Organogram, pay and staff numbers

Katie M. made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Liverpool City Council.

Dear Liverpool City Council,

Could you please provide an organogram, pay scales and equivalent staff numbers for the following structures:
1) Liverpool City Council as a whole;
2) Liverpool City Council staff seconded to Liverpool Direct Limited delivering Council services, by function (i.e. Revenues & Benefits etc etc.)
and where not covered by the above:
3) all areas of responsibility for the current Chief Information Officer.
Please make the formats similar to the datasets provided by Central Government on the data.gov.uk website - an example of which is available at http://data.gov.uk/dataset/staff-staff-o....

Yours faithfully,

Catherine Byrne

Angela Lewis, Liverpool City Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Catherine Byrne. 

Please see attached our acknowledgement letter for your request for
information.

Regards 

Angela Lewis
Information Team
Legal Services
Liverpool City Council
Municipal Buildings
Dale Street,
Liverpool
L2 2DH
Tel: 0151 225 3132
Email: [1][email address].uk 
Website: [2]www.liverpool.gov.uk

Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.  

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.liverpool.gov.ukp/

Jawahier Sharif Ali, Liverpool City Council

3 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne,
Please see attached our response to your FOI request.
Regards

Jawahier Sharif Ali (Fatima)
Information Officer
Legal Service
Liverpool City Council
Municipal Buildings
Dale Street,
Liverpool
L2 2DH
Tel: 0151 225 3132
Email: [1][email address].uk 
Website: [2]www.liverpool.gov.uk

P  Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank
you.  

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. blocked::mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.liverpool.gov.ukp/

Dear Jawahier Sharif Ali,

Please conduct an internal review of this response.
The information provided is neither complete nor coherent. As for the organogram, there is no mention of the Chief Information Officer, although his responsibilities are referred to, briefly, in your response. Nor is there any explanation or indication of what Policy and Partnerships means, who is responsible for this area, etc. etc.
It should be possible to link the organogram to the information on responsibilities, job descriptions, salaries, budgets, etc. This is not possible.

Principle 12 of the "Code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency" published in September 2011, states that local authorities should release AS A MINIMUM, information on, among other things:

Senior employee salaries, names (with the option for individuals to refuse to consent for their name to be published), job descriptions, responsibilities, budgets and numbers of staff. ‘Senior employee salaries’ is defined as all salaries which are above £58,200 and above (irrespective of post), which is the Senior Civil Service minimum pay band. Budgets should include the overall salary cost of staff reporting to each senior employee.
An organisational chart of the staff structure of the local authority including salary bands and details of currently vacant posts.

Please note the phrase "irrespective of post". This clearly means that this information must be provided for all employees of LCC, secondees included, irrespective of where or what they are seconded to.
Please also note that while names may in some circumstances be withheld, details of the salary for any senior post may not.

Please provide information that complies with this guidance. It is available for consultation on http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/....

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Ali, Jawahier Sharif, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne,

I confirm the receipt of your internal review.

Regards,

Jawahier Sharif Ali (Fatima)

Information Officer

Legal Service

Liverpool City Council

Municipal Buildings

Dale Street,

Liverpool

L2 2DH

Tel: 0151 225 3132

Email: [email address]

Website: www.liverpool.gov.uk

P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Jawahier Sharif Ali,

I requested a review of your response to this information request on 6 February.
According to the Information Commissioner's guidance, I should have received the results, or some kind of progress report and explanation, within 20 working days.
Would you please be good enough to update me on the progress of this review?

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Ali, Jawahier Sharif, Liverpool City Council

FOI 179535

Dear Ms Byrne,

I confirm that your request for internal review was logged on 06 February
2012 and is due for response on 14 March 2012. Note that we are still
within that deadline and we are processing your request for case review.

Regards,

Jawahier Sharif Ali (Fatima)

Information Officer

Legal Service

Liverpool City Council

Municipal Buildings

Dale Street,

Liverpool

L2 2DH

Tel: 0151 225 3132

Email: [email address]

Website: www.liverpool.gov.uk

 

P  Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you. 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Jawahier Sharif Ali,

You will know that the Information Commissioner's guidance indicates that internal reviews should be completed within 20 working days.
The deadline you indicate in your most recent response appears to indicate that Liverpool City Council have decided not to comply with this, since your deadline is 27 working days after the request was logged.
Would you please explain this - have you made a mistake or has LCC decided not to comply with the guidance?

