Stephen Maddox - Former Chief Executive - Additional Pension Costs

The request was partially successful.

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

CONTEXT TO THIS REQUEST

"Employment & Appointments Committee August 17th 2010
Early Voluntary Retirement Request
•Minutes:
The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management submitted a report which sought the Committee’s approval for the release of the Chief Executive on 30 September 2010 under the Council’s Early Voluntary Retirement (‘EVR’) scheme. He advised Members that his report had been presented late as it had not been finalised until the day of the meeting. The Chair accepted this and agreed to its consideration by the Committee.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development presented the report and indicated that the requirements for authorisation of EVR for any employee were based upon regard for all the circumstances, including the best interests of the Council and that any additional pension costs to the Council could be contained within existing budgets. She set out the staffing and financial implications set out in the report and referred also to interim management arrangements that were proposed to be put in place. She advised that if the Committee approved the EVR of the Chief Executive, then the M37 Application for Early Retirement Form would be signed by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, the Director of Finance and the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development.

In response to a question from the Leader of the Council, the Director of Finance reported that he had discussed the matter with the District Auditor. The Director had confirmed that the additional pension costs would be met from savings and expressed the view that the proposal would probably meet the Audit Commission’s requirements."

END OF CONTEXT

Steve Maddox, former Chief Executive of Wirral Council, announced on August 18th 2010: "I am retiring to spend some long overdue time with my wonderful and long suffering family."

I would like to make the following requests, in the public interest:

A. Specifically, I wish you to provide me with copies of all information you hold that refers to and/or is about the former Chief Executive, Steve Maddox, including the above mentioned report submitted by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, all emails, letters, memos, notes, reports, aide memoirs, interviews, etc, in which he is called “Steve Maddox”, “S Maddox”, “Steve”, “SM” or by some other term or where he is not expressly indentified but can be recognised from the context, previous email exchange and/or surrounding circumstances, etc. that led to the decision that it was in the Council's best interests to pay Mr Maddox "additional pension costs".

B. Clear calculations displaying the precise total these "additional pension costs" will amount to, and a clear indication of the budget(s) from which they will be drawn.

C. Copies of all correspondence between the Director of Finance and the District Auditor in relation to this particular matter, including details of specifically what the "Audit Commission's requirements" are in relation to the payment of "additional pension costs".

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Excerpt from:

http://www.auditcommission.gov.uk/SiteCo...

Within local government, there is a new requirement for authorities to publish in their statements of accounts the individual financial details of any severance payments to all senior officers earning over £50,000. Those earning over £150,000 are to be identified by name, with all others by post title. These provisions form part of a wider requirement to publish all aspects of remuneration of senior officers, such as salaries and bonuses, and come into effect fully on 1 April 2010.

John Brace left an annotation ()

However he has retired, so would have a reduced salary for this year compared to previous years.

Do the regulations specify the limits in terms of actual salary paid? If so a person could be earning £150,000/year, retire 2 months into the financial year and therefore fall under the threshold.

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

Please acknowledge and act upon the request I originally sent on 3rd January 2011, which reads as follows:

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

CONTEXT TO THIS REQUEST

"Employment & Appointments Committee August 17th 2010
Early Voluntary Retirement Request
•Minutes:
The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management submitted a report
which sought the Committee’s approval for the release of the Chief
Executive on 30 September 2010 under the Council’s Early Voluntary
Retirement (‘EVR’) scheme. He advised Members that his report had
been presented late as it had not been finalised until the day of
the meeting. The Chair accepted this and agreed to its
consideration by the Committee.

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development
presented the report and indicated that the requirements for
authorisation of EVR for any employee were based upon regard for
all the circumstances, including the best interests of the Council
and that any additional pension costs to the Council could be
contained within existing budgets. She set out the staffing and
financial implications set out in the report and referred also to
interim management arrangements that were proposed to be put in
place. She advised that if the Committee approved the EVR of the
Chief Executive, then the M37 Application for Early Retirement Form
would be signed by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management,
the Director of Finance and the Head of Human Resources and
Organisational Development.

In response to a question from the Leader of the Council, the
Director of Finance reported that he had discussed the matter with
the District Auditor. The Director had confirmed that the
additional pension costs would be met from savings and expressed
the view that the proposal would probably meet the Audit
Commission’s requirements."

