Cyngor Gwynedd CSA - 'Lack Of Serious Purpose Or Value...'

Does cyngor Gwynedd's response to FOI requests show a lack of knowledge of law?

Browsing through FOI's received via the Whatdotheyknow website it appears so...
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/gwynedd_council 

First on the list at this time is a FOI from a requestor who gives an initial and surname.
Elain Roberts (ar ran Tîm Rhyddid Gwybodaeth // on behlaf (sic) of the Freedom of Information team) responds with -

Requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must include the name of the applicant. For a request to be valid, we need to be able to ascertain the real name of the requester or company name.
In this case, you have not provided any . Your first initial is not sufficient to identify you by itself.
This being the case, your request is currently not valid under the FOIA... 

This is not correct...

According to the ICO -
Recognising a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (section 8)

More from the ICO - 
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/recognising-a-request-made-under-the-freedom-of-information-act-section-8/

The second in the list is also asked by a requestor who uses an initial and their surname.
But this request is accepted by Elain Roberts and is partially successful.
Why the inconsistency?

Another FOI that raises an eyebrow is -
Employment status and roles of Dafydd Paul and Marion Parry Hughes
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/employment_status_and_roles_of_d#incoming-3350474

After an acknowledgment from the 'Freedom of Information team', the requestor then asks -
For clarity, I request that all correspondence and any substantive response to this Freedom of Information request is provided via the WhatDoTheyKnow platform, in order to maintain a complete public record of the request and response.

Has cyngor Gwynedd responded to this requestor off platform before?

The request was then refused by Lisa Williams of corporate services - 
The Council has determined that your requests fall within section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as vexatious. This decision was made based on the pattern, frequency and nature of your requests and correspondance.

An internal review was asked for and was responded to by Nia Grisdale, legal services manager.
Grisdale states -
Review Outcome
After thorough assessment, I have concluded that the original decision was correct. Section 14(1) allows a public authority to refuse a request if it is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation, or distress, without a reasonable public interest justification.

In reaching this conclusion, the following was considered:
• The burden on resources: The request, when viewed in the context of previous correspondence, would require significant and disproportionate time and effort to process.

• The tone and nature of communications: The cumulative effect of the language and frequency of requests has created an unreasonable level of disruption to our ability to carry out core functions.

• Lack of serious purpose or value: I found no new or substantive public interest in the information sought that would outweigh the impact on our resources.

Grisdale's argument is weak considering that the officers are still 'absent from work' after failing children in the Neil Foden case. 

Re the burden on resources - this would be a simple task for the HR department.

Also if answering FOI's disrupts the council's ability to carry out core functions then the council is in serious trouble but that is not the fault of this requestor, or any other...

Grisdale's third point that she finds 'no new or substantive public interest in the information sought that would outweigh the impact on our resources' is under the circumstances shocking.

Why would the legal services manager say such a thing?
There is an obvious public interest in information relating to senior officer's failings that meant that a number of children continued to be sexually and physically abused over a number of years.

Senior officers are not exempt from legitimate scrutiny, especially after serious safeguarding failures. 

Something is so very, very wrong within Gwynedd council...

 

 

New Director - Same Old...? Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

The new corporate director of cyngor Gwynedd is Catrin Thomas, replacing Geraint Owen, who had worked for the council even before its name change in 1996, after the first child abuse scandal.

From the Cambrian News -
Council leader Nia Jeffreys congratulated Catrin on her appointment, adding: “It is always a pleasure to work with Catrin, and I am really looking forward to the next chapter. Her recent experience working for Adra will also bring a different perspective to the council.

Council Chief Executive of Dafydd Gibbard said: “Catrin is already familiar to many of us here at Cyngor Gwynedd, and it is always great to see former members of staff returning to the authority with valuable experiences from other organisations. 
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/gwynedd-councils-new-corporate-director-817128

Catrin Thomas has been employed at cyngor Gwynedd for many years but went to work for Adra, as head of customer services - last year. 

She is now back and will be well aware of the problems within the council and the need to change the 'mindset' and 'culture' that the former director warned of.   