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Ali, Jawahier Sharif, Liverpool City Council

FOI 179535

Dear Ms Byrne,

Thank you for your email and your comments have been noted. I can advise the Council regularly reviews it's procedures in line with guidance from regulatory bodies and it is something that may be considered in the future, we would of course always amend our procedures in line with statutory requirements. Currently our response for reviews is within 28 working days. You request for a review was logged on 6 February therefore this would give a response date of 14 March 2012.

Regards,

Jawahier Sharif Ali (Fatima)

Information Officer

Legal Service

Liverpool City Council

Municipal Buildings

Dale Street,

Liverpool

L2 2DH

Tel: 0151 225 3132

Email: [email address]

Website: www.liverpool.gov.uk

P Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

2 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review
of your response to you dated 6 February 2012.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Glanville,

The information you have provided is not what I asked for, and does not comply with the DCLG guidance of September 2011 which I quoted in my request for a review. This guidance still applies.
You have provided me with the Pay Policy, which the later guidance you refer to in your response has required the Council to produce. The link you provided was not correct, but I subsequently found it on the LCC website. Interesting though this may be, it is not what I asked for.
The organisation chart you provided is again, interesting, but still indicates people whose reporting relationships are not clear (dotted lines) and whose budgets, responsibilities etc. are not indicated.
Please provide the information I asked for, in appropriate detail, without delay.

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Gadawodd Katie M. anodiad ()

They are clearly determined not to give any information about the responsibilities, salaries and budgets controlled by LCC employees seconded to LDL.
Most probably this is because they don't know, and they can't find out.
If this really is the case, then these people are not secondees - they are to all intents and purposes employed by LDL, not the council. So LDL should pay them directly itself. This would mean it would also have to stop using the small company exemption and produce proper accounts.
They would also lose their entitlement to a Local Government pension - and this possibility will be the reason Mr McElhinney got himself appointed "Chief Information Officer" (and confirmed as a member of the senior management team he allegedly never left) in June 2011.

Glanville, Andrea, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne

As you have now exhausted the Council's appeal process you will need to
apply to the Information Commissioner's Office as outlined in my
response to you.

Regards

Andrea Glanville
Legal Services
Liverpool City Council
Municipal Buildings
Dale Street
Liverpool
L2 2DH
Telephone 0151 225 2709
Fax: 0151 225 2392
email: [email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Glanville,

Yes, I am fully aware of this option. This was one of the four complaints I submitted to the ICO this morning about your responses to recent requests for information about LDL held by the council.

Catherine Byrne

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

2 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please find attached our response to the ICO complaint reference number
FS50442311.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Andrea Glanville,

In your response to my ICO complaint, you make the following statements:

"Information pertaining to pay scales and staff numbers is held within our Human Resources and Payroll system which is ORACLE. However I have been advised in order to provide the information pertinent to this request would exceed 18 hours and would therefore be considered exempt under Section 12 (1). In the first instance the Council were able to extract staff numbers which were reconciled against the organisational chart provided to you in our response of 13 March 2012. I have attached a copy for reference. To give an idea of how long it took the Council to extract this information from the ORACLE system was in the region of 10 hours. I would add that the staff breakdown for LDL has already been provided to you in our response of 6 February 2012. However in order to provide the level of detail as outlined in your request would require an individual interrogation against the Human Resources and Payroll modules it was anticipated this would take approximately 2 minutes per record.

There are currently 5697 staff records for the Council this would equate to 190 hours to provide the information. Consideration was also given to identify if the same level of information could be provided for LDL and as outlined in our response of 6 February 2012 there are 1133 staff records and applying the same formula as above this would equate to 38 hours. Therefore as identified earlier this cost of compliance with this request exceeds the appropriate limit as outlined under Section 12 (1) of FOIA."

However, the response dated 16 January 2012 to another FOI request (your reference 177324) was as follows:

Thank you for your recent request received 12 December 2011. Your request was actioned under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in which you requested the following information:

1. How many employees of LCC are seconded to LDL (WTE)

2. The number of employees earning over £50,000, by band.

Response:

I can confirm that the City Council holds information relevant to your request.

1. The FTE staff figure for LDL at 1 December 2011 was 1051.30.

2. 22
£50,000 to £69,999pa – 15
£70,000 to £89,999pa – 3
£90,000 to £109,999pa – 2
£110,000 and above – 2

The statement that every record in your HR database would have to be individually interrogated to extract such information is frankly astonishing, because extracting this kind of information, quickly and easily, is what a database such as Oracle is for.
The response to request 177324 confirms this, and indeed indicates that the Council can and has already identified those LDL secondees earning over 50,000, and could therefore provide the information I am seeking. This means that the number of staff records that need to be examined is not 1133, but 22.
Applying your formula to these 22 records, it would take 44 minutes to extract the information, and so the Section 12 (1) exemption does not apply.
I would be most grateful if you would supply the information requested without delay.

On the second point dealt with in your response, regarding the number of staff who receive more than £58,200, you repeat the assertion that this information is provided in the final accounts published by LCC. However, in correspondence with your office regarding another FOI request for specific information on senior salaries (your reference 155354, your colleague Kevin Simm confirmed that the figures in the annual accounts published on the LCC website do not include the LDL secondees, so the information I am seeking is not already available.

I will be forwarding a copy of this response to the ICO Case Officer dealing with my complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Byrne

Dear Ms Glanville,

Your response to my complaint to the Information Commissioner contained the following statement:
"Finally and in accordance with Section 16 of Freedom of Information Act 2000.... if you believe you can refine your request further which will allow us to give you further information pertinent to your request we will consider it."
I wrote to you on 22 November pointing out that the council had in fact already extracted the 22 records that contain the information I requested in response to a previous request, and therefore would be able to provide it within the time limit of 18 hours.
The communication was not acknowledged and I have received no reply. Would you please confirm that, as stated in your response, and as required by law, you are considering this request.

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Glanville, Andrea, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne

I confirm the Council are considering the request further now that you have refined it to the 22 officers.

Regards




Andrea Glanville I Information & Practice Manager
Liverpool City Council I Municipal Buildings I Dale Street I Liverpool I L2 2DH
T: 0151 225 2411 I E: [email address]
Online: www.liverpool.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please find attached our response you your ICO complaint reference
FS5044231.  I confirm a copy of this response has also been sent to the
case officer at the ICO.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Glanville,

My response to the ICO regarding your most recent response was as follows:

FOI Complaint – reference FS50442311

Regarding The Council’s response of 7 December 2012 to my refined request, I would ask you to please consider the comments and documents provided in earlier emails, and would reiterate the following points:
1) On the question of the inclusion of the LDL staff in the LCC accounts, Ms. Glanville’s assertion that the Council had never stated that the LDL staff were not included in the LCC accounts is not true. This statement was made in an email dated 1 July 2011 in the correspondence around a request for information on senior salaries submitted to LCC on 24 June 2011. I attach a zip file of the correspondence.
2) My “refined” request is for the job titles and salary details for the employees of Liverpool City Council seconded to Liverpool Direct. A previous response by the council (their ref. 1877324 – copy attached to my email to you of 22 November) stated that there were 22 people earning over 50,000 as of 31 December 2012, two of whom over 110,000. The latest response states that there are a total of 29 people, of whom just one over 110,000. This is a considerable discrepancy, which surely requires explanation.
3) The Council quotes from the guidance issued by your office regarding requests of this nature. In considering the fairness of the disclosure the Council relies on the comparison with how other officers within the council are treated. It gives little consideration to the other elements of fairness, namely the seniority, public profile, and significant level of personal judgement and individual responsibility. And above all, it specifically ignores the question of performance related pay. Liverpool Direct Limited has two incentive schemes – one is a reward scheme for all staff and the other is a bonus scheme for, presumably, staff with greater responsibility. There is a specific board committee composed of the Chief Executive of LDL and the Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council (in his capacity as an LDL director, presumably) who decide on these bonuses. The documents explaining the composition, function and powers of this committee are publicly available (disclosed in response to another FOI request submitted by Julian Todd for details of the “refresh” of the LDL contract. Your office issued a Decision Notice about this request).
So Mr. McElhinney, who is, as the Council have repeatedly stated, a Council employee seconded to act as Chief Executive of LDL, and is also the Chief Information Officer of Liverpool City Council with responsibility for Premises Management and Trade Union Relations/HR in addition to his work with LDL, decides on the bonuses of all LDL staff.
So he is very senior and his role requires a very significant level of personal judgment and individual responsibility. But no-one has a clue what this man is paid, what his salary is composed of, and who decides it. The only thing we do know is that he is definitely an LCC employee with all the advantages in terms of pensions etc. that this brings.
He also has a public profile – in addition to the many articles, comments and blogs that mention him by name, he has been the subject of at least one interview in the press (Guardian), and regularly addresses conferences and seminars on his experience running LDL.
Most of these considerations also apply to the remainder of the LDL management team who are LCC secondees (the majority).
They are responsible for the operation and management of fundamental council services (HR, IT, etc.), which cost tens of millions per year. They also sell considerable quantities of IT equipment to the Council, to which it acts as sole supplier. It is entirely appropriate for the public to know what exactly people do, what they are paid, and if indeed they receive bonuses, what they amount to and indeed what they are based on. Employees of LCC of comparable seniority and responsibility do not receive performance-related pay and have no opportunity to do so.
As to the discrepancy in the numbers, this should be explained. Either a number of highly paid posts have been created, or people in post have received pay rises. It may be that the difference in numbers (29 and 22) is due to the fact that the lower figure counts basic salaries and the higher one includes bonuses. Any of these alternatives would be in stark contrast with the situation in the remainder of the council, which has cut staff and salaries. The bill for all this is paid by LCC, yet the elected members deciding on the budget have not and are not provided with any of this information, and clearly the public are not either.
I accept that providing these details may involve the disclosure of some personal data, but would suggest that this is wholly warranted by the lack of proper information about how around £80 million per year of public money is actually spent, by an organisation that, according to its published accounts, receives every penny of its income from Liverpool City Council. The fact that the Council has been forced to cut all sorts of other public services, and will have to cut still further next year, makes this disclosure even more compelling.
As stated previously, I will be happy to provide proper evidence documenting every single assertion that I have made.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Byrne

Glanville, Andrea, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne

Your comments have been noted I will await direction from the ICO.

Kind regards




Andrea Glanville I Information & Practice Manager
Liverpool City Council I Municipal Buildings I Dale Street I Liverpool I L2 2DH
T: 0151 225 2411 I E: [email address]
Online: www.liverpool.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please find attached our response to the Information Commissioners email
of 8 January 2013.  I can confirm a copy of this letter has also been sent
to the ICO.
Regards
A Glanville

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Andrea Glanville,

You will be aware that on 25th March the Information Commissioner issued a Decision Notice ordering the council to issue a fresh response to this request within 35 calendar days (the decision is reproduced below - the full notice is on the ICO website).
It is now 50 calendar days since the Notice was issued.
You have not appealed this decision, but have provided neither a suitable response nor any explanation or excuse for not doing so.
Please acknowledge this communication and provide the response ordered by the Information Commissioner without delay.

Catherine Byrne

Reference: FS50442311
Decision notice

Date: 25 March 2013

Public Authority: Liverpool City Council

Decision (including any steps ordered)

1. The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (the council) concerning an organogram, pay scales and staff numbers in a particular format for the council and Liverpool Direct Ltd (LDL). The council responded by stating that it held some, but not all, of the requested information. At internal review stage, and subsequently, the council provided further information. After the Commissioner began his investigation the council applied section 40(2) to some of the requested information which it later disclosed. The council also applied section 12(1) at a late stage. The Commissioner has decided that the council has relied inappropriately on section 12(1). He has concluded though, on the balance of probability, that the council does not hold any information regarding the salary of the Chief Executive of LDL.

2. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:

- Issue a fresh response under the FOIA that does not rely on section 12(1).

The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Glanville, Andrea, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne

My apologies for not providing you an update on our response in relation to the Decision Notice issued by the ICO, as you will be aware they have advised that we cannot rely on Section 12(1) for the non-disclosure of the information to the reporting lines of those staff on £50k plus. I have been gathering the information and I have a couple of queries I have to resolve, but I will assure you that I have been dealing with this as a priority. I do apologise for the lack of contact and would thank you for your patience.

