Lumiere why did it not achieve more.

Nick James made this Freedom of Information request to Durham County Council

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

The request was partially successful.

Dear Durham County Council,

I would like the following information:

Can you produce any copies of any debriefs that happened during or after the Lumiere event and any meetings relating to Lumiere where health and Safety were mentioned in the month prior and post the event.

Details of the Council's insurance cover for Lumiere and any emails sent internally and externally relating to this. Any emails relating to Lumiere in relation to health and Safety and crowd control sent during and after the event.

Who decided to hold it in the City and decided to increase the scale of the event despite H&S issues two years ago.

Any copies of lessons learnt, debriefs from the 2009 event that mention crowd control or crowd issues. Any SWOT Analysis carried out for Lumiere. I believe these must have been ignored to hold the event in a bigger format in Durham City again.

Details of what experience Visit County Durham Staff (who I have been told are responsible for this event and managing the Councils relationship with Artichoke)have of managing large events. Large in this context means in excess of 50,000 people and managing contracts of the size of Lumiere. What was there role in these events and their job title.

Any emails sent by and to the Chief Executive George Garlic relating to Lumiere during the event and also in the following two weeks.

The spokesperson for Artichoke was saying she may not come back implying the people of Durham did not deserve it, this was widely reported and damages the County's reputation. It implies the people of the County is not worthy of quality arts. I would like to see how the council planed to manage this and any emails relating to this very damaging public statement.

If any of the requested information is business sensitive I am happy for financial amounts to blanked out so that they can still be released.

I enjoy the Arts and want more across County Durham but I feel that this event could have been so much better had the Council managed it correctly to make it work for the County. As it was it seems that Artichoke used it to promote themselves at the Council and its residents expense.

Yours faithfully,

Nick James

Neale Boswell, Durham County Council

 

12-DEC-11

 

Dear Mr James,

 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

 

I acknowledge your request for information received on 10-DEC-11.

 

Your request is currently being considered and if the information
requested is held by the County Council it will be sent to you within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Environmental
Information Regulations (EIR), subject to the information not being
excepted or containing a reference to a third party.

 

If appropriate, the information will be provided in paper copy, normal
font size.   If you require alternative formats, e.g. language, audio,
large print, etc. then please let me know.

 

For your information, the regulations define a number of exceptions that
may prevent release of the information you have requested. There will be
an assessment and if any of the exception categories apply then the
excepted information will not be released. You will be informed if this is
the case, including your rights of appeal.

 

If the information you request contains reference to a third party then
they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to
release the information to you.

 

There may a fee payable for this information to cover photocopying,
postage and any other production costs. This will be considered and you
will be informed if a fee is payable. In this event the fee must be paid
before the information is processed and released. The 20 working day time
limit for responses is suspended until receipt of the payment.

 

In line with the Information Commissioner’s directive on the disclosure of
information under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), your
request will form part of our disclosure log. Therefore, a version of our
response which will protect your anonymity will be posted on Durham County
Council website.

 

If you have any queries or concerns then please contact:

 

The Information Management Team

Durham County Council

Assistant Chief Executive’s Office

Room 4/140

County Hall

Durham

DH1 5UF

Tel. 0191 372 8371

Email: [Durham County Council request email]

 

Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner
at:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 745

Fax: 01625 524 510

Email: [email address]

www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                          

The Information Management Team

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council

Dear Mr. James,

 

I am writing to clarify your request from what you have request as set out
in s.16 of the FOIA.  In particular, I would like to help you focus your
request on recorded information that the Council may hold regarding your
questions.  In some cases, see below, you are asking for opinions, which
would fall outside the Act.  In another question, you are asking for “who
decided”, which is not specifically asking for recorded information in
that the

 

You requested the following:

 

    

A)   Can you produce any copies of any debriefs that happened during or
 after the Lumiere event and any meetings relating to Lumiere where health
and Safety were mentioned in the month prior and post the event.

You are looking for any meetings in the month before the event and in the
time after the event, up to the date of your request, that cover the
health and safety. In addition, you would like any debriefs after the
event, that is any meeting where the Lumiere event was assessed or
discussed by the Council either on its own or with its contractors
regarding what happened at the event.  Is this correct?    

 

 

    B) Details of the Council's insurance cover for Lumiere and any emails
sent internally and externally relating to this. Any emails

     relating to Lumiere in relation to health and Safety and crowd
 control sent during and after the event.