END OF CONTEXT

Steve Maddox, former Chief Executive of Wirral Council, announced
on August 18th 2010: "I am retiring to spend some long overdue time
with my wonderful and long suffering family."

I would like to make the following requests, in the public
interest:

A. Specifically, I wish you to provide me with copies of all
information you hold that refers to and/or is about the former
Chief Executive, Steve Maddox, including the above mentioned report
submitted by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, all
emails, letters, memos, notes, reports, aide memoirs, interviews,
etc, in which he is called “Steve Maddox”, “S Maddox”, “Steve”,
“SM” or by some other term or where he is not expressly indentified
but can be recognised from the context, previous email exchange
and/or surrounding circumstances, etc. that led to the decision
that it was in the Council's best interests to pay Mr Maddox
"additional pension costs".

B. Clear calculations displaying the precise total these
"additional pension costs" will amount to, and a clear indication
of the budget(s) from which they will be drawn.

C. Copies of all correspondence between the Director of Finance and
the District Auditor in relation to this particular matter,
including details of specifically what the "Audit Commission's
requirements" are in relation to the payment of "additional pension
costs".

Yours faithfully,
<<<3rd January 2011 message ends>>>

This request is now several working days overdue and I would appreciate it if some urgency was injected into the process,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Receipt for email

show quoted sections

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email below. Apologies for the delay in responding
to you; please now see Council's responses alongside your original
questions and I hope you find the information of use.
Kind Regards
Jane Corrin
Information Manager
Wirral Council


This information supplied to you is copyrighted to Wirral Council and
continues to be protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any non
commercial research you are doing and for the purposes of news
reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial publication, would
require our specific permission, may involve licensing and the
application of a charge

show quoted sections

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Here are the answers:

REPLY A.
There are no emails, letters, memos, notes, reports, aide memoirs, or
interviews to supply to you. Information contained in the report which
relates to specific salaries, pensions/other benefits, of individual
members of staff are exempt from disclosure. The Council has relied on
section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in not
disclosing this information. This is because the requested information
constitutes personal data and to disclose it would be unfair and
therefore a breach of the first data protection principle (Schedule 1
Data Protection Act 1998 refers). It would be unfair to disclose this
information because it is not in the reasonable expectations of the data
subject that this information would be released to third parties.

REPLY B.
The costs would be drawn from the overall Council Budget.
The Council cannot disclose the precise total of the additional pension
costs and again has relied on section 40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 in not disclosing this information. This is because
the requested information constitutes personal data and to disclose it
would be unfair and therefore a breach of the first data protection
principle (Schedule 1 Data Protection Act 1998 refers). It would be
unfair to disclose this information because it is not in the reasonable
expectations of the data subject that this information would be released
to third parties.

REPLY C.
The Council has no recorded information to supply to you in relation to
Question C above.

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Stephen Maddox - Former Chief Executive - Additional Pension Costs'.

I believe your are wrong to apply a blanket exemption using Section 40 of the FOI Act in this instance. A recent case at the Tribunal (Information Rights) found against the appellant Craven District Council on the matter of payments made using public funds to a departing Chief Executive Officer:

http://tinyurl.com/6goxt4r

An important aspect and one which swayed the judge in making the above decision was the council's attempt to conceal the amount of public funds used in securing the retirement of the Officer.

I believe this case to be very similar in that an unknown quantity of public funds has been used to achieve a similar outcome. There is a strong public interest in knowing the extent of funds used and the matters surrounding the decisions and the parties involved. I therefore ask that you reconsider your decision and look at this request again in detail, as part of an internal review.

Please take into account all the information I have submitted to date.

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

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Thank you for your email below, your request has been passed onto Surjit
Tour who conducts the Internal Reviews at Wirral Council.

show quoted sections

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

Further to my request for internal review, please also consider the following:

There are suggestions here that the relevant departure payments exceeded contractual entitlements and the public has a strong interest in knowing whether this is the case. There could not be harm caused to the individual if the payments did not exceed the contractual entitlements, but if they did, such harm is warranted as any excess may be unlawful.

Do you acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in a disclosure about information which concerns whether the council (and its senior officers) has conducted itself lawfully in this case, given the circumstances of the individual's departure? How do you balance the competing interests?

Please advise also whether a compromise agreement was signed in order to mutually agree a termination to the individual's working contract, in full and final settlement,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Thank you for your email, I have passed it to Mr. Surjit Tour to
consider along with your request for an internal review.
Kind Regards
Jane Corrin
Information Manager

show quoted sections

Hats left an annotation ()

Under the Audit Act 1998 you may be entitled to inspect contracts or documents related to this.

John Brace left an annotation ()

As Surjit Tour is a legally qualified solicitor (one of eighteen at Wirral Council) you would expect him to realise this.

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,

FAO Mr Surjit Tour

Further to my request for an internal review:

From The Audit Commission's "By Mutual Agreemenet" document dated March 2010.

"Involvement in a mutually-agreed termination could cause reputational damage to both sides, so confidentiality can have benefits for one or both parties. Some 79 per cent of mutually- agreed severance payments for departing Council Chief Executives had a "confidentiality clause (my comment - often referred to as a "gagging clause".)

There are significant sums of public money at stake, and the grounds for termination are often personal rather than performance-based. The Audit Commission believes that arrangements to date have not been transparent enough to the public. "Confidentiality Agreements" have allowed large severance payments to be agreed that may have been difficult to defend in public.

New requirements to publish officer remuneration from 1st April 2010 will bring a different dynamic to the negotiation of settlements for council chief executives. It may place councils under greater pressure to account for their actions."

From 'Conclusions':

"To address the issue of members pursuing persona or politically-motivated objectives, the process of contract termination and the negotiation of severance payments should be open to greater scrutiny and challenge within a council. Requiring all severance decisions to be reviewed at a cross-party committee, such as a remuneration committee, would provide a sterner test to justify cases. Such a requirement would force members to be more circumspect when seeking early contract terminations. Where severance payments are awarded, this mechanism would ensure that the costs were fully justified."

"Greater public transparency would also help to shape members' actions and may keep costs down."

"The new requirements to publish the costs of severance payments are a step forward. However publication is not required until the final accounts are published up to six months after the end of the financial year in which a payment was made. This means there could be a delay of 18 months between a severance payment and its publication, too long for adequate accountability to the public; this is long enough, for instance, for the political leadership to change. Requiring publication of the costs shortly after a decision is taken, as well as in the accounts, would address this."

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/SiteC...

Please reconsider the appropriateness of invoking Section 40 of the FOIA. Also please consider the requirements outlined in this external information when addressing my request for internal review. Can you also state explicitly whether a compromise agreement / confidentiality (gagging) clause featured in this case?

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

I sent the above supplementary information over a week ago. Can you confirm that you picked it up? Many thanks,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

InfoMgr, FinDMT, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Good Morning,
Thank you for your email below, yes I have received your email and
passed it onto our legal section.
I am sorry but we do not have a system at Wirral that receipts emails
automatically, although I do always strive to send an acknowledgement if
a requestor asks for one.
Kind Regards
Jane Corrin
Information Manager

show quoted sections

John Brace left an annotation ()

They do have a system that automatically sends out a reply (with a log number) for emails to Streetscene (streetscene@wirral.gov.uk).

They don't for Freedom of Information Act requests as to be honest, they deal with FOI requests as cheaply as possible only employing one person Jane Corrin and leaving the answering of them to the departments involved with Jane co-ordinating between the requester and those who have the information.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council have mooted the idea of software for FOI requests, but cost was cited as an issue. Moving to a bespoke FOI system would free Jane up somewhat to do her job.

Currently Jane Corrin just puts them on a spreadsheet which isn't really up to the task. A large organisation dealing with FOI requests such as Wirral through one person needs to use software to do some of the work (sending out acknowledgements of emails, assigning a log number to each case etc). Without either more staff or software we'll have to put up with WMBC repeatedly going over legal timescales and cheesing people off and resulting in more administration for them when people moan to the Information Commissioner.

Wirral Council are far, far below the legal standard and what people expect when making FOI requests.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

We're an inquisitive bunch on Wirral (pop. 313,000). We're also more demanding of openness and transparency from politicians than larger local authority populations. The sheer level of requests made via WDTK (374 to date) indicates this - that's only 5 behind Birmingham City Council (pop. 992,000 - the largest UK local authority). And this number will be surpassed when including direct press and public requests.

Whatever the total of requests, it's a tough job for anybody working alone. So the question has to be asked, "Why is Ms Corrin working alone?" And what does this say about the value placed upon transparency and public interaction? What are the priorities of Wirral's decision makers? Whatever the answer, Freedom of Information doesn't seem to be high on the list.

John Brace left an annotation ()

These thoughts were articulated also by various councillors at various public meetings at Wirral Council.

The last report on total number of FOI requests to Wirral Council detailed 903 in 2009 and 717 in January to October of 2010.

The report is here if you're interested - http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert... presented to the Standards Committee last December.

Jane Corrin herself made a report and presentation to the 26th January committee meeting of the Standards Committee, the next meeting of the Standards Committee (24th March) was cancelled and the next one after that will be on the 4th July at 6pm.

Come along if you like! It's at Wallasey Town Hall.

The what do they know website is pretty well known on Wirral and in its political circles. It's far easier making a FOI request through WDTK as you can keep a track of timescales etc and it's all done in an open, transparent and public way.

>Why is Ms Corrin working alone?

Well she does has a manager (she's part of the Department of Finance) and if I remember correctly, they thought that the numbers of FOI requests were low enough and manageable for one person to deal with.

Also councillors tend (in the main) stay out of the operational management side of the Council as this is left to officers. Councillors tend to see their role as more to make decisions and decide on policy. Their opportunities for scrutiny are much reduced as many meetings involve long presentations from officers repeating what is already in written report (mainly for the benefit of councillors that don't bother to read their committee papers) and a limited opportunity to ask questions.

Having looked at the figures and seen how long things take with my own FOI requests (well beyond the legal timescales), I dispute this assertion made by officers of Wirral Council that Jane can deal with this level of requests on her own (although to be fair part of the delay is caused by internal communication within Wirral Council). The problem is in order to provide her with some help someone would have to be seconded from elsewhere or a new post created.

Alternatively each council department could have a person for FOI requests that they'd be routed to who would then deal with the original requester.

>And what does this say about the value placed upon >transparency and public interaction?

Transparency has never been particularly high up the political agenda. As to public interaction, there are plenty of things put in place to make that as difficult as possible.

Some councillors find it better for Wirral Council to not be transparent as then they can spin their own version of events without an alternative record of what happened.

You see there are a lot of vested interests here. The council officers want things to be run by them and the councillors to be kept in the dark.

Councillors (in the main) don't want to rock the boat too much for fear of censure by their political party.

That's why the public are kept away from councillors at meetings and building staff make sure this happens. If the public started talking to councillors and telling them what actually happened it'd be far harder for council officers to pull the wool over their eyes.

The councillors don't want the public to know about the mistakes they've made as it may affect their personal (and party's reputation) as well as their chances of being reelected.

As such a compromise of "unwritten rules" is reached, councillors don't openly criticise officers in public meetings, but councillors of different parties can criticise each other (within reason).

Anything extremely damaging is deemed "exempt information" which allows many things that would be unpopular with the public to happen.

If things do go wrong and the local rag starts poking its nose in, suitable scapegoats are found and thrown to the wolves. Sometimes that means certain councillors lose their seats if the other political parties find out.

If said scapegoats are council officers they then appeal and are reinstated. Very rarely do councillors get censured or criticised for reinstating an employee as it's .... yes an "exempt item"...

Finally I did introduce transparency by writing on the Wirral Globe website about what happened during the elections. Surprise, surprise I find myself now suspended from the Liberal Democrat Party for doing so.

So yes, councillors don't see themselves as open and accountable to the public. If you whistleblow or highlight abuses all kinds of bad things happen....

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

It is the request itself, not the identity of the requester or the consequences of disclosure, that is relevant.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

My annotation was cut short, so here it is again:

Thanks for the link to the report John. Wirral's Director of Finance (The TOP FOI man on site) needs to be informed that a requester CANNOT be deemed 'vexatious'. Part of the report is therefore flawed. But this is indicative of Wirral's tendency to go on the defensive and to look for scapegoats to shift the blame onto or have a pop at.