Regards


Andrea Glanville I Information & Practice Manager
Liverpool City Council I Municipal Buildings I Dale Street I Liverpool I L2 2DH
T: 0151 225 2411 I E: [email address]
Online: www.liverpool.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne
I will be looking to send the response to you on Wednesday 29/5/13 the
reason for the slight delay is I have to consult with a number of staff to
advise that information pertinent to them is about to be disclosed.  This
is to staff who are considered quite junior within the organisation as
their information is to be released as they report to an officer who is in
receipt of £50k+
I trust this is acceptable.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

2 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please find attached our response to the Decision Notice FS50442311 issued
by the ICO.  This now concludes our response to your request.  Once again
apologies for the delay and thanks for your continued patience.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

2 Atodiad

Dear Ms Gregory
Please find attached response that has been issued to the requester, I
trust this satisfies the outcome of Decision Notice reference FS50442311.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Andrea Glanville,

The information that you have provided is incomplete, and does not comply with the Decision Notice for the following reasons:
1) There is no further information on the pay banding of Directors in LDL. Your response to me of 1 February stated:
"Directors within LDL are within a salary range of £70,000 to £125,000......
Currently there are Directors within the following areas HR&P, Revenues, Benefits, Public Access, People Development and Corporate Services and Performance and Business Development."
You have listed 5 directors in yhour response to the Decision Notice, but have not provided any salary information. Could you please confirm that there are in fact only 5 LCC-seconded Directors in LDL, and provide the salary banding information.

2) The reporting staff information is incomplete.
The data.gov.uk format, which I specifically requested, provides information on the cost of all staff reporting to senior officers of each department or agency, not just direct reports. So it shows how the total salary cost of the department or agency in question is actually allocated.
The information you have provided is on direct reports only, and does not give any information on the numbers or total salaries of the reporting staff (which here means all staff for which the senior person is hierarchically responsible). For instance, the Council has already disclosed (in the details of the LDL Refresh Proposal) that there is a team of Business Development staff, but your spreadsheet mentions just one person.
The information you have provided accounts for a maximum of £2 million of the £30 million plus total salary costs of LCC-secondees to LDL. As you are aware, I narrowed my request to LDL staff earning over £50,000, so I do not expect detailed information about job titles and salary scales - it will be sufficient if you could supply the numbers and total salary costs of the staff reporting to each of these more senior figures.

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Dear Andrea Glanville,

If you are not already doing so, please consider my earlier message a formal request for an internal review.

Catherine Byrne

Glanville, Andrea, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne

Unfortunately I will be absent for the next week and I have only just had the chance to read your email, I'm sure you will appreciate I won't be able to respond to you by the end of today so I would ask that you await my return to consider the further points you have raised which won't be until 24/6/13.

Regards




Andrea Glanville I Information & Practice Manager
Liverpool City Council I Municipal Buildings I Dale Street I Liverpool I L2 2DH
T: 0151 225 2411 I E: [email address]
Online: www.liverpool.gov.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Ms Glanville,

OK. Thanks for keeping me informed.

Catherine byrne

Gadawodd Katie M. anodiad ()

Could someone else please re-submit the question about David McElhinney and his salary. The Council convinced the ICO that he is seconded to BT, not to LDL, and used this to argue that it does not hold any information, and the ICO accepted this without compelling evidence that they are not being truthful (the ICO is “…entitled to accept the public authority’s word and not to investigate further in circumstances where there is no evidence as to an inadequate search ..." and no "grounds for believing there is a motive to withhold information actually in its possession”)
But it is now clear that the search was inadequate and the Council did not tell the truth.