When you say emails, how do you want us to limit this question?  For
example, a key word search on Lumiere or Health and Safety  could bring up
any reference to topics without being related to the issue. If you would
suggest a way to limit that request because it is open ended in that any
emails. One way to limit it would be to focus on emails between Visit
County Durham Staff and Artichoke on that topic, for example.  Another way
to limit it would be to look at emails between the Safety Advisory Group
officers and Artichoke.  However, until we have some way to limit the
request, it remains open ended and unmanageable in terms of providing the
information you want.

    

C)   Who decided to hold it in the City and decided to increase the scale
of the event despite H&S issues two years ago.

When you ask who decided do you mean in terms of an officer or a
Councillor or an organisation?  Often with these decisions, it is not a
discrete moment with an individual deciding.  What can happen is that a
course of action is suggested and Councillors can form a view on the
general principle of the undertaking and then delegate the details to the
officers to resolve on the exact nature of the issue.  As such, there is
not a specific decision made that has a named individual deciding or a
minute in a Cabinet meeting.  For example, one could have the initial
decision to host an initial event with an option for a subsequent event
based upon the outcome of the first event. In that instance, was the
decision made on the first event, or when the “option” was picked up to
have the second event. 

 

In a sense, one could say it is “the Council” as a body corporate that
decided.  However, if you are seeking recorded information on the decision
making process regarding the Lumiere event, we can review the Cabinet
reports to see if a specific report was brought to the Cabinet or if it
was made under delegated powers as outlined in the Council’s constitution.

 

    

D)   Any copies of lessons learnt, debriefs from the 2009 event that
 mention crowd control or crowd issues. Any SWOT Analysis carried out for
Lumiere. I believe these must have been ignored to hold the event in a
bigger format in Durham City again.

On this question, what do you mean by SWOT analysis? Do you mean for the
decision to have Lumiere as an event? Or do you mean in terms of how
Lumiere was going to be produced?

    

E)   Details of what experience Visit County Durham Staff (who I have been
told are responsible for this event and managing the Councils relationship
with Artichoke)have of managing large events. Large in this context means
in excess of 50,000 people and managing contracts of the size of Lumiere.
What was there role in these events and their job title.

 

On this question, when you say experience what is it that you would like
in terms of recorded information?  For example, do you want copies of CVs
or a copy of the job specification for the various posts within Visit
County Durham Staff?  In this regard, the Visit County Durham Staff would
not have been alone in managing the event or the contracts in that they
can and do call upon the various services within the Council regarding
various issues that may emerge within the Contract. 

 

 

F)   Any emails sent by and to the Chief Executive George Garlick
 relating to Lumiere during the event and also in the following two weeks.

    

G)   The spokesperson for Artichoke was saying she may not come back
implying the people of Durham did not deserve it, this was widely
 reported and damages the County's reputation. It implies the people of
the County is not worthy of quality arts. I would like to see how the
council planed to manage this and any emails relating to this very
damaging public statement.

This appears to be a statement rather than a question that is asking for
recorded information.  The assumption within it requires us to understand
what a statement may or many not imply or mean.  As such, it is asking for
an opinion rather than recorded information.  The Council has to consider
whether to host the event again given the difficult financial climate and
the £125 million savings over the four year medium term financial plan.
[1]http://www.theadvertiserseries.co.uk/new...

 

As this does not ask for recorded information, it seeks an opinion on what
the Artichoke spokesperson might have said and meant, it would fall
outside of the FOIA, which covers recorded information.

 

In sum you asked 11 questions. I would be grateful if you clarify the
following based upon what I have mentioned in the previous section.

1.    Can you produce any copies of any debriefs that happened during or
after the Lumiere event  [See clarification above]

 

2.    Any meetings relating to Lumiere where health and Safety were
mentioned in the month prior and post the event. [See clarification above]

 

3.    Details of the Council's insurance cover for Lumiere any emails sent
internally and externally relating to this. [No need for clarification]

4.    Any emails relating to Lumiere in relation to health and Safety and
crowd control sent during and after the event. [See clarification above]

 

5.    Who decided to hold it in the City and decided to increase the scale
of the event despite H&S issues two years ago. [See clarification above]

 

6.    Any copies of lessons learnt, debriefs from the 2009 event that
mention crowd control or crowd issues. [No need for clarification]

