Brodie Clarke - Performance Reward Criteria

Dear UK Border Agency,

In relation to the Head of UK Border Control, and in light of
recent media coverage, could you please supply :

1) A verbatim transcript of Mr Brodie Clarke's last Performance
Reward Achievement Criteria.
2) The amount of the most recent Performance Reward paid to Mr
Clarke (this figure is at variance within the media).
3) The name of Mr Clarke's immediate line manager, and confirmation
that this is the individual who sets the Performance Reward
criteria for Mr Clarke.

In this context I am reminded of the words of the American social
'thinker' Upton Sinclair - 'You cannot get a man to understand
something, when his salary depends upon him not understanding it'.

Sinclair is alluding to man's innate venality, hence an onus of
responsibility that lies with an employer to ensure that material
incentives to the employee encourage correct and moral actions.

Your answer to my FOI request will allow me to make a judgment as
to whether Mr Clarke's bonus reward achievement criteria, prove or
disprove Sinclair's theory.

I have kept my request refined to a minimum of information, which
should be readily available, in the expectation that this can be
supplied well within the 20 day window.

Yours faithfully,

John Powell

Dear Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ),

Disappointingly, it looks like yet another 11th hour 'on the wire'
response to a very straightforward FOI request.

Such torpidity does absolutely nothing to encourage the right
minded and thinking element of the public to submit such requests.
The body language conveyed by respondents, or, moreover the lack of
a response, says 'we don't like transparency and we resent this,
although, if we do have to comply, we will drag our heals in
begrudging fashion, and hope that the inquirer suffers debilitating
ennui, and desists from bothering us further'.

A tad unreasonable perhaps, and just the perception gained,
although a sage philosopher once remarked that perception IS
reality.

Anyway, there are still 6 hours of the allotted 20 days remaining -
so, what's the rush !

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear UK Border Agency,

By law, this FOI request should have been responded to by 6
December 2011, at the latest.

Given the very straightforward nature of this request, I should be
obliged if you would expedite a response within 24 hours.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

John Powell

Dear UK Border Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of UK Border Agency's
handling of my FOI request 'Brodie Clarke - Performance Reward
Criteria'.

By law, the authority should normally have responded promptly and
by 6 December 2011. This request has not been complied with, and no
explanation for the unlawful delay has been made. Even the normal
courtesy protocol of an apology has been ignored.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Yours faithfully,

John Powell

Dear UK Border Agency,

I sent a request for an internal review on 8 December, regarding
the torpid and unlawful delay in replying to this FOI request.

Would you be kind enough to at least acknowledge that an internal
review process is underway.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

John Powell

Dear McDonald Emma (HMC),

Thank you for your FOI response dated 11 January 2012, in relation
to my FOI request of 7 November 2011.

I appreciate the information in relation to Mr Brodie Clarke's line
manager, and your comments regarding bonus non-payment for
2010/2011 are noted.

With respect however, you miss the important crux of my FOI
enquiry. I requested a verbatim copy of Mr Clarke's bonus
achievement criteria (objectives). In other words, what objectives
were set, that Mr Clarke failed to meet ? To any right minded
individual, the granting of such information would be considered
perfectly reasonable under the provisions of the FOI Act. Indeed,
the innocuous advice of an employee's set bonus objectives, is
considerably less sensitive than the knowledge that the employee
did not meet those objectives.

You advise me that Lin Homer set Mr Brodie Clarke's bonus
objectives, and you advise me that Mr Clarke did not satisfy those
objectives for the purpose of receiving a bonus. What you omit to
state, are what those missed objectives were. This is precisely why
I requested a verbatim copy of the bonus objectives set for Mr
Clarke by his line manager at the beginning of the last assessment
year. I believe I was clear in that regard.

I await your clarification on this point please. Given the unlawful
delay incurred in providing the information to date, I trust that
the missing information can now be supplied with some alacrity.

Regards,

John Powell

Dear UK Border Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of UK Border Agency's
handling of my FOI request 'Brodie Clarke - Performance Reward
Criteria'.

The resposne by UKBA's HR Department was manifestly late, and
outside the stipulated timescale for FOI replies established in
law. When eventually received, the response did not answer the crux
of the FOI request. A fuller response has been requested from the
UKBA HR function, and some alacrity has been urged.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Yours faithfully,

John Powell

Dear HR PQ&FOI Co-ordination,

In the matter of Brodie Clark's 2011 Bonus Objectives

I refer to the UKBA response dated 31 January 2012, which
(surprisingly) pre-dates my discussion with UKBA's HR function on 2
February 2012.

I maintain trenchantly, that the release of bonus objectives, set
for staff working in the public domain, is a bona fide request
under the provisions of the FOI Act. Indeed, precedents exist for
this.

Given the adverse media publicity that the UKBA has attracted over
the last 12 months, it is reasonable and understandable that the
public will speculate on whether criticised workplace practices, by
senior staff members at UKBA, were prompted and incentivised by the
'carrot' of inappropriate financial bonus reward objectives.

The UKBA could have immediately quelled such speculation, by
releasing the bonus objective information, when requested on 7
November 2011 under the FOI Act. Withholding such information will
reasonably lead to the public's presumption that the information
could seriously embarrass the UKBA who set the bonus objectives, as
opposed to the staff member who was given the bonus objectives.

I feel it is necessary to challenge the UKBA's assertion that this
information cannot be released under the Data Protection Act. One
also presumes that a request for this information from the Home
Affairs Select Committee, who place material in the public domain,
would also be denied for the same reason.

After 4 months of dilly-dallying and obfuscation, I will now be
progressing the matter with the Information Commissioner, and the
Select Committee.

The UKBA's 'closed door and shutters' approach to the FOI Act, is
unequivocally the antithesis of Cameron's espoused transparent
Government.

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear UK Border Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

As regards to the Home Office's refusal to answer this FOI request,
I have now sought the guidance of the Information Commissioner's
Office.

Initially, I am instructed to seek an independent internal review
of the UKBA's refusal decision.

My contention, is that UKBA are wrongfully denying this
information, and, furthermore, that the information requested is
not 'personally sensitive' under the terms of the Data Protection
Act. By way of example, the bonus reward objectives for the post of
CEO at RBS are quite properly in the public domain. The quantum
objectives of a job are not personal per se, although the quantum
performance of an indvidual against those objectives possibly is
so. I am requesting the former, not the latter, and I have to
wonder whether UKBA are cognisant of the distinction ?

If an examining board sets 70% as the objective for a pass
qualification, that information is not personally sensitive. It is
the performance of the student against that objective that is
personal. I struggle to understand why this point is not grasped by
those of good intellect ? Does the UKBA's refusal to answer this
FOI request have an ulterior motive ?

I am asking for no more than this information, insofar as it
relates to the post of Head of UK Border Control for the period of
2010/11. A post held by Mr Brodie Clark. I believe, when
considering my FOI request, the pertinent question to be asked, is,
" to whom do we feel release of this information is most sensitive
- is it Mr Brodie Clark or the UKBA ?".

To date, the chronology which I have maintained, evidences unlawful
delays by the UKBA in the provision of information requested under
the FOI Act. As such I would be most obliged if this final
independent review could be undertaken with some alacrity.

Thank you.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Yours faithfully,

John Powell

Dear FOI Responses,

fao. Rachel Anderson FOI responses UKBA Ref.21390

Thank you for your update of 6 March 2012, explaining why this
review remains outstanding after the 20 day review response window.

It is noted that you are still seeking clarification of 'various
provisions' in the FOI Act, and you now aim to provide a full
response 'no later than 03 April'.

I am sure that you will be cognisant that this information was
originally requested 5 months ago, at which time it was understood
that the FOI request would be responded to by 27 November at
latest.

