'mistakes' / 'misunderstandings'.  You don't spend week after week carefully drafting your first response to a controversial and potentially thorny subject and 'make howlers' while you're doing it.

 

They just didn't know the extent of MY information and thought they could fob me off by spinning a few untruths.

 

I'll post up some details later when I've gathered them together.  It may be a little lengthy, but it will be worth it.

[WirralPC]

Notes for an appeal to First Tier Tribunal (before 10th September).

 

 

Amongst other things...

• I asked for 'dates of payment'
• I didn't specify 'severance payments' alone
• I did specify other areas where payments had been made, which would include potential severance payments because these would be directly connected to the circumstances of these disputes
• The details of the payments I've requested are broad enough to include payments to all personnel involved, whether a bully, or a target of the bullying
• I cautioned the council against revealing the identities / job positions / sections / departments of personnel in receipt of payments (including bullies or targets of bullying) - in order not to infringe on their personal privacy. I asked the council to redact these details
• Job positions appear separately in the accounts statement previously posted by 'Flamboyant'
• Amounts of 'compensation for loss of office' appear separately in this accounts statement
• I asked for the date / amount / reason for payments made
• I asked for the number of employees in receipt of payments
• I stated it was vital to the legitimate and compelling public interest that the 'quantities in public money' were not redacted, but revealed

 

9th December - First Council Response

 

Council provided:

 

Q1. Date of payment?  A. March 2013 (UNTRUE)

 

Q2. Amount of payment?  A. (Refused under Section 40(2))

 

Q3. Reason for payment?  A. Grievance settlement.

 

Q4. Have the payment / circumstances been declared publicly?  A. No.

 

Q5. Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc?  A. Bullying & Harassment.

 

Q6. Copies of reports, etc. etc. etc. whether in written or electronic format, connected to meetings, committees, investigations, processing of any payments A. (Refused under Section 40(2) and Section 41 - information given in confidence)

 

Q7. Outcome e.g. Whether employees involved are still employed by the council. A. Three employees are still employed... two have subsequently left. (MAY BE UNTRUE)

 

Q8. Disciplinary action involved, if any?  A. None (MAY BE UNTRUE)

 

Q9. Number of employees involved in the dispute / complaint?  A. Five employees involved in complaint (UNTRUE) (HOW MANY INVOLVED IN DISPUTE NOT ANSWERED i.e. THE BULLIES WHO WERE COMPLAINED AGAINST)

 

Q10. Number of employees in receipt of payments?  A. Five employees were in receipt of payments (UNTRUE, AS DESPITE ME SPECIFYING AND ASKING FOR THE PAYMENTS TO ALL INVOLVED, THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DEPARTING BULLIES WHO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN GENEROUS SEVERANCE PAYMENTS)

[WirralPC]

12^th December 2013 – Paul Cardin – (requester’s) response.

 

 

 

Dear Access To Information (Hereford Council's FoI section),

Thank you for your responses to my initial request, which was 1
working day late and to my request for an internal review, which
appears to amount to an apology / justification for being late, and
not an internal review by a senior officer tasked with it, in
accordance with the Act.

I do not believe you have been thorough in your response, but I
don't believe I can ask for another internal review. For this
reason, please take this message as notice that I will be appealing
to the Information Commissioner's Office in the following terms.

Here is a link to an important and I believe relevant Section of
the FOI Act (Section 77):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

This deals with the offence of altering records with intent to
prevent disclosure.

I have a very different understanding of the facts attached to
these issues and will attempt to list them in a series of detailed
statements. These are sequential and relate directly to the
questions asked in the original request and the responses that you
as the data controller have provided.

 

 

1. Date of Payment (the number of payments is at least FIVE)

Payment ONE - Between end of October 2012 and 7th November 2012

Payment TWO - Between 15th and 20th December 2012

Payment THREE - uncertain, but unlikely to be March 2013, as stated
in your response.