Here's why:

Cherie Booth, in her advice on the lawfulness of appointing him temporary CEO, stated that the council could not consent to his conflict of interest without proper disclosure (especially since these interests are are clearly prejudicial). This is what she said:

"4. Mr McElhinney is currently seconded to BT and acts as BT’s Client Partner for Local Government in the United Kingdom. Despite this secondment, and his permanent position at LDL, Mr McElhinney remains on the City Council payroll and is regarded as a City-Council employee.
As an aside, I note that 1 am not sure that as a matter of law he would be so regarded.
I understand that in practice, BT simply reimburses the City Council for all sums paid to Mr McElhinney."

and

"15 Firstly, I note that this is potentially a matter of criminal law. Indeed, s17 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides as follows:
‘Disclosure by officers of interest in contracts”
(1) If it comes to the knowledge of an officer employed, whether under this Act or any other enactment, by a local authority that a contract in which he has any pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect (not being a contract to which he is himself a party) has been, or is proposed to be, entered into by the authority or any committee therefore, he shall as soon as practicable give notice in writing to the authority of the fact that he is interested therein. ...
(2) An office of a local authority shall not, under colour of his office or employment, accept any fee or reward whatsoever other than his proper remuneration.
(3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the summary scale .
(4) ....
1 note that provided that, Mr McElhinney complies with the above obligations, I don’t see any issues arising as a matter of criminal law."

So she concluded with this:

"37.As set out above, in order for the City Council to consent to the actual conflict of interest situation, the City Council must require Mr McElhinney to provide full and accurate disclosure of all material facts regarding his personal interests.
38. It seems to me, that as a matter of good practice, the City Council should consider taking the following steps which are contained in the proposed model code of conduct set out above:
1. Requiring Mr McElhinney to record in writing any interests (as set out above) and send this to the City Council’s monitoring officer.
2. As such interests are likely to be prejudicial interests; I would also suggest that they are publicly declared."

This makes it crystal clear that IF THEY DID NOT OBTAIN PROPER INFORMATION ABOUT MCELHINNEY'S INTERESTS HIS APPOINTMENT WOULD NOT BE LAWFUL. They actually rushed through his appointment as Chief Information Officer of LCC (a new, made-up post) to bolster his claim to being a (pensionable) LCC employee, in response to her remark about this point, so it would be astonishing if they hadn't also obtained the necessary info on his interests (alhough City Solicitor Paul Evans left in a hurry in the middle of this, which makes you think....).

But just look what they told the Information Commissioner during the appeal on this request
(quotes from the Decision Notice):

"34. On 18 February 2013, the council clarified the position of the Chief Executive of LDL. He was seconded to LDL in 2001. In 2006 he seconded from LDL to BT. The council confirmed again on 27 February 2013 (during a phone call) that it did not hold his salary information and that this had been checked again directly with the Chief Executive of LDL himself. The council stressed that any future requests from the complainant concerning his pay and conditions would be considered vexatious under section 14(1)."

"39. The complainant does not accept that the council does not hold this particular information. The complainant contends that this information should be held for public accountability, that the council is contractually obliged to hold this information, and she has provided argument to that effect. However, THE COUNCIL HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED HOLDING THIS INFORMATION and, as there is no evidence to support the view that any further information is held in relation to this request, the Commissioner has concluded in this case that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information relating to the salary of the Chief Executive of LDL is not held."

"40. The Commissioner is sympathetic to the argument that it might be reasonable to assume that the personnel details of an individual that is technically an employee, although on secondment for twelve years, might be held by the employer. In this instance, though, it is clear that the council strongly hold the view that THEY HAVE NEITHER THE OBLIGATION NOR DESIRE TO KEEP THE DETAILS OF SUCH SENIOR SECONDEES ON FILE."

Because of the threat to consider any further requests from me on this subject vexatious (although the ICO made clear that he would not accept this in future), it would be quicker and more effective if someone else asks this question.

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please see attached which is self explanatory, if you clarify that this is
correct I will proceed with the review.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Andrea Glanville,

Yes, I confirm that the summary in the letter you attached to yesterday's email is correct.
However, may I point out that I actually asked for this review on 14 June, which is almost a month ago. The information I have requested is straightforward, and should actually have been provided in your belated response to the Decision Notice, so I would hope to receive it within days rather than weeks.

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Dear Andrea Glanville,

Could you please let me know what progress you have made with this review? May I remind you that I actually requested it almost 8 weeks ago, on 14 June, and your last communication to me was 20 working days ago, on 10 July.