With respect. You state that the 20 day response window is 'in line
with the Information Commissioner's guidance'. This is quite
contrary to my understanding, which is that the response window of
20 days is established in law, it is not 'guidance'.

I have diarised forward accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear FOI Responses,

As I am sure you appreciate, this FOI request was first submitted
in November 2011.

Given that responses are lawfully required to be submitted within
20 days,the UKBA's languid approach to those they serve is very
disheartening.

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear FOI Responses,

As indicated above, the UKBA FOI request mailbox does not accept
incoming messages.

The email copied below was forwarded on 17 April 2012 in an
endeavour to facilitaye a long overdue response :

From: john powell
Sent: 17 April 2012 17:35:49
To: [email address]; [email address]

Dear Ms Anderson

I have been waiting patiently for a reply to my FOI request of 7
November 2011.

As you are aware, this request should have been answered by 27
November 2011, ie within a 20 day window. This is a legal timeline
provided by the FOI Act, it is not 'guidance' provided by the
Information Commissioner.

The pejorative perception, with which I hope you can empathise, is
that the Home Office treat the legal requirements of the FOI Act
with utter disdain and contempt. I fervently believe that this
insouciant disregard for the FOI Act will be the focus of media
attention in the future.

Your last missive (copied below) advised that you were seeking
further clarification, and gave yet another postponement to 5 May,
this, despite 5 months of torpid deliberation to date. Is it really
beyond the wit of the Home Office to discern a perfectly legitimate
request, without such protraction ?

Would you please excuse my cynical view that you (the Home Office)
have long ago decided that you will not be answering this FOI
request. If I am correct, then please kindly have the grace to say
as much now, and not on the cusp of 05 May. I can then proceed my
grievance with the Information Commissioner, and others, without
this further unnecessary obfuscation.

Your overdue courtesy, and efficient assistance to those you serve,
would be most appreciated.

Kind regards,

John Powell

Information Access Team
Shared Services Directorate
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Date: 30 March 2012
Reference: 21390

Dear Mr Powell,

Further to my previous email I am afraid that we are not yet able
to provide
you with a completed response to your request for an internal
review. As
previously stated we are examining the interpretation of various
provisions in
the DPA and FOI Acts and this process is taking us longer than we
would
hope.

We try to respond to requests for internal reviews within 20
working days, as
per the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
I regret
that it has not been possible to do so for this request. We now
hope to get a
response to you no later than 5 May.

Best wishes

Rachel Anderson

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear Ms Andersen (FOI Team)

Brodie Clark - FOI Request - Reference 21390 Rachel Andersen

Thank you for your response dated 4 May 2012, incorporating over 40
paragraphs of rather verbose text. Yet, despite a delay of 6
months, this FOI request is still refused.

Notwithstanding that this explicit request was originally submitted
on 7 November 2011 (179 days prior to release of the final
response) the UKBA internal review concludes that it has met its
obligations to provide a response within 20 days. At best that is
disingenuous, at worst .........

The perception is that UKBA have decided to confuse themselves over
the terminology in my FOI request, and allowed this contrived
confusion to obfuscate their handling of my request. When I spoke
with Mr Joe Duggans Office at the early outset of this FOI request,
a junior member of staff understood the nature of my request
perfectly well - why does nobody else have the same clarity of
comprehension ?

If I may use an analogy to assist comprehension of what I am asking
for :

A factory operative produces widgets. He is given (I will use your
language to assist you) a work objective to produce 10 widgets a
day, and he is on a performance bonus if he produces more than 12
widgets a day. The poor manufacture of these widgets led to health
and safety issues, and an inquiry concluded that the operative's
unrealistic work objective, and bonus incentive, led to and
encouraged falling standards of manufacture.

In essence, following the criticism of UKBA practices in 2011, I am
merely questioning whether Mr Brodie Clark's line manager
incentivised bad practice through setting inappropriate work and
reward objectives. Surely, understanding my request was not rocket
science ?