Quote from the ICO website re: vexatious requests:

"It is the request itself, not the identity of the requester or the consequences of disclosure, that is relevant."

I fully appreciate what you're saying about "bad things happening", having been on the receiving end more than once. In my case it was a reward for telling the truth, which is frowned upon by some because it often exposes a dirty underbelly.

John Brace left an annotation ()

The Director of Finance is Ian Coleman. The Cabinet Member for Finance is Cllr Steve Foulkes.

You are right that legally it is an FOI request, not requestor that is classed as vexatious. However deemed a request as vexatious doesn't have to pass a public interest test.

Your point I think is that Wirral Council has classed various people's FOI requests as automatically vexatious.

The definition that a vexatious request as being one that "causes unjustified distress, disruption or irritation" could apply to most FOI requests.

In most cases the information revealed by an FOI request will cause disruption in putting together/finding the information, will irritate people if it's release to the public domain and can distress certain people involved that would rather it wasn't known...

John Brace left an annotation ()

@Paul Cardin

The Director of Finance, Ian Coleman will be at the Wirral Council Cabinet meeting at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street (Committee Room 1) for a public meeting starting at 6.15pm on Thursday 23rd June.

Why don't you come along a few minutes before the meeting starts and get his response in person to the issues raised?

The FOI system needs changing and without some impetus from above or the political will (eg petition) it'll carry on being the rather unsatisfactory system it is at present.

Corrin, Jane, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email below. I have spoken to the Officer who is
completing the Internal Review and he will be able to respond to you by
8th July 2011.
I hope this is acceptable to you and thank you for your patience.
Kind Regards
Jane Corrin
Information Manager
Wirral Council

From: Paul Cardin [mailto:[FOI #56617 email]]
Sent: 05 June 2011 10:07
To: InfoMgr, FinDMT
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Stephen Maddox - Former
Chief Executive - Additional Pension Costs

Dear InfoMgr, FinDMT,

FAO Mr Surjit Tour

Further to my request for an internal review:

From The Audit Commission's "By Mutual Agreemenet" document dated
March 2010.

"Involvement in a mutually-agreed termination could cause
reputational damage to both sides, so confidentiality can have
benefits for one or both parties. Some 79 per cent of mutually-
agreed severance payments for departing Council Chief Executives
had a "confidentiality clause (my comment - often referred to as a
"gagging clause".)

There are significant sums of public money at stake, and the
grounds for termination are often personal rather than
performance-based. The Audit Commission believes that arrangements
to date have not been transparent enough to the public.
"Confidentiality Agreements" have allowed large severance payments
to be agreed that may have been difficult to defend in public.

New requirements to publish officer remuneration from 1st April
2010 will bring a different dynamic to the negotiation of
settlements for council chief executives. It may place councils
under greater pressure to account for their actions."

From 'Conclusions':

"To address the issue of members pursuing persona or
politically-motivated objectives, the process of contract
termination and the negotiation of severance payments should be
open to greater scrutiny and challenge within a council. Requiring
all severance decisions to be reviewed at a cross-party committee,
such as a remuneration committee, would provide a sterner test to
justify cases. Such a requirement would force members to be more
circumspect when seeking early contract terminations. Where
severance payments are awarded, this mechanism would ensure that
the costs were fully justified."

"Greater public transparency would also help to shape members'
actions and may keep costs down."

"The new requirements to publish the costs of severance payments
are a step forward. However publication is not required until the
final accounts are published up to six months after the end of the
financial year in which a payment was made. This means there could
be a delay of 18 months between a severance payment and its
publication, too long for adequate accountability to the public;
this is long enough, for instance, for the political leadership to
change. Requiring publication of the costs shortly after a decision
is taken, as well as in the accounts, would address this."


http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/SiteC...
00315bymutualagreementrep.pdf

Please reconsider the appropriateness of invoking Section 40 of the
FOIA. Also please consider the requirements outlined in this
external information when addressing my request for internal
review. Can you also state explicitly whether a compromise
agreement / confidentiality (gagging) clause featured in this case?

