Emails revealing a council’s apparent reluctance to reveal how much a failed money-saving project cost it have prompted a review of its commitment to openness.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

The exchanges between Breckland Council officers about an EDP request for information about the proposed merger of senior staff with Yarmouth Borough Council were released following a second Freedom of Information Act request.

The project, which Breckland Council said would save its taxpayers £100,000 a year, was dropped after Labour councillors opposed to the scheme won control of Yarmouth in May.

Breckland Council said it had complied with its legal obligations to release information, but admitted “in some of the emails our attitude to FoI requests comes across as negative and reluctant”.

The council had originally said it incurred indirect costs through the time chief executive Terry Huggins spent on the project, but the emails and subsequent enquiries revealed a total of nine staff had been involved.

Staff responding to the initial FoI request were only told they could release information about travel costs claimed by officers after Yarmouth had “unfortunately” released the same data for its staff.

And although Breckland on August 1 collated a breakdown of staff transport costs to Yarmouth, it told the EDP five days later it could not extract data about costs for a specific project. The £322.93 transport costs were released three weeks later following an EDP appeal.

Breckland Labour leader Terry Jermy said: “I think Breckland was embarrassed with the way the shared services panned out and they obviously wanted to put a lid on it. Some councils are very open and transparent. Breckland through my life has been more cloak and dagger and will tell you what they want to tell you.”

A council spokesman said: “Though we complied with the Act this perceived attitude is contrary to our desired aim to be open and transparent. Terry [Huggins] has asked for a review of the council’s processes and refresher training, including reinforcement of our desire to be open, is being arranged.”

The council said although it could not estimate how much officer time was spent on the project, it would be roughly the same as Yarmouth, which estimated a cost in staff time of £10,000.

3 comments

  • JCW has hit the nail on the head

    Report this comment

    Jacob Burns

    Thursday, September 27, 2012

  • Not much more to say after JCW comprehensive explanation. The FoI act is being used as a filing cabinet for bad news, to hide facts and figures that should be in the public domain in the first place.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, September 25, 2012

  • Parliament's intention with the Freedom of Information legislation was that public bodies would routinely put important information in the public domain and supply information willingly on request [subject to certain exceptions]. It is disgraceful that citizens and the press have to force an authority to "release" information under pain of an appeal under the FoI Act. Too much is already classified as "commercially sensitive", whatever that might mean. The administrative posturings of two councils seeking to combine their services are hardly state secrets for goodness sake. It just shows how frightened the Council officers are of the councillors. We had a chance to get rid of these tinpot district councils and have a competent and professional unitary authority for Norfolk but we funked it. Historically, Thetford Borough Council was one of the most corrupt, idle and delinquent councils in the whole country. The culture persists.

    Report this comment

    JCW

    Tuesday, September 25, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 8°C

min temp: 2°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT