Dear Sir or Madam,

Has South Norfolk ever functioned without either an Electoral
Registration Officer ['ERO'] or Returning Officer ['RO']. The SNDC
identified in 2002 that this was the case. It was subsequently
identified that this was on the advice of the Solicitor to the
SNDC.

How many years, months and days did the Council function without
either an ERO or an RO approved by the Council elected
representatives.

Which people were elected as a result invalidly to positions of
public authority, to which positions were they elected, what
allowances did they receive as a result.

What date did the Council first become aware that it had failed to
appoint either a returning officer or Electoral Registration
Officer (taking into account that this is and was determined
annually by the Audit Commission who inform those responsible for
the corporate governance).. and who was made aware of the Council's
failure. It is anticipated that this shall have included the
Council's Head of Paid Service.

Specifically, how many years, months and days was the Head of Paid
Service aware that the Council had failed to appoint either an
Electoral Registration Officer or a Returning Officer - and how
many Councils are the SNDC aware of that have functioned for a
large number of years without appointing either an Electoral
Registration Officer or Returning Officer.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your email below, as I expect you are aware, the Council has 20 working days to respond to FOI requests and I shall therefore contact you again by 20 August 2008 or earlier if possible. Please quote FOI 08-103 in any further correspondence concerning this request.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Right2Know,

Dear Ms Kitchener

The reply should be posted on this site as a matter of record. It
is known as the SNDC are aware that it functioned for a period of
at least four / five years without one - and the appointment of the
ERO and RO being approved by the Council as required on the advice
of the Solicitor to the Council. It is also known as the SNDC is
aware that over this period there was substantial 'tampering' and
problems identified with the various registers under its control.
The Audit Commision required renewal of this infrastructure. This
infrastructure was under the control of the Head of Paid Service.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your request below, I believe that this issue of the appointment of an elections officer is a matter which you have raised before.

Under section 14 (1), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states that "Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious."

This issue has been raised by you many times and I believe this request can be classed as vexatious as the Council corrected the situation when you first brought it to our attention and nothing has changed since. In my view, this repeated request is unreasonable and vexatious, and is therefore outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You have a right of appeal against our decision. In the first instance this appeal must be internal and we enclose a copy of our complaints procedure. We hope that you will not feel it necessary to invoke an appeal, but if you do we will take every care to re-assess your request and let you have our findings.

Yours sincerely

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Right2Know,

I recognise that the question has been asked before and that you
have refused to answer it. Now what is vexatious about seeking
clarification on this important issue from a democratic
organisation.... unless it only ascribes to democracy when it feels
like it.

Attached is a copy of the Council's minutes.

Full Council Meetings Minutes, 02 December 2002

2540 APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER/DEPUTY ELECTORAL
REGISTRATION OFFICER The Head of Central Services explained that
approval was being sought to appoint the current Chief Executive as
Electoral Registration Officer and the Electoral Services Manager
as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer under Section 8 of the
representation of the People Act 1983. Mr R A Smith was concerned
at the Council's position legally, and although he had received
reassurance from the Solicitor to the Council, he proposed that the
Electoral Services Manager be appointed Deputy Electoral
Registration Officer and that the Council seeks external legal
advice on the position. Mr R Carden responded that the Council's
Solicitor had advised on the subject and he was satisfied with
this. Mr R J B Hoare seconded Mr R A Smith's proposal.

Just answer the question.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Right2Know,

I recognise that the question has been asked before and that you
have refused to answer it. Now what is vexatious about seeking
clarification on this important issue from a democratic
organisation.... unless it only ascribes to democracy when it feels
like it.

Attached is a copy of the Council's minutes.

Full Council Meetings Minutes, 02 December 2002

2540 APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER/DEPUTY ELECTORAL
REGISTRATION OFFICER The Head of Central Services explained that
approval was being sought to appoint the current Chief Executive as
Electoral Registration Officer and the Electoral Services Manager
as Deputy Electoral Registration Officer under Section 8 of the
representation of the People Act 1983. Mr R A Smith was concerned
at the Council's position legally, and although he had received
reassurance from the Solicitor to the Council, he proposed that the
Electoral Services Manager be appointed Deputy Electoral
Registration Officer and that the Council seeks external legal
advice on the position. Mr R Carden responded that the Council's
Solicitor had advised on the subject and he was satisfied with
this. Mr R J B Hoare seconded Mr R A Smith's proposal.

