Expenses of SLT members

Dear University of Salford,

I refer to your email of 10th November 2009 to Mr Gary Duke:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/to...

In the light of your subsequent replies to perfectly valid FoI
requests, your response to Mr Duke was remarkably helpful. You
wrote:

"The Vice Chancellor makes his expenses publicly available on a
quarterly basis as do all other SLT members and so you may wish to
wait for this information to be published rather than requesting it
at this point."

My request is very simple:
Could you please direct me to where the expenses of the Vice
Chancellor and all other SLT members are made publicly available?

Yours faithfully,

Sophie Quinn

PS Now, come on, you really can't reject this a vexatious request.
Can you?

Dear University of Salford,

Your response is overdue. You should have responded promptly and by
14 April 2010.

This is a very simple request. Almost six months ago, you stated
that "The Vice Chancellor makes his expenses publicly available on
a quarterly basis as do all other SLT members". So where are they
publicly available?

If you should respond with "This request will not be processed
because it, along with a number of other requests, is being treated
as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act", this will simply
result in yet another complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

Sophie Quinn

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Thank you for your reply of 27th May 2010.

Since then another four weeks have passed without any further
response.

Please could you provide an update on the progress of this very
simple request? In particular, could you let me know why it is
proving so difficult for you to get hold of this information?

I would like the full details of all expenses of all members of SLT
since 1st August 2009. I'm sure this information should be readily
available.

Yours sincerely,

Sophie Quinn

Dear University of Salford,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of University of
Salford's handling of my FOI request 'Expenses of SLT members'.

I would like bring the following to the attention of the person
conducting the review:

1. On 10th November 2009 the University wrote that "The Vice
Chancellor makes his expenses publicly available on a quarterly
basis as do all other SLT members and so you may wish to wait for
this information to be published rather than requesting it at this
point."

2. On 12th March 2010, I requested this information, as it had not
been made publicly available.

3. On 27th May 2010, the University apologised for the delay in
replying, and explained that the information was now available only
on request. However, you assured me that you would provide it to me
as soon as you were able to.

4. On 21st July 2010, you wrote again, rejecting my request as you
"have been advised that the University's view is that your request
is vexatious and therefore will not be processed further as
permitted under s14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000".

My complaints about the University's handling of this request are
that the university's replies have been excessively delayed,
contradictory and inconsistent. (They have, however, included
material that is irrelevant and immaterial, such as details of your
Audit Committee, which I had not requested.) Furthermore, almost
two months after you said you would provide the information, you
seem to have suddenly decided that the request was vexatious. You
did not provide any justification or reasoning at all to support
this decision.

I was interested to note that you wrote that you have been
"advised" of the "University's view". Please could you let me know
the name and position of the person or people who advised you.
Please could you also tell me the name and position of the person
who will carry out the internal review, and confirm that they were
not involved in any way in the original advice that you received.

You will be aware that one purpose of an internal review is to give
the University an opportunity to rectify any errors or omissions in
its response by itself, before a complaint to the Information
Commissioner is necessary. For similar reasons, the Commissioner is
not obliged to accept a complaint if it appears to him that a
public authority’s own internal complaints procedure has not been
exhausted.

The university's course of action since 10th November 2009, as
outlined above, might easily make any observer question its
competence. I would suggest that, in order not to damage its
reputation further, the University should comply with the request
and publish full details of the expenses of SLT members without any
further delay, thereby avoiding yet another complaint to the ICO.

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

Yours faithfully,

Sophie Quinn