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

show quoted sections

Dear Corrin, Jane,

Despite your assurance that the officer was "completing the internal review", nothing has turned up since you made that statement on 30th June.

It's now almost a month later and your deadline of 8th July has long since passed.

I have provided a lot of hopefully helpful information, in an attempt to make this request as easy to manage as possible, but this seems to have failed.

I am not happy with your response and I am now going to appeal to the Information Commissioner,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

In order to keep you updated, I have now appealed to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding this FOI request, as of 26th July 2011, and have received an acknowledgment,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Dear Wirral Borough Council,

Thank you to the council solicitor who called me on the phone today to state the following:

1. Stephen Maddox did not sign a compromise agreement
2. The 'additional pension costs' were 'actuarial costs' which the council needed to cover
3. That no 'additional pension costs' or 'actuarial costs' went directly to Stephen Maddox
4. The council holds that the actuarial costs are personal data and in its opinion attract a 40(3)(a)(i) exemption
5. That the matters discussed in the phone conversation would be set down in writing and conveyed to me as soon as possible

During the course of the conversation, no explanation was given for the following:

1. Why these "actuarial costs" were described as "additional pension costs" within the documentation appearing in the minutes of the meeting held to propose, discuss and scrutinise the departure of the Chief Executive
2. Why it had taken 7 months to reach this stage, without an internal review actually being carried out
3. Why all Council correspondence to date (see above) has made no mention of "actuarial costs" and has used a blanket 40(3)(a)(i)exemption to cover the majority of information requested
4. Why the information requested in part C of the question (Copies of all correspondence between the Director of Finance and the District Auditor in relation to this particular matter, including details of specifically what the "Audit Commission's requirements" are in relation to the payment of "additional pension costs") is not held by the council.

I now expect your internal review decision to be arrived at quickly, however, if it is not satisfactory, I intend to fully pursue this by continuing with the appeal I have recently lodged with the Information Commissioner. I look forward to receiving the promised letter / email, detailing all the above points, as soon as possible,

Yours faithfully,

Paul Cardin

Lyon, Rosemary A., Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mr Cardin,

I refer to your request for an internal review contained in your email of
26 April 2011 in connection with the Council's handling of your freedom of
Information request concerning the former Chief Executive, Mr Stephen
Maddox. I also refer to our recent telephone discussion, which concerned
the Council's delay in responding to your request for an internal review.
I apologise for the delay .Your original request for information contained
in your email of 3 January 2011 had been refused on 14 February 2011 by
the Council on the basis that the absolute exemption contained in Section
40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applied to the
information you were seeking in respect of Mr Maddox.

You referred in your email of 26 April 2011 to the decision of the First
Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) Gibson and the Information Commissioner
and Craven District Council, EA/2010/0096.I consider this decision is not
relevant in respect of the information you are seeking in respect of Mr
Maddox. He did not sign a compromise agreement, nor did he receive any
severance payment. Mr Maddox applied for early retirement , which required
the consent of the Council, as he was under the age of 60 years. This
consent was given at the meeting you referred to in your original request,
namely the Employment and Appointments Committee, which met on 17 August
2010, and the early retirement took effect on 30 September 2010.

You have specifically asked for details of the additional pension costs
which were referred to in the minutes of the meeting, which took place on

17 August 2010. I must stress that these "additional pension costs" do not
relate to monies paid directly to Mr Maddox, but is the actuarial cost
borne by the Council in its role of administering body of Merseyside
Pension Fund, due to the early retirement of Mr Maddox. I can confirm that
Mr Maddox was not given any added years in respect of his early
retirement. However I consider that the amount of these additional pension
costs is exempt information under Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of
Information act 2000, as it is my opinion, that the costs constitute
personal data and that the disclosure of this information to a member of
the public would contravene any of the data protection principles,
specifically the sixth data protection principle, that personal data shall
be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects . I consider
that the condition set out in Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(6 (1) is not met, in that the processing of this personal data is
unwarranted by reasons of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or
legitimate interests of the data subject. The reason that I consider that
the additional pension costs to amount to personal data, is that a member
of the public having this data and being aware that the data subject had
been granted early retirement, would potentially have the ability to
calculate what the actual annual pension of the data subject, in this case
Mr Maddox would be. I do not consider that the legitimate interests of
members of the public outweighs the entitlement to the reasonable
expectation of the former chief executive that his pension would not be
disclosed, as it relates to his private life, having left public office
and not having received any severance payment nor been party to a
compromise agreement.