Just answer the question. The question is only vexatious if you
have something to hide.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS

Dear Mr Carruthers

Please note I have nothing to add to my previous reply, which detailed the steps you should take if you are unhappy with our reply.

Yours sincerely

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Officer
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Alleged Breach of s14 and s1 of the FoI Act by South Norfolk
District Council

Copy of Appeal to Information Commissioner

On 21 July 2008 I submitted a Freedom of Information Request to
South Norfolk District Council [‘SNDC’] requesting details of
records related to elections [TAB 1]. There is consensus that on
the advice of the SNDC Solicitor that the SNDC failed to appoint
either an Electoral Registration Officer or a Returning Officer,
despite this being a requirement under s8 and s35 of the
Representation of the People Act. There is also consensus that then
leader of the Liberal Democrat Party of South Norfolk identified
that the appointment of either was a mere bagatelle. The SNDC only
admitted to their failure to appoint either after it had failed to
declare a number of elections void, or provide citizens with the
information needed to have them declared void. The District Auditor
additionally identified that there were problems with the SNDC
registers, and required renewal of their systems. However, the
political parties remain responsible for ‘hiring and firing’.

Council’s change. Control of Council’s is mainly lost by political
parties due to failures of their executive (Council staff) rather
than won due to the dynamic policies of the opposition party even
if made accessible over the World Wide Web. A Council personally
appoints the Electoral Registration Officer and the Returning
Officer (for local elections). Each year they appoint a Chairman
who is responsible for being the Returning Officer for
Parliamentary Elections. However, they seem to fail to keep records
that they have re-appointed either an Electoral Registration
Officer [‘ERO’] or a Returning Officer for local elections [‘RO’],
or reaffirmed the position of the holder of these positions. This
is very strange, as it destroys the link between the administration
(elected representatives and their constituents), and the executive
(paid employees of the Council). It also means that a Council
Solicitor owes no duty of care to the constituents of a Council’s
elected representatives.

In an additional FoI request made on 24 August 2008 the SNDC
identified that the electoral registration officer and returning
officer (local elections) had not been appointed by the current
Council [TAB 2]. The SNDC again identified that it was functioning
without either an ERO or local RO, and had been doing so since
about May 2007.

As the Council’s solicitor has been responsible for advising the
Council that they don’t need to appoint an ERO or a local returning
officer on more than one occasion, it is inevitable that the
request will be regarded as vexatious. This is not the case. The
SNDC has identified that it holds the records, and has refused to
make these available under s1.1 of the Freedom of Information Act.

The SNDC has additionally wrongly identified that appeal has to be
made to the SNDC before appeal is made to the Information
Commissioner [‘ICO’]. It has been clarified with the ICO’s office
that this is not a requirement, and merely gives a Council
Solicitor an opportunity to seek to disguise that they are seeking
to cause their Council to function in a way that is not according
to law.

A copy of the request and identification of SNDC failure to
respond, and meet the requirements of FOI is available at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/el.... A
copy of this appeal to the ICO is also posted at this site. The
request is unusual only in so far as the SNDC has itself identified
in a subsequent request identified that it is currently functioning
without either an Electoral Registration Officer or Returning
Officer appointed by the Council, and it is known that there have
been elections.

The LGO has previously identified that a failure to appoint an ERO
and RO by a Council is not maladministration causing injustice,
even if there was tampering with the democratic infrastructure by
the Council’s administration, and the Council delayed telling
anyone till challenge to elections was impossible (European,
Parliamentary and Local) through an Election Court. This was prior
to the FoI coming fully into force. The ICO is requested to require
the SNDC to release the information, and to also identify to the
LGO that the acts of the SNDC should be investigated.

Yours faithfully

Stuart HARDWICKE CARRUTHERS