KPMG Study

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you please let me know what are the terms of reference for
the KPMG study on the Olympic venues, and when you expect the study
report to be in.

Yours faithfully,

John Bettelley

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Olympic Delivery
Authority's handling of my FOI request 'KPMG Study'.

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

I understand from the “whatdotheyknow” website that if I am not
happy with the response to my FOI enquiry, I am entitled to request
an “internal review”. The following are the reasons for my request:

1. Given that “the ODA understands the importance of acting in an
open and transparent manner, etc etc”, it is most disappointing
that this quite straightforward enquiry under the Freedom of
Information Act took up until 17.45 on the 20th day following the
initial email – the last possible moment permitted under the rules.
I know that everyone is very busy, but there seems to be nothing in
this response which could not have been put together within, say, 5
days. It is hard to avoid the impression of cynicism by the ODA in
its treatment of these questions.

2. It is wholly unsatisfactory for you to tell me that “the full
terms of reference ….held by the ODA on explicit and/or implicit
terms that make it subject to a duty of confidence” without
disclosing at least:

• which third party or parties would be thus exposed?

• what kind of information is it which, if disclosed, (and given
the fairly straightforward context of this enquiry) would give rise
to legal action?

It is clear that we are not talking about a commercial contract
which, if the detailed terms were disclosed, would give valuable
information to a rival. What, in simple terms, are we talking
about?

It is not credible that the whole of the information processed by
the ODA in formulating instructions to KPMG was obtained from
outside the ODA, and therefore that any of that information would
“constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other
person”.

3. You say that KPMG was “instructed by the ODA with input from
DCMS to assist in the evaluation of the options analysis for” the 4
venues, and the review of the ODA value engineering study. These
instructions and the DCMS input clearly formed a substantial part
of the terms of reference given to KPMG, and fall well within my
request for disclosure, and I request that you spell out what they
are.

4. In your following paragraph, KPMG “conducted interviews with key
stakeholders”: it is important to know to which stakeholders they
were directed. Similarly, “ KPMG was also provided with additional
information in relation to” the 4 venues and the options analysis “
in order to assess the project status, potential alternatives and
reasons for discounting alternative possible venues”. What was this
information?

In summary:

• I cannot accept that all of the information requested is covered
by Section 41

• There is manifestly a public interest argument covering this
information, and it is difficult to see without further explanation
why disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence.

• I contend that the ODA has not fulfilled its obligations under
the Freedom of Information Act, and I request a prompt Internal
Review as allowed under the Act.

Yours sincerely

John R Bettelley

Dear Information Officer,

Re your response to me on 17th November, reference APP0013.

I calculate that the 20 days for answering the 2 additional
questions was up on the 12th December. Is there any reason for the
delay that you want to tell me about?

Yours sincerely,

John Bettelley

Dear Ms Jarvis,

Thank you very much for your reply to my request for a response to
my earlier request for information.

I owe you an apology, because you did indeed reply on December 12th
(once again, 20 days to the minute). I was travelling in the United
States through all of December into January, and had only spasmodic
and sometimes unreliable Email communications.

I’d like to just comment briefly on the response. To declare my
interest, I am part of a group of people in the Greenwich area who
are opposed to the use of Greenwich Park for the Olympic equestrian
events. We are very positive about the Olympic Games, just very
protective of a significant local, national and World Heritage
site. I was attempting to find out what studies were being done to
evaluate a) how realistic it is to put these events in the Park,
and the financial, environmental, and social implications of doing
so, and b) what, if any, alternatives were being looked at.

We approached LOCOG for information, with no success whatsoever.
And, for some reason, they are not subject to the FOI act. Then the
KPMG study was announced; although they pleaded confidentiality for
some months, we felt that it would be helpful to ask the ODA for
details of what they were asked to evaluate. That was my first
request to you; your response to that was so unhelpful that I asked
for an internal review, which resulted in your head of legal
deciding that you could not hide the KPMF terms of reference under
a label of ‘confidentiality’.

I was duly provided with the ‘Scope of Work' document. This merely
served to emphasise the paucity of input and background, and the
lack of specifics from ODA and LOCOG, that it was not in the
slightest way surprising that when the KPMG report was published –
to much damning press and public comment – with soviet-style
redactions, that it had so many caveats as to its unsuitability for
basing any decisions or informing actions etc. If not so serious,
it would be totally laughable.

As an exercise in openness in administration, my small effort here
has been a real eye-opener. I would commend you and your management
to read (again?) the Nolan Principles of public life, in particular
those dealing with objectivity, accountability, and openness.

And I found today a quote from Obama’s inaugural speech yesterday,
which gets close to it: “And those of us who manage the public’s
dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad
habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then
can we restore the vital trust between a people and their
government.”

I would, of course, hope that you could pass on my comments to
senior managers in the ODA.

Yours sincerely,

John Bettelley