 

7.    Any SWOT Analysis carried out for Lumiere. [See clarification above]

8.    Details of what experience Visit County Durham Staff have of
managing large events. [See clarification above]

9.    What was there role in these events and their job title.[See
clarification above]

10. Any emails sent by and to the Chief Executive George Garlic relating
to Lumiere during the event and also in the following two weeks. [No need
for clarification]

11. The spokesperson for Artichoke was saying she may not come back
implying the people of Durham did not deserve it, this was widely reported
and damages the County's reputation. It implies the people of the County
is not worthy of quality arts. I would like to see how the council planed
to manage this and any emails relating to this very damaging public
statement. [See clarification above]

I look forward to your prompt reply as the request is “paused” until the
request is clarified. Therefore, the sooner you are able to respond the
quicker we can then look for the requested information.  If you have any
questions or need further information, please contact me directly or a
member of the information management team at [2][Durham County Council request email]

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Lawrence Serewicz

 

Principal Information Management Officer

Durham County Council

Room 4/140

County Hall

County Durham

DH1 5UF

 

0191 372 8371

VPN 77778371

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Neale Boswell,

In sum you asked 11 questions. I would be grateful if you clarify the
following based upon what I have mentioned in the previous section.

1. Can you produce any copies of any debriefs that happened during or
after the Lumiere event [See clarification above]
clarification
Yes exact financial figures can be struck through to avoid it being business sensitive but indications of numbers of digits to show Thousands or hundreds left in.

2. Any meetings relating to Lumiere where health and Safety were
mentioned in the month prior and post the event. [See clarification above]
clarification
Internally between County Council Staff, Visit County Durham and you Insurance Team
Visit County Durham and County Council Staff, Artichoke
Between Artichoke and Visit County Durham.

3. Details of the Council's insurance cover for Lumiere any emails sent
internally and externally relating to this. [No need for clarification]

4. Any emails relating to Lumiere in relation to health and Safety and
crowd control sent during and after the event. [See clarification above]
clarification
: Was there ever a SWOT (a standard management practice to identify Stengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) produced with in any document by Visit County Durham for the 2009 or 2011 event ? I would like to see this and the document it is within.
Was this considered when agreeing the event was to go ahead in Durham City.

5. Who decided to hold it in the City and decided to increase the scale
of the event despite H&S issues two years ago. [See clarification above]
clarification
I am seeking recorded information on the decision Who proposed to Cabinet for example that the event took place in the City. If a director who advised that Director, Was the Chief Executive involved in any way with any of these discussions
Was the decision made under delegated powers as outlined in the Council’s constitution? If so who if not was policy followed if not what action will be taken against those who did not follow procedure.

6. Any copies of lessons learnt, debriefs from the 2009 event that
mention crowd control or crowd issues. [No need for clarification]

7. Any SWOT Analysis carried out for Lumiere. [See clarification above]

8. Details of what experience Visit County Durham Staff have of
managing large events. [See clarification above]

9. What was there role in these events and their job title.[See
clarification above]
Copies of CVs detailing experience that I may check and confirm.
I am particularly concerned with Visit County Durham as they were leading the event and have a member of staff who has stated that they are responsible doing so.

10. Any emails sent by and to the Chief Executive George Garlic relating
to Lumiere during the event and also in the following two weeks. [No need
for clarification]

11. The spokesperson for Artichoke was saying she may not come back
implying the people of Durham did not deserve it, this was widely reported
and damages the County's reputation. It implies the people of the County
is not worthy of quality arts. I would like to see how the council planed
to manage this and any emails relating to this very damaging public
statement. [See clarification above]
clarification:
I would like to see any emails between Visit county Durham and DCC staff or Artichoke relating to future Lumiere in future years, again figures can be struck to enable it not to be business sensitive.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Dear Durham County Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Durham County Council's handling of my FOI request 'Lumiere why did it not achieve more.'.

[delay in answering questions ]

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

Yours faithfully,

Nick James

Dear Durham County Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Durham County Council's handling of my FOI request 'Lumiere why did it not achieve more.'.

[delay in answering questions ]

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

Yours faithfully,

Nick James

Neale Boswell, Durham County Council

Our Reference: 13939123

 

Dear Mr James,

 

I acknowledge receipt of your email to request an Internal review of your
Environmental Information Regulations request 11237679 - Details of
Lumiere event.