Payment FOUR - 26th July 2012

Payment FIVE - Between 26th July and end of August 2012

2. Amount of payment

As you have stated an uncertain number of recipients of payments
AND appear to have incorrectly stated the month of "March 2013" as
the date of all payments, your ability to rely upon Section 40(2)
is now diminished and questionable.

As there were actually at least FIVE separate payments, this
increases the likelihood that the sum involved could travel well
into six figures. I believe there would be a legitimate and
compelling public interest in knowing this amount, not just because
Section 77 (altering records with intent to prevent disclosure)
appears to have become engaged, but also because there appear to
have been no checks and balances in the form of elected member
scrutiny on these payments.

3. Reason for payment

(see 2. above)

4. Have the payment circumstances been declared publicly?

The legitimate public interest becomes more compelling if the data
controller has sought to conceal what could be large, unscrutinised
payments of public money from public oversight without good reason.

5. Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying &
Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc.

Whilst the desire to protect the council's reputation is
understandable from an operational point of view, it should not be
done as a first resort, and at the expense of the public interest.
If bullying and harassment is occurring between public servants
(and what looks like a large number of public servants) this should
not be expediently concealed from the wider public using Section 40
of the FOI Act, which exists only to protect sensitive personal
information - and not potentially scandalising events.

6. Copies of reports; aide memoirs; emails; letters; memoranda;
notes; meeting minutes; meeting notes (verbatim or non-verbatim),
whether in written or electronic format; and connected to meetings,
council scrutiny committees; investigations (internal or external),
and / or the processing of any payments.

These items of correspondence / records could be carefully redacted
in order to serve the legitimate and compelling public interest
described above AND to protect the data privacy of the employees
concerned. As stated earlier, if the misuse of Section 40(2) and
Section 77 begin to play a prominent role here, the public interest
will grow and the lack of public oversight to date will become a
factor. Further, the data controller has made an admission that
only SOME of the data involved is sensitive personal data.

7. Outcome e.g. whether employees involved are still employed by
the council.

Please refer to above link (Section 77 of FOIA - altering records
with intent to prevent disclosure).

In fact, 6 members of staff remain, 5 of whom are classed as
disabled.

In fact, 2 members of staff departed the council.

In fact, 6 further members of staff were involved but are not
referred to or accounted for within your responses to date.

8. Disciplinary action involved, if any.

Grievance settlements in themselves would indicate guilt on the
part of one or more employees. The question has to be asked "Why
was there no disciplinary action". The public interest and public
oversight, if there were any, would demand that the council's
reputation does not "sweep all before it" and obviate the need to
follow internal policies and procedures as regards a compelling
case for disciplinary action e.g. in this case, the bullying of
disabled members of staff.

9. Number of employees involved in dispute / complaint.

Please refer to above link (Section 77 of FOIA - altering records
with intent to prevent disclosure).

Including the 3 (three) members of staff accused, the number of
employees involved in the complaint is 11 (ELEVEN)

10. Number of employees in receipt of payment(s).

These figures only appear to include payments made to staff who
brought the grievance. Correct, democratic public oversight demands
to know whether payments have been made to any of the other 6 staff
involved.

You are welcome to respond with further clarification, but please
be advised that an appeal to the ICO is now in the pipeline,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

[WirralPC]

For info.  Excerpt from The Freedom of Information Act, 2000:

 

77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure.

 

 

(1) Where—

 

 

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and

 

 

(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the M1Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.

 

 

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.

 

 

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

 

 

(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—

 

 

(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

 

 

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

[WirralPC]

13^th February - Outcome of internal review

 

It’s interesting to watch how the answers now change markedly.

 

The council had tried to fob me off in their first response, assuming I wouldn’t have held the correct, accurate information.

 

They had fibbed, But the ICO failed to find any ‘evidence to support my suggestion’ that they’d been dishonest and breached Section 77 of the Act (Fraudulent submissions or the altering / defacing / concealment of information.)

 

MAKING FALSE DECLARATIONS AMOUNTS TO APPALLING, DISHONEST CONDUCT BY ANONYMOUS OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL , WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY OVERLOOKED BY THE ‘REGULATOR’.