If Mr Maddox were to consent to this information, (ie the additional
pension costs being released), then clearly the information could be
released, as there would no longer be prejudice to the rights and freedoms
or legitimate interests of the data subject. Whilst the Council is
prepared to write to Mr Maddox, to seek that consent, the response to your
request for an internal review is presently that the exemption contained
in Section 40 (2) and (3) (a) (i) applies and your request is refused. I
am aware that you have already written to the Information Commissioner but
if you are dissatisfied with the Council's response you have the right to
complain to the Information Commissioner, whose address is the Information
Commissioner's Office,

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

[1]www.ico.gov.uk

Tel: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45
Fax: 01625 524510

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Lyon,

Solicitor,

Wirral Borough Council

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear Lyon, Rosemary A.,

Thanks for putting the points you raised in the phone conversation into writing. I am not satisfied with your explanation for a number of reasons, some of which I referred to on the phone and some which are set out above.

Notably, your answer to point C (my request for you to provide copies of correspondence passed between the Director of Finance and the District Auditor) caused you to respond (without any further explanation) that there was no recorded information to release. If there WAS correspondence then there will be information - unless you have lost or destroyed it. I do not accept this response as an 'explanation' and I am asking the ICO here and now to follow this up on my behalf.

Also, you have not given any reason for why there was a long delay. I don't accept your use of the 'personal data' exemption regarding 'additional pension costs' / 'actuarial costs'.

You also have not explained why these costs, if they were 'actuarial' were never referred to as such until our phone conversation 7 months later. They had always been known as 'additional pension costs'.

I have sent the Information Commissioner's Office a link to this request in order that they can pick up these points when they carry out my appeal against your findings.

Finally, another Wirral senior officer retiring in his 50s, does not instil confidence in local council tax payers, many of whom, if they are lucky to be employed, will be working a long way into their 7th decade,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Cardin

John Brace left an annotation ()

There is basically a likely scenario here regarding early retirement (which has to have the agreement of his employer Wirral Council):-

If he was aged 55 or over and it was early retirement through "redundancy or efficiency" then:-

a) he'd be entitled to a pension straight away and
b) Wirral Council would have to pay his pension contributions as if he'd left at 65. For example if he was 55, this would be 10 years, if he was 59, this would be 6 years.

In the published accounts for 2010/2011 you see an amount of £157,337 set aside for "loss of office".

A similar figure was put in the accounts for the retired Director of Adult Social Services £152,339.

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/downloads/3219 .

In theory if you calculate their annual salary, knowing the date they left you could work out how old they are. From this you could also calculate approximate pension paid now or if they've deferred it to 65.

The employers contribution rates for Wirral Council are published and agreed by the Pension Committee. Hope that helps!

Your alternate route (as you're a local taxpayer) is to request to look at the accounts (as we're in an audit period). Details of that are on their website.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Thanks John. Appreciate your help on this one!

JosieYates left an annotation ()

Dear Paul
How much tenacity has been required to continue with the dialogue? I wish you every success in seeing this matter through to to the bitter end; to ensure justice is done and a return to the taxpayer, any unauthorised payments received by Mr Maddox.
As you may know, (and who is it that makes the recommendation for the appointments)he has since received a Commission and has been appointed Deputy to the Lord Lieutenant of Merseyside, which I can only guess is the main reason for delaying his right to reply to the Anna K inquiry. What makes matters worse is the statement by Cllr Steve Foulkes which seems to indicate that no action need be taken against these people. May I wish you a very happy New Year

Josie Yates

Pete Sheffield left an annotation ()

Tenacity and the ICO are the only path to disclosure with a local authority who are so insecure and paranoid of being held to account of their inept, insular and irregular practice.

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

I've just received a decision notice from the Information Commissioner's office. More here:

http://www.easyvirtualassistance.co.uk/1...