Cordially

Catherine Byrne

Dear Liverpool City Council,

May I remind you that in the Decision Notice on this request (25 March), you were ordered to issue a fresh response within 35 calendar days. You produced an inadequate response after some 65 calendar days, and I requested a review on 14 June. I have heard nothing since Ms Glanville's communication of 10 July.

As the Information Commissioner has reminded Liverpool City Council in at least one previous Decision Notice, he made clear in his ‘Good Practice Guidance No 5’, published in February 2007 that internal reviews should be completed as promptly as possible, and that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. You were also reminded, in the same Decision Notice, that in exceptional circumstances it may be reasonable to take longer but in no case should the time taken exceed 40 working days.

Today is the 40th day since I requested an internal review and 4 and a half months since the Decision Notice was issued.

I would be most grateful if someone would provide some explanation for this extraordinary delay.

Sincerely

Catherine Byrne

Dear Andrea Glanville,

Please note the communication reproduced below, which I sent to the main FOI contact address for Liverpool City Council on Thursday 8 August.

Dear Liverpool City Council,

May I remind you that in the Decision Notice on this request (25
March), you were ordered to issue a fresh response within 35
calendar days. You produced an inadequate response after some 65
calendar days, and I requested a review on 14 June. I have heard
nothing since Ms Glanville's communication of 10 July.

As the Information Commissioner has reminded Liverpool City Council
in at least one previous Decision Notice, he made clear in his
‘Good Practice Guidance No 5’, published in February 2007 that
internal reviews should be completed as promptly as possible, and
that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20
working days from the date of the request for review. You were also
reminded, in the same Decision Notice, that in exceptional
circumstances it may be reasonable to take longer but in no case
should the time taken exceed 40 working days.

Today is the 40th day since I requested an internal review and 4
and a half months since the Decision Notice was issued.

I would be most grateful if someone would provide some explanation
for this extraordinary delay.

Sincerely

Catherine Byrne

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Byrne
Please find attached response, I would advise I have also sent a copy of
this to the ICO.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Katie M. anodiad ()

Here is the response, in full:

Dear Ms Byrne

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

I refer to your emails in which you have asked for a further internal review of my response dated 29 May 2013.
To clarify you have confirmed that you are asking for the following points to be considered as part of the review process.
The number of seconded Directors from Liverpool City Council to LDL.
The salary banding of the Directors seconded from the Council to LDL
Total salary cost of the departments within LDL – this is to include the number and total salary costs of the staff reporting to each of these more senior figures.
I have also noted your comments in which you have stated that you had asked for the information in the data.gov.uk format, and you have stated that you did not require detailed information about job titles and salary scales.

In response to point 1 I would advise that this is the first time that you have asked for this information and therefore should have been logged as a new request, however I can advise that there are no Directors seconded from the Council to LDL. However to be of assistance there are a total of 6 staff from the Council who now hold Directors posts in LDL.

In response to point 2 the information I provided in my response of 7 December 2012 did not identify the salary bands of the Directors and I should have stated in my response of 29 May 2013 that based on the information provided the pay bands for Directors in LDL are £75k - £110k

In response to point 3 as a result of Decision Notice reference FS50442311 the Council identified that the following information was to be provided.

The job title, grade and pay band of all staff on £50k+ together with the same information for the direct reports of those staff.

As a point of reference I have pulled an extract from your original request of 30 December 2011 which stated the following:

Could you please provide an organogram, pay scales and equivalent staff numbers for the following structures:

Liverpool City Council staff seconded to Liverpool Direct Limited delivering Council services, by function (i.e. Revenues & Benefits etc etc.)and where not covered by the above:
Please make the formats similar to the datasets provided by Central Government on the data.gov.uk website - an example of which is available at http://data.gov.uk/dataset/staff-staff-o....

I would also advise that you later refined your request in relation to LDL staff to include only those staff on £50k+

The Council have told you on a number of occasions that we did not hold the datasets of information you keep referring to and that the reference you make are in fact only suggested guidelines from Central Government. The Council also advised you in its response of 13 March 2012 that the Council had a statutory obligation to provide certain information as identified under the Localism Act 2011 but did not include the level of data you are asking for.

Therefore I consider the Council have complied with this element of your original request and also Decision Notice reference FS50442311 in that we have provided you with the number of staff on £50k plus together with their reporting lines and we have also included in this the job titles and pay bands of those respective staff.