 

 

 

Internal review... [MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS / ITALICS]

 

The response provided to you related to payments made to staff in settlement of an incident which comprised an internal grievance made by a number of staff relating to bullying and harassment which occurred during the timeframe set out in your question.

 

I have found no evidence to support your assertion that records relating to this incident have been altered for any reason, and specifically that no records have been altered with the intention of preventing disclosure.

 

Question 1: [Date of payment]

 

As you point out the response to question 1 in relation to the above is incorrect.  Settlement payments to the relevant members of staff were in fact made in the last quarter of 2012 and the second quarter of 2013.  It would appear that the date previously supplied to you was not checked for accuracy against the appropriate records.

(THE COUNCIL’S FIRST RESPONSE FALSELY DECLARED JUST ONE INCOMPLETE DATE FOR WHAT SEEMED TO BE ONE PAYMENT: “MARCH 2013†– AFTER THIS CORRECTED RESPONSE, WE STILL HAVEN’T BEEN PROVIDED WITH FULL DATES FOR THE PAYMENTS)

 

Question 2: [Amount of payment]

 

The amount paid to members of staff in relation to this incident was withheld following application of the exemption set out in Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I have considered the reasons behind the application of this exemption and I agree that to release details of the amount received by each member of staff would involve the disclosure of personal data of which there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

[i WOULD DISAGREE AND STATE THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF e.g. £2,345, £3,456, £4,567, £1,234, £1,234 alone, without attaching any dates, names, job positions, sections, departments, WOULD NOT RISK REVEALING ANY PERSONAL DATA BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMPLY ‘STERILE’AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC MONEY THAT CAN BE ADDED TOGETHER TO GIVE A TOTAL FOR HOW MUCH WAS PAID TO BUY THE SILENCE OF THE BULLIED MEMBERS OF STAFF.  IT IS THE REVELATION OF THIS AMOUNT, HANDED ACROSS AS HUSH MONEY, TO PURCHASE THE SILENCE OF THE BULLIED EMPLOYEES, THAT THE COUNCIL FEARS WILL DAMAGE ITS ALREADY TARNISHED REPUTATION)

 

Payments of this type are regulated by settlement [compromise] agreements which contain a clause outlining the confidentially of the details of the agreement and the payment made.  I therefore concur with the original response to you which engaged the exemption set out in Section 41 of the Act.

 

Question 3: [Reason for payment]

 

I note the reason for the payments in this instance was given in the original response.

 

Question 4: [Have the payment / circumstances been declared publicly?]

 

I note response to this question was given in the original response in that details of the payments made / circumstances of the matter have not been declared publically.  Following the comments made in your e-mail of 12 December 2013 I can confirm that all settlement payments are made following a procedure which involves consideration of the appropriateness of making such a payment and the amount.  All Council finances are subject to audit checks.

[HOWEVER, IN HEREFORDSHIRE, THIS APPEARS TO BE THE HIDDEN, BACK OFFICE WORK OF UNELECTED SENIOR OFFICIALS.  THESE ANONYMOUS PERSONS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED CARTE BLANCHE, AND UNHINDERED ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY PUBLIC CASH, TO PROTECT THE COUNCIL'S REPUTATION AT ALL COSTS.  THE PROCESS APPEARS TO BE COMPLETELY UNMONITORED BY COUNCILLORS]

Question 5: [Subject matter e.g. Racial Discrimination; Bullying & Harassment; Dignity at Work Complaint, etc]

 

I note that the subject matter for this incident was given in the original response.