I am now told that Mr Brodie Clark's work objectives ( set by Lin
Homer ? ) are exempt from disclosure under the Data Protection Act.
Frankly, this is viewed as absurd. The information should not be,
and is not, personally sensitive per se.

The fact is, Mr Clark may be absolved from much of the personal
criticism that he received, were it the case that he was working
under the pressure of inappropriate objectives set by his line
manager.

In light of the above, has Mr Brodie Clark's authority been sought
to release this information ? This is important.

Has Mr Clark refused such authority ? If he has, then I will
immediately withdraw my request, or make further similar requests.

Have the UKBA made Mr Brodie Clark aware of this FOI request ?

Obtaining his authority, would circumvent the exemption that you
cite. As I have said before, do the UKBA consider the release of Mr
Clark's work objectives sensitive to Mr Clark, or, sensitive for
the UKBA ?

Would you be kind enough to clarify the above points. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear Ms Andersen (FOI Responses)

Thank you for your final response.

I acknowledge that this highly vexatious process, lasting 6
months,is at a conclusion. I will now ask the Information
Commissioner to review all matters, and copy in the Home Affairs
Select Committee.

Of course, one aspect that the IC will seek to understand, is
whether the UKBA actually sought Mr Brodie Clark's authority to
release the work objectives set for him (presumably by Lin Homer)
in his last year at the UKBA. You state that this is exempt without
the subject's authority.

Unless advised to the contrary, it will be assumed that this
authority was requested from Mr Clark and declined.

I am sorry to have been so tenacious, although I believe
trenchantly in finishing the course, irrespective of the obstacles
placed in my path. That Ms Andersen is virtuous, unlike the
shameful fog of obfuscation and languid, sloth like progress, that
UKBA have subjected me to.

Finally, could you please update the FOI site, as regards to
whether Mr Clark's authority was requested to lift the DP exemption
that you cited.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

John Powell

Dear UK Border Agency,

FAO - Ms Rachel Andersen

UKBA will be aware of last week's news story :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/i...

It centred on a Moldovan who was in this country illegally, having
slipped through our permeable border controls. The individual was
last week charged with the death by dangerous driving of 2 innocent
law abiding citizens, whilst intoxicated, whilst having no
insurance, whilst having no driving licence, leaving the scene of
the crime, and, critically, being in the UK illegally. The case is
similar to so many that we read of, and is yet another paradigm of
an inept and/or ineffective UKBA.

Following revelations in 2011 of appalling laxity over border
controls by the UKBA, I decided, as a bien pensant citizen, to
helpfully question what I considered may have been a contributory
factor in the crisis. It is a fact that egregious workplace actions
are often the result of inappropriate financial rewards, aligned to
the employee's work objectives.

I submitted a FOI request in November 2011 requesting detail of Mr
Brodie Clark's work objectives and/or his reward incentive
criteria. Following many months of 11th hour delays, contrived
obfuscation, and pedantic bureaucracy, the request was denied,
notwithstanding that this information could not be deemed sensitive
by any reasonable person's bench mark.

Last week's sad case would not have happened, had this man not
entered our porous borders illegally. I may not be focused in the
right area, although I have devoted thought, time and effort to my
concerns, yet, I may as well have saved my breath to cool my
porridge.

It is a sad indictment of the UKBA in particular, and our
establishment in general, that the public's right to openness and
transparency is constantly espoused from the lectern, yet it is
often met privately with stone wall intransigence. Shame on you
all. Well at least I tried, and my conscious is clear.

As previously advised, I will be pursuing my views on this matter
with the ICO and the Home Affairs Select Committee. I note that the
Home Office have reached a financial settlement with Mr Clark, and
I have to wonder (rhetorically) whether a 'no release of
information' clause was part of that financial agreement ?

Call me cynical, but money drives all manner of wrongs !

Yours faithfully,

John Powell