The ICO held that Wirral was WRONG to:

.....Claim Section 40, as the info was being released within the 2010/11 Accounts anyway.

.....Withhold the report and give it a restricted status, where the public would have been cleared from the meeting room when it was discussed

.....Take 73 days to complete an internal review (As everyone knows, 20 days is the normal period given to undertake them)

Wirral now have to supply the report to me (within the next 35 days), otherwise appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. Failure to do either may involve the ICO informing the High Court, which may attract a contempt of court proceeding.

I like to think that Wirral will amend its behaviour and start behaving like proper accountable public servants, but I'm not holding my breath.

Watch this space for more.

John Brace left an annotation ()

"I like to think that Wirral will amend its behaviour and start behaving like proper accountable public servants, but I'm not holding my breath."

You may be hoping that for some time to come... it would require major governance changes to bring that about.

JosieYates left an annotation ()

At least, because of recent publicity and investigations, it may no longer be possible for Council officers to ignore complaints or withold information, thanks to the tenacity of individuals like yourself and Martin Morton.
I would like to see Steve Maddox`s OBE and also his appointment as Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Merseyside commission rescinded. In the latter role he represents her Majesty! I think one other reason for delaying the releasing of the Anna K report, was so his CV, relayed to those present at the ceremony by the Lord Lieutenant,would appear squeaky clean whilst in Public Office.
Proof of his shameless arrogance.
I wish you all the best.
Josie

Pete Sheffield left an annotation ()

Paul,

I also have had similar notices from the ICO, WBC then pay lipservice in disclosing a small amount of information or claim there was no such information to disclose.

I have been in touch with the ICO for 8 or so internal reviews which have gone over time since.. so it is unlikely that these have much impact on the performance of WBC.

Lyon, Rosemary A., Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Cardin,

 

I refer to the Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner dated 15
February 2012. In compliance with Paragraph 3 of the Decision Notice, I
enclose the information which had been withheld under Section 40 of the
Freedom of Information Act, namely the report considered by the Council’s
Employment and Appointments Committee on 17 August 2010. As you are aware,
the actual additional pension costs amounted to £157,537, as provided for
in the Council’s Statement of Accounts. The figure included in the report
to the Employment and Appointments Committee was an estimate. I have
copied this response to the Information Commissioner.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Rosemary Lyon,

Solicitor,

Wirral Borough Council

show quoted sections

John Brace left an annotation ()

Well Wirral Council have responded quicker to the Decision Notice than I thought, but the background paper is still missing. Does the Decision Notice cover it too or not?

JosieYates left an annotation ()

Thank you Paul, on behalf of (I would like to think)all Wirral residents for pursuing this matter. Is it that you are being provided information`on a need to know basis`and not the full story?
I have every confidence in your ability to dig out the whole truth, better luck than I had with the LGO Ombudsman, but that`s a different story.
Regards
Josie

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Thanks Josie,

What I found remarkable about all this is that it took SO LONG to get not all the info, just the report.

I believe there are supporting documents, but although my original request specified EVERYTHING, the ICO in its wisdom did not specify anything additional in its decision notice, preferring for unstated reasons to home in on the report (check it and see) - which for me shows either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to restrict the information. Whichever it was, despite the ICO receiving a LOT more than the public did, it was interfered with so everything fell in an abusive council's favour.... once again.

I'm not going to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. I can't afford the disruption to my life (who can?) and the additional costs it would most likely bring about (even if the bulk of these is borne by the ICO or some other body).

If everybody was like me or you, or Martin Morton, or other people I have had the pleasure of meeting over the last few years, then corrupt bodies would NOT get away with their ongoing abuse and theft.

Pete Sheffield left an annotation ()

The scandal is the persistent difficulty in getting the information and how it takes such tenacity to achieve transparency.

It seems this local authority consistently thinks it is right in constraining information and is continually overturned by the ICO.

When will it learn that legislation applies to it even if it does not agree with it?

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()

Here is a link to an article, setting out what I feel is the background and true motivation behind Wirral Council's very poor response times.

Notably, there are just 2 people dedicated to Freedom of Information and Data at this council (one professional and one admin assistant) - which says it all really.

http://easyvirtualassistance.wordpress.c...

Paul Cardin left an annotation ()