 

Question 6: [Copies of reports; aide memoirs; emails; letters; memoranda; notes; meeting minutes; meeting notes (verbatim or non-verbatim), whether in written or electronic format; and connected to meetings, council scrutiny committees; investigations (internal or external), and / or the processing of any payments]

 

Documents relating to this incident contain personal data and sensitive personal data relating to members of staff, this information was withheld following application of the exemption set out in Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  I have considered the reasons behind the application of this exemption and I agree that to release the documents requested would involve the disclosure of personal data of which there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

 

[i SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE COUNCIL TO REDACT ANY NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS, BUT THE COUNCIL HAVE USED A SLEDGEHAMMER TO CRACK A NUT AND WITHHELD EVERYTHING, INCLUDING INFORMATION WHICH WOULD NOT JEOPARDISE THE PRIVACY OF THE MEMBERS OF STAFF INVOLVED, BUT WHICH WOULD THREATEN THE REPUTATION OF THE COUNCIL]

 

As previously stated payments made in settlement of this grievance were regulated by settlement agreements which contain a clause outlining the confidentially of the details of the agreement and the payment made.  I therefore concur with the original response to you which engaged the exemption set out in Section 41 of the Act.

 

Question 7: [Outcome – e.g. whether employees involved are still employed by the council]

 

This question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of people who received payments rather than the total number of people involved in the grievance.

 

[THE QUESTION WAS VERY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS.  “EMPLOYEES INVOLVED†MEANS BULLIES AND TARGETS OF BULLYING, AND CERTAINLY NOT JUST ONE GROUP ALONE.  THE INITIAL RESPONSE WOULD APPEAR TO BE A DELIBERATE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTION AND ANOTHER CALCULATED ACT OF PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION]

 

I am informed that 55% percentage of employees involved in the grievance are still employed and 45% percent are no longer in the employment of the Council.

 

[THE REQUEST DID NOT ASK FOR PERCENTAGES.  THIS RESPONSE IS VAGUE, EVASIVE AND BORDERING ON THE DELIBERATELY OBTUSE.  YOU DO NOT SAY “50% OF MY PARENTS ARE MALE AND 50% ARE FEMALEâ€.]

 

Question 8: [Disciplinary action involved, if any]

 

Again, this question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of the people who received payments rather the total number of people involved in the grievance.  Looking at this question afresh, considering the small number of people involved in the matter, and the relatively small size of Herefordshire Council I consider that details of any disciplinary action that may have been instigated would be likely to identify particular individuals and as such would constitute personal information.

 

[iT APPEARS THE REVIEWING OFFICER UPON REALISING THAT THE INITIAL RESPONSE OF ‘NONE’ WAS FALSE, AND A BREACH OF SECTION 77, IS BACK-PEDALLING AND NOW REACHING FOR SECTION 40(2) PERSONAL DATA EXEMPTION – THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND AMOUNTS TO DISHONEST CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THESE PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND A FURTHER BREACH OF SECTION 77 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT]

 

In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance on disclosure of data about employees, I have considered if it would be fair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release personal information of the members of staff involved, balanced with the public interest in the disclosure of the spending of public money and conduct of a public authority.

 

I therefore conclude that disclosure of details of disciplinary action, if any, would contravene the first and second principle of the Data Protection Act 1998.  This part of your request is therefore refused under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it relates to third party data, and also under Section 41 as internal disciplinary procedures are by their very nature confidential.

 

[RETREATING INTO LOCKDOWN, AND WITH A DESIRE TO COVER THE INITIAL DISHONESTY, THE REVIEWING OFFICER HAS ADDED AN EXTRA INSTANCE OF THE SECTION 40 AND SECTION 41 EXEMPTIONS WHICH DID NOT APPEAR IN THE FIRST RESPONSE]

 

Question 9: [Number of employees involved in dispute / complaint]

 

As per questions 7 and 8, this question would appear to have been answered from the perspective of the number of the people who received payments rather the total number of people involved in the grievance.  I am informed that the number of people involved in the grievance was between 10 and 20.