Moving on - is how Gwynedd council treat Freedom of Information requests under the FOI Act 2000 still a concern? The council has recently claimed its requested review from the Information Commissioner's Office was marked as 'reasonable' by the ICO. 

The council appear reluctant to answer certain FOI's especially with regard to Neil Foden, the disgraced head teacher who abused children and staff at Ysgol Friars and possibly other schools.
What happened to 'leave no stone unturned?'

Some FOI requests received by the council can be viewed here - 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/gwynedd_council  

Not all FOI requests are listed on the site as the council can be approached directly.

Requests for information from cyngor Gwynedd have been a cause for concern for some time now. It has created reports in spite of the evidence, ignored 'advice' from the ICO to release information and also reported that its data redaction software can destroy information.

Information is also collected by the council under GDPR. Its website collects data and sets cookies. 
To download the council's webcasts now require extra cookies to be placed on a person's computer. One site has flagged Gwynedd's compliance with  GDPR, ePR as high risk - 

It is likely that the council is compliant with law but, should this flag be of concern...?

In other news, the Jan Pickles Child Practice Review will soon be completed.
Cyngor Gwynedd's Education and Economy Scrutiny committee report into Neil Foden is also expected in September. 
When will the Woods report be released?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council... 

 

 

 

 

 

Are Staff Suspended For 8 years? - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) recently 'advised' Cyngor Gwynedd council to release information relating to a subject access request (SAR) from 2020. On the 14th July, 2022, the Information manager emailed in response to the ICO 'advice' - the original information asked for has not been provided...

The ICO has explained that if the council refuse their advice then the next step would be a judicial review - costs of such a review start at £25,000. The council's legal team have access to unlimited public funds to fight the public in such cases - joe public does not...

The original SAR was delayed in part due to the council having to purchase specialist data redaction software... When the information was finally provided it had been so heavily redacted in places that it was unreadable. A complaint was raised and a review was undertaken by the Information manager's line manager, Emyr Edwards, who also informed that the software had destroyed some data on retrieval. Hope the council got a refund. Mr Edward's review did not release the information hence the ICO's involvement...

One such example of heavy redaction is an email thread between the Senior Safeguarding And Quality Officer and a Cabinet Member discussing a possible corporate complaint. Concerns had been raised that the Annual Complaints Handling report presented to the Care Scrutiny Committee was not accurate. The report that year was authored by the Senior Safeguarding officer, himself. A meeting was requested so the evidence could be presented. The Member ignored the request. Both the officer and Cabinet Member have refused to answer questions from Councillors of the Scrutiny Committee in the past...

In 2020, a complaint was raised with the council that the same officer had misled another Care Scrutiny Committee. The officer had given a statement regarding the Ombudsman for Wales. The Ombudsman was contacted and denied the words of the officer...

Correspondence from the former Director of SS raises more concerns. In it, she admits that she with the aid of the legal team could not understand the Ombudsman's wording in one report.The former CEO had claimed the same during his incumbency. The present Head of Children's SS has stated in 'lessons learnt' a need to 'read and understand' reports....

The Ombudsman has already raised concerns with the council's lack of knowledge of procedures and law and dismissed one social worker's evidence to his investigation as disingenuous...

In other news, the council's information department has failed to comply with law regarding the FOI Act. A question involving the number of officers suspended from work and for how long has been awaiting an internal review by the Monitoring Officer for over a year.

From a 2018 Wales Online article - 'Welsh councils have paid £9m to staff they have suspended'

Second was Gwynedd, totalling £1,327,117. They said £800,000 of that referred to "police matters". The longest time a member of staff has been on paid suspension at the authority is four years – the longest in Wales...
“The other case involves the suspension of members of staff for the duration of a statutory investigation by the police and social services which lasted for approximately three years.
This process concluded with the CPS deciding not to proceed with any prosecutions. The council is currently carrying out its own subsequent internal investigation into the matter and as a result the individuals remain suspended from their posts.”

The full article can be found here -
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-councils-paid-9m-staff-14876849

So the CPS dropped the case - issues with evidence? The council then began its own internal investigation but since then radio silence... Has this investigation been completed?

Or are the officer's still suspended from the council - after 8 years?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council...