This now concludes our response and if you remain dissatisfied please contact the Information Commissioners Office, quoting the above reference [FS50442311]

Yours sincerely

A Glanville

Dear Andrea Glanville,

With regard to your internal review, I would inform you that I have raised the following discrepancy in your response with the ICO:

You state:
"In response to point 1 I would advise that this is the first time that you have asked for this information and therefore should have been logged as a new request, however I can advise that there are no Directors seconded from the Council to LDL. However to be of assistance there are a total of 6 staff from the Council who now hold Directors posts in LDL.

In response to point 2 the information I provided in my response of 7 December 2012 did not identify the salary bands of the Directors and I should have stated in my response of 29 May 2013 that based on the information provided the pay bands for Directors in LDL are £75k - £110k"

Thank you for the clarification in the first paragraph, although the difference between Directors seconded from the Council to LDL and staff who now hold Directors posts in LDL actually escapes me.

As for the second paragraph, £75 - £110k is not a meaningful payband. May I remind you that the Decision Notice actually stated:

"24. On 7 December 2012, the council wrote to the complainant,acknowledging that the complainant had refined her request as follows:
“The job titles of the following groups of staff who fall within the following pay bands from LDL:
1. £50,000 to £69,999 per annum
2. £70,000 to £89,999 per annum
3. £90,000 to £109,999 per annum
4. £110,000 and above”

25. The council confirmed that it held this information but applied section 40(2) to the release of the job titles and concluded that it would be unfair to release the job titles of the groups of staff falling within the requested pay bands. The council explained that it followed rules that applied to final accounts when considering the release of information: job titles were released with regard to an officer who receives in excess of £100k; if the officer is on £150k plus they would be named. In order to dispel some confusion that had arisen in the council’s responses, the council explained that its final accounts included all council staff that were seconded to LDL.

26. On 7 January 2013, the Commissioner asked for further information about the refined request made by the complainant as the council appeared to have confined it to the job titles of individuals that fell within certain pay bands."

and

"28. The Commissioner also wrote to the council to state that he was likely to find that the disclosure of the job titles of most/all of the individuals earning the quoted pay band figures, would not be incompatible with fairness or outside their reasonable expectations and that individuals being paid within those pay bands were likely to be fairly senior figures. Therefore, the council needed to look again at this matter."

Surely this means that you must disclose the job titles of the LDL Directors seconded from the Council, together with the appropriate salary band ("the quoted pay band figures").

I would therefore ask you to please disclose the salary bands applicable to Louise Gray, Colette Kavanaugh, Martin Jungnitz, Paul Robinson and the other two LCC seconded directors. Please include any additional remuneration they have received under Incentive Arrangements pursuant to the Terms of Reference of the Performance Pay Committee of Liverpool Direct, Annex 1 to the LDL Refresh Proposal.

Cordially,

Catherine Byrne

Andrea Glanville, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms Byrne
 
I refer to your email of 12 August 2013 and specifically your comments
regarding job titles of LDL Directors and pay bands.  I can advise all
this information has been provided to you.  I provided the job titles in
my response of 29 May 2013 and I provided the pay bands in my response of
12 August 2013.
I have advised that any issues you have with our response please direct
them to the ICO, as the Council have complied with the outcome of the
Decision Notice issued by the ICO.
Regards
A Glanville
Information Manager

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Katie M. anodiad ()

There really is a compelling public interest argument in disclosing this information. While the response no longer relies on section 12(1) (the idiotic time excuse), LCC have not produced the information requested and have provided no reason for not doing so.
The people concerned are senior figures responsible for major areas of the council's work, responsible for correspondingly large budgets. They are paid from the public purse, but we have no idea how much they actually receive. Documents already in the public domain indicate that in addition to their salaries, they receive performance-related pay that is determined by an unelected committee that is not accountable to the Council (the LDL Performance Pay Committee). Several of them also (again, from published documents) appear to be undertaking similar roles with similar pay arrangements at a neighbouring council (Lancashire County Council and the OCL Remuneration Committee). None of them appear to have made declarations of these interests.

I've asked the ICO to look at this again.