 

[TO GET THE PERSPECTIVE WRONG, AFTER PREPARING THE INITIAL RESPONSE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, RIGHT UP TO THE DAY OF THE TIME LIMIT, WAS AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ‘MISTAKE’ TO MAKE REPEATEDLY, IN FACT THREE TIMES.  AS A RESULT OF OWNING UP, THE NUMBER INVOLVED OFFICIALLY GOES UP BY A FACTOR OF FOUR, FROM 5 TO POSSIBLY 20.  ALSO, THE TENDENCY TOWARDS VAGUENESS CREEPS IN AGAIN “between 10 and 20â€]

 

The exact number of those involved has not been given in this instance as considering the small number of people involved in the matter, and the relatively small size of Herefordshire Council I consider that to provide the specific number of people involved could lead to identification of the same.

 

[AGAIN, IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC AND REASON TO CLAIM THAT THE DISCLOSING OF NUMBERS ON THEIR OWN WOULD RISK IDENTIFYING “JOE and JOSEPHINE BLOGGS†AS TARGETS OF BULLYING BY SENIOR COUNCIL OFFICERS.]

 

In accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance on disclosure of data about employees, I have considered if it would be fair under the first principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 to release personal information of the members of staff involved, balanced with the public interest in the disclosure of the spending of public money and conduct of a public authority.

 

I therefore conclude that disclosure of the exact figure would contravene the first and second principle of the Data Protection Act 1998.  This part of your request is therefore refused under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as it relates to third party data, and also under Section 41 as internal grievance procedures are by their very nature confidential.

 

[THE DEFINITION OF ‘PERSONAL DATA’ DOES NOT EXTEND TO AMOUNTS OF MONEY, WHICH MAKES  THIS CONCLUSION UNSAFE.  THE MONEY SPENT PROTECTING THE COUNCIL’S REPUTATION BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE READING THIS i.e. THE PEOPLE OF HEREFORDSHIRE.  THEREFORE THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHIFTS MASSIVELY IN FAVOUR OF DISCLOSURE AND TOWARDS REVEALING THE AMOUNT SPENT IN COVERING UP THE BULLYING OF DISABLED EMPLOYEES BY 3 SENIOR STAFF.  THESE STAFF HAVE SINCE DEPARTED, AND IT APPEARS THEY HAVE EVADED DISCIPLINARY ACTION. THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCOUNTABILITY.  AGAIN, REVEALING THE MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS OF PUBLIC MONEY PAID TO BUY THE SILENCE OF THE DEPARTING OFFICERS WOULD REPRESENT A SMALL MEASURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND WOULD NOT JEOPARDISE THE BULLIES’ PERSONAL PRIVACY]

 

Question 10: [Number of employees in receipt of payment(s)]

 

I note that a response was given stating the number of employees who received a payment in settlement of an internal dispute / complaint.

 

[DESPITE ME CLEARLY ASKING FOR THE PAYMENTS TO ALL INVOLVED, WHICH INCLUDED SEVERANCE PAYMENTS TO BULLIES, THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE LARGER SEVERANCE PAYMENTS)

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The information provided in answer to question 1 was incorrect.

 

[AND THEREFORE REPRESENTS CLEAR PROOF THAT SECTION 77 FOIA WAS BREACHED]

 

I consider that the use of the exemptions set out in Section 40(2) and Section 41 of the Act have been appropriately applied in the Council’s response questions 2 and 6.

 

Responses to questions 3, 4, 5 and 10 were given in the original response.

 

Questions 7, 8 and 9 had been answered from a narrow perspective; answers encompassing all those involved have been given above.

 

If you are still dissatisfied with the handling of your request or you would like to pursue the matter further, you may wish to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

 

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

 

Yours faithfully

 

Sam Smith

 

Legal Executive

[flamboyant]

I understand the bullies have gone. Some of the bullied left, some have stayed and are content with their job.

Sorry but that's all your getting, I can not break confidences. Please can this be the end of the matter.

Councillor Chappell it's reassuring to know that the remaining staff are 'content with their job' they are probably really grateful to remain in employment! In my experience staff who complain are normally seen as trouble makers and are hounded out of their jobs! One of the hardest things for a victim of bullying to do is stand up for themselves and face the repercussions that will inevitably follow! I hope these people are supported and continue to enjoy their jobs without any further harassment.

