Document that isn't what it purports to be
Dear Ms Pook,
With reference to your response of 26 July 2010. Thank you.
The attached document is not what I requested and noteably it is not what it purports to be. It is not the minutes of the meeting. It is not even contemporaneous. It was created five years after the event and signed (last Tuesday 20th July 2010) by someone who retired years ago and is not even part of the Commission and is of no validity.
Why was it necessary to create such a document now? Why is it marked as Confidential? Why was the meeting held at 11pm? Why was the meeting held five days before Tony Redmond and his wife flew to Australia? These issues require an explanation, please.
Please forward in their entirety the contemporaneous minutes of the meeting held on 8 May 2005 at which Tony Redmond (current salary £170,00-£175,000 pa according to the new Government's list of those in the Public Sector who are overpaid) asked those present to authorise a payment from public funds to himself to pay for his holiday, and his wife's holiday i.e. the flights, hotel bills, taxi fares etc. and on top of that to authorise that he wouldn't be required to take annual leave for most of this holiday, which he had previously correctly arranged at his own expense it seems.
Please also forward in their entirety the contemporaneous minutes of the meeting of the Commission previous to 8 May 2005 and the next one held after 8 May 2005.
Yours sincerely,
Dear Ms Meeks
Our ref: CS/10/084
This is to acknowledge receipt of your I request below received on 27 July. I will respond within the 20 working day target (which would be by 24 August 2010) or, if unable to do so, I will write to you again explaining why.
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's office | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
Anne Hide left an annotation ()
Readers may also find this interesting.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...
Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()
Here's a copy of my April May June 2005 CLAE monthly meeting minutes to be going on with
http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com/p/clae-mi...
Dear Ms Meeks
I am in the process of getting a response together to your request below, but I need to consult a colleague about some of the minutes you have requested and he is on leave until next Tuesday - when the response is due. I am afraid, therefore, there will be a slight delay, and I apologise for this, but I hope to get a full response to you within a few days of that date.
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's office | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
Dear Ms Meeks
I have been able to deal with the outstanding matter relating to the minutes quicker than I expected, so I now attach a letter in response to your request below, along with the minutes you requested.
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's office | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()
The FOI below suggests they can't get in touch with Mrs Thomas about her own holidays abroad but this one proves they have, twice in recent months contacted her about Redmond's holidays abroad.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mr...
Anne Hide left an annotation ()
Instead of just admitting they didn't hold a record of any such meeting (a valid FOI response), the secretary took it upon himself to fabricate one.
Dear Foi Officer,
You wrote above..." Ms Abrahams and Mrs Thomas stated they had a clear recollection of the discussion of the paper at a meeting that was Chaired by Mrs Thomas, after Mr Redmond withdrew, and of approving the proposal. Mr White stated he does not recall the detail of the meeting but does recall that the visit was reported to the Commission and some spending was authorised. Mr Redmond recalls withdrawing from the meeting after circulating the report, and being notified immediately afterwards by Mrs Thomas that the proposal had been approved. We do not know why there is no minute of this decision; it is possible that this was a simple oversight, as all officers had been asked to leave during the discussion".
Tony Redmond says that he was notified immediately after withdrawing. Thus there could have been no discussion of the issues raised by the "proposal". Why did the Commission's Chief Executive and Accounting Officer accept this as the careful scrutiny of the use of Public Funds that he is required to oversee by his Code of Conduct?
Yours sincerely,
jo meeks
Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()
Oversight?
It was not on the meeting agenda produced the month before
http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/clae_doc...
and no mention was made in the official minutes of the meeting at the time.
http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/clae_doc...
Some oversight!
Probably not too keen on the info being made public at that time because they were due to give evidence to a Government Select Committee on the Role and Effectiveness of the Local Government Ombudsman a week later on the 15th March 2005.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...
From the evidence, "Mr Redmond: No. The Audit Commission has no jurisdiction in respect of the Ombudsmen operation. We have external auditors that will validate our accounts before we submit them as a public statement but also to the ODPM. We have no relationship with the Audit Commission in that respect. We have a relationship in terms of regulatory involvement but not in terms of
accountability."
I also submitted written evidence to that investigation and attended on the day. Therefore, I can assure everyone that if I had known about the trip to Australia at the taxpayer's expense I would have made sure the select committee did.
Dear Ms Meeks
I said "Mr Redmond recalls withdrawing from the meeting ....and being notified immediately afterwards..." that is, immediately after the meeting. I also said - as you have quoted yourself - that Ms Abrahams and Mrs Thomas recalled the discussion of the paper at a meeting chaired by Mrs Thomas. So, I have clearly stated there was discussion of the proposal.
Yours sincerely
Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's office | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP |
www.lgo.org.uk |
Pauline Nunn left an annotation ()
What Pat Thomas wrote in her response(s) regarding Mr Karney's quest to produce a minute for a meeting that was held in secret over 5 years ago. Scroll down, there are a few documents. White's response is also included.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/43...
Pauline Nunn left an annotation ()
One other point to note is the date on the report and the date of the meeting, both the 8th March 2005. With the meeting starting at 11am and with a number of Commissioner's travelling to the venue for the meeting they would not have had long after arriving to even read the report let alone fully understand what they were agreeing to.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()
I have fist hand experience of the LGO fabricating documents in order to respond to an FOI request. I my case the FOI request wasn't even submitted to the LGO, it was submitted to a council. However, the LGO still fabricated a letter so the council could respond to my FOI request. The problem was that the letter, supposedly written by Pat Thomas in 2002 was signed by Anne Seex who didn't take up post until 2005,
The council could have just stated they didn't hold the information I sought, so why go to the trouble of contacting the LGO to fabricate a letter thus allowing the Council to pretend they did?