[twowheelsgood]

If very large sums of our money have been paid in return for sealed lips, where and how are these amounts shown in the annual accounts? 

[Chris Chappell]

Hi Cambo and Flamboyant,

 

I always investigate 'whispers' and hate bullies. I am concerned that there is Rotherham type problem in county and working on it!

On most occasions it's difficult to go public until/ unless all facts known! Sometimes to protect myself, I need to go about investigating rumours in a very private way. I am very fortunate to have been a councillor for more than twenty years and know, am known by officers, so I have built up a trust there which allows them and me to ask for help from each other, if that makes sense!

I have a similar relationship with some police officers.

 

I am currently working on a question for Council in September based on information brought to me by concerned council officers. Unfortunately this dreadful arthritis is extremely painful at the moment and am having to concentrate on trying to stay upright, so please bear with me if on occasions I appear off hand or rude!

[bobby47]

Hello Chris. I do hope your arthritic pain becomes more manageable and less debilitating. Course, its Gods work and God does everything for a purpose. He's given you this arthritic condition for a purpose. He has!. Being God, he goes about things in a highly unusual and roundabout way. Instead of telling you to start opening your eyes and start lifting up stones, he has given you the Athritis to get you all fired up, angry and curious to learn why the Council hirearchy are behaving in the way that they are.

It's like Coal. Instead of giving us a vast mountain of the stuff to visit whenever we wanted the Coal, God went about it in an entirely unusual way. He blew all the trees down. He did. He summoned up a mighty wind and blew the lot down, and then, after fifteen million years of geological pressure and vast eras of time, we got our Coal. Course, when he did blow all these trees down and they fell on people's heads, few of these good folk would have cried, 'hoorah! Coal in fifteen million years time'. For them, they probably didn't think that Coal in fifteen million years was a particularly good thing. Understandably, they didn't see the wisdom in Gods work and just like you, with your arthritic pain, they questioned the point if it all.

Yes, Im convinced that this is Gods work and he has a very special purpose for you. It's not unlike my post.'Pointless' But, God being what God is compelled me to scurry downstairs this morning, have a cuppa, a few puffs on me hand rolled cigarette and transmit this rubbish to you.

Chris, the whole Council tree has been infected by this 'sense of entitlement' ethos. The hirearchy have been at it for many years now and its no wonder that the troops at the bottom of the foodchain felt that they were able to produce embellished application forms that propelled them to the top of the housing list and succeed in being able to acquire cheap and low cost housing at the expense of those that really needed it.

The Furlongs Housing Project Chris. This bag of rats has nothing to do with the hirearchy. The troops at the bottom have created this financial advantage for themselves. They've done it because it can be done. They've done it because they could and they've done all these things because they've seen the hirearchy behaving badly and thought, we will do the same.

The whole tree is in need of treatment Chris and God has decided that's its you who'll do the work, and the longer you sit back and hope someone else steps forward and takes on the task, the more arthritic pain God will give you.

He's a cruel God sometimes but he does everything for a purpose and you Chris are his instrument of choice.

[Chris Chappell]

Hi Bobby, I think it is Gods punishment for my fun when I was young, it was fun while it lasted but had I known then I might have left off a few games of rugby, had less women and taken more care of my back which now has metal rods keeping it together. A a metal knee helping me to walk. They were good days when we were young, paying the price now.

 

Be assured I will not give up fighting bullies or investigating potential scandals or corruption in Council. I just have to take it more gently these days so it takes me more time.

If you or other bloggers ever hear of anything that you think needs investigating, please let me know. Because it may need me to ask you more questions, and it is often easier not to broadcast what I am up to, please can you email me or phone me to discuss. We can always arrange a meeting in the Barrels or the Vaga!

 

Kind regards,

 

Chris

[flamboyant]

Cllr Chappell, you have my sympathy I too suffer from arthritis, I sincerely hope you feel better soon!

[GrowlTiger]

In the last 5 years on Wirral we have witnessed senior officers mostly in the council, but also in the NHS suspended on full pay for up to a year and then made “redundant†from key posts.  They leave with “no case to answer†halos around their heads, a sack full of money and go straight into another senior post elsewhere in the country.

 

It would seem their “career†is not actually about conscientiously doing the job to which they were appointed, but more about plotting lucrative exits.  It’s become a sort of Deal or No Deal, but without the blue boxes.

[dippyhippy]

That sounds about right, Growl.

 

At least the NHS have now vetoed the use of compromise agreements. I'm not saying for one minute everything is perfect there - but at least they have acknowledged that the use of these orders is wrong. That has to be a step in the right direction.

[WirralPC]

I'm not sure that's right Dippyhippy.

 

I think they stopped gagging whistleblowers only and are still using compromise agreements coupled with what they call 'confidentiality clauses'.

 

These have exactly the same effect as gagging clauses. Reputation is paramount and they shut people up just as effectively.

 

The idea of doing this first came up in an NHS directive from 1998. This was roundly ignored by unaccountable managers under horrid head honcho David Nicholson until recently.

[dippyhippy]

Really???????

 

Blimey, that's news to me Paul!!

 

I'll see if I can find the article I was reading, and point you in the direction of it....I would be very interested to hear your thoughts!!

[WirralPC]

None of the disabled people who were bullied, and whose employment tribunal claims were 'bought off' have contacted me yet.

 

I'm assuming 'self-preservation' is at the heart of this, because that's what human beings do.  It's completely understandable.  Who'd want to have the spotlight shined on them once again, threats made, and a shadow cast over their future ability to provide for themselves and their families?

 

That's how corporate bullies win - through intimidation.

 

I've got 3 days to decide whether to draw up and lodge an appeal.  One of the key elements to this is the public interest.  See points 21 to 24 in the decision notice.  Well over 2,000 people have viewed this thread, including those who will be making arguments on behalf of the council at any tribunal.  What do people think?

 

If I don't go ahead with the appeal, it's back to (ab)normal. 

[Cambo]

Yea it's a bit of a dilemma mr Cardin although none of the victims have come forward as yet?

But how would it work if a victim did decide to come forward to you? Would they be able to keep there identities anonymous? Obviously they would have important information for you to use concerning this particular matter?

But as we know the fear factor that operates in local authorities will prevent them from coming forward but if they knew that there identities would not be reveal then they maybe willing to come forward?

[gdj]

Even if you can't appeal, what you have revealed and publicised (at no small personal cost) should have a positive effect.  So many people have viewed this thread that they must include people at all levels in the council, possible victims etc and so a lot of running around will have been done by some very uncomfortable managers trying to limit the damage and remind people of the importance of "loyalty".  You will have diminished their credibility and power.  Those who may be victims currently or in the future will know that they are not alone - it is easy for the victim of bullying to blame themselves but if they know others have been in the same place, fought and won, it is of great help.

 

 

Also, what you have highlighted adds to a catalogue of bad management, secrecy, failure and wasting of money that is now `on the record'.  The cumulative effect makes it harder and harder for elected councillors to ignore it and plead ignorance.  Although Cllr Chappell put his head above the parapet on this one (bravely because he then became the focus) - many other councillors who should have done, didn't.  They will have been following this, though.   However those with any integrity should now be demanding that any payments at all, outwith normal salary, are scrutinised and not delegated as `employment matters'.

 

One of the peculiar arrangements in Herefordshire is that the Human Resources dept is now contracted out into `Hoople' - so HR managers no longer have any authority in the council - they are merely a contractor, eager to please the client.   One of several flaws is that managers no longer have employment law pointed out to them when dealing with grievances or disputes - so even that relatively weak moderating influence has gone.

[WirralPC]

In reply to Cambo...

 

If one of the targets of bullying at Herefordshire Council was to come forward and identify themselves to me, they may instantly be in breach of the compromise agreement they've signed.  I'd say that would be likely, as the agreements generally prohibit wider discussion of "the circumstances that led to the signing of the agreement."

 

So, the council's officers (the protectors of the bullies) will almost certainly have covered themselves within this legal document, ensuring that the intimidatory behaviour has become 'official', if not absolutely watertight.

 

I requested many details, but the main thrust of the public interest is the total in public money, paid across in an attempt to:

 

a. Buy the silence of 5 x disabled people who were the targets of a campaign of bullying by Herefordshire Council managers

b. Buy the silence of and reward the bullies themselves; and also enable them to move on with a clean bill of health

 

This is the genuinely HIDEOUS aspect to this - the idea that bullying goes on, festers, and is covered up by Bill Norman and colleagues when they are notified by the targets - and OUR cash is used to do it.

 

Only those targets of bullying who've been gagged, upon reading the ICO decision notice, and seeing the Council's justifications for not disclosing (Points 17, 18, 19 and 20) - will KNOW whether it's actually, specifically true that they've separately given their consent to withhold from the public the amount of public money paid individually to them.

 

If they weren't approached and asked this specifically, then they have a decision to make:  do I come forward, make myself known, make a written, signed submission or attend at First Tier Tribunal and reveal Herefordshire Council legal officers' dishonesty to the panel?

 

If it were shown that the Council had indeed lied to the ICO, or worse, that the ICO is separately "in cahoots" with the Council on a flimsy or non-existent basis, it would cast doubt on the safety of the legal documents drawn up to date - the CAs and the DN.

 

Of course, I'm no lawyer and have witnessed what I regard as "rogue decisions" being made on several occasions, in the teeth of compelling evidence, by the so-called great and the good of the UK judiciary.

[dippyhippy]

Hi Paul,

 

Whichever way this goes, you have certainly highlighted some extremely distasteful and murky goings on. For that, you have my thanks. People need to know that this is happening, and it's being allowed to happen.

 

We need more folks like you, who have the tenacity to try to get to the truth.

[WirralPC]

In reply to gdj...

 

Yes, there's definitely been a light shone into some very murky corners here.  In my experience, this one really is a HIDEOUS case and you're right, will have had quite an impact in many ways:

 

• Bill Norman seen to have brought 'unconventional' means with him from abusive Wirral Council - I'm being kind
• Local Herefordshire councillors gone AWOL
• Deliberate dishonesty exposed in Herefordshire Council's FIRST and INTERNAL REVIEW responses to my FoI request
• Dishonesty / incompetence exposed at the ICO, stating there was 'no evidence of a Section 77 breach' (Fraudulent responses)
• Vulnerable members of staff bullied and silenced with public money
• Senior members of staff protected, reputations cleaned and silenced and sent on their way ££weighted ££down
• Compromise agreements / gagging clauses exposed again for what they are - a ready means of managing a basket case's reputation
• Shenanigans up there for all to see, for ever, on the WhatDoTheyKnow Website

[flamboyant]

Paul just maybe the Council in response to your disclosure will take more care in future to uphold the rights of disabled people, who in the face of adversity are just like all of us trying to get by in what is after all a civilised society? You have my admiration and thanks well done!

[dippyhippy]

I don't know if anyone else can shed some light on this, and I wasn't sure where else to post it, but there are rumblings - rumours I suppose - that more staff could be made redundant. I heard that the Customer Services department could be affected........isn't that the department where all of this stemmed from??

 

Anybody else heard whispers?

[WirralPC]

Thanks for that news Dippy.  I'm not surprised to hear it.

 

These things follow a generally pre-determined course.  Intimidation is never very far away where spiteful power abusers are concerned.

 

Call it the "bullying / lodging a grievance journey".

 

It's been a rocky ride and the targeted / victimised staff may be approaching their destination.

[dippyhippy]

Hi Paul, it is only a rumour - I have to say, I would not usually repeat rumours, I either voice my own opinion on matters, or like to find out the facts!

 

However, this is potentially, an extremely worrying turn of events.

 

If the victims involved in this case are targeted, then to me that proves that the councils confidential reporting code is not worth the paper it's printed on.