 

We will now conduct a review and provide a response to you within 20
working days or no later than 40 working days in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

Please use the above reference number is all future correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Neale Boswell

Information Management

Durham County Council

 

 

show quoted sections

Nick James left an annotation ()

This and other requests regarding Lumiere seem to be being delayed, this was not a complex request. I would suggest that the final outcome of this is looked at closely to see why there has been a delay and then how accurate the information given is.

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council

12 Attachments

Dear Mr. James,
Please find attached our response to your request for information. Please accept our apologies for the long delay in responding.

If you have any further questions or need any more information, please contact me directly or the information management team at [Durham County Council request email]

Best,

Lawrence

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

2010 Lumiere stakeholders meeting - mins 2010 Jan 27
2010 County Durham Partnership Notes September
2010 Lumiere 2009 - Lessons Learnt meeting Jan 12
2009 Lumiere Event Management REDACTED
CX Emails Lumiere
2011 Durham Lumiere Event Management REDACTED
2011 Minutes 5 December
2011 Minutes 19 October
2011 Minutes 18 October
EIR 11237679 Lumiere Response final draft
2009 SAG Lumiere de-brief minutes 26 November
2011 Lumiere Insurance Contract reference 11237679

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

show quoted sections

Dear Lawrence Serewicz,

This is not a full reply to my question and I am deeply disappointed and will be taking this mater further as I believe you are intentionality failing to meet your legal obligations

Please give me answers to points eight onwards.

There has been no real attempt to answer these questions and given the amount of time it has taken to produce the documents that you have I am most concerned as to why this is.

Please read my request again and seek answers where you have not provided them.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council



I am away from the office until 20 February 2012 and emails will not be
monitored.  If your request is urgent, please contact the information
management team at [Durham County Council request email].  If it is an FOIA request, please
forward it to the [Durham County Council request email] mailbox. If you have an foi question,
please contact the Information Management Team at [Durham County Council request email] or
0191-372-8371

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Durham County Council

Our Reference: 14661627

Dear Mr James,

I acknowledge receipt of your email to request an Internal review of your Environmental Information Regulations request 11237679 - Details of Lumiere event.

We will now conduct a review and provide a response to you within 20 working days or no later than 40 working days in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please use the above reference number is all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Morris
Information Management
Durham County Council

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information,

Can you supply full details of your findings regarding both internal reviews on this FOI.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. James,

Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review
on the delay in your initial response. Please accept my apologies for the
delay in responding. 

 

If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact
the information management team at [1][Durham County Council request email].

 

Your other internal review, concerning the response is in progress and
will be sent soon.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Lawrence Serewicz

 

Principal Information Management Officer

Durham County Council

Room 4/140

County Hall

County Durham

DH1 5UF

 

0191 372 8371

VPN 77778371

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Lawrence Serewicz,

Again you have not answered the latest request fully:

I requested the information that was not supplied in my original email (points 8 onwards}.

This repeat request will soon be timed out, further adding to the Council's failure to meet its legal obligations for a second time on a single issue.

I am deeply shocked by your statement that non high profile officers working on council business are exempt from FOI requests. Can you clarify giving full details to make your case.

I have seen officers that my request refers to quoted in the press. I therefore wonder if you followed your belief in an exemption from FOI where you have drawn a line?

I also believe you are using business sensitivity as an excuse to avoid answering questions. Please return to questions where this is the case,review and supply information requested. There is little that I requested that can truly be classed as business sensitive.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. James,

Please find attached our response to you request for an internal review.

 

If you need any further information, please contact us at
[1][Durham County Council request email].

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Lawrence Serewicz

 

Principal Information Management Officer

Durham County Council

Room 4/140

County Hall

County Durham

DH1 5UF

 

0191 372 8371

VPN 77778371

 

 

show quoted sections

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. James,
Thanks for the email. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. There appears to be some confusion concerning the reference to officers and disclosure of their personal vs. professional information. The point I was making in the previous email was that the authority has a responsibility to check these issues. We have not redacted officer's information relating to their role. As I mentioned, we have disclosed the names of participants at meetings because they were acting in an official, or business, capacity rather than as a personal capacity. However, one of the points that needs to be considered, as per the Information Commissioner's Office's (ICO) guidance, is their seniority. The more senior an officer is, the less they will have the expectation that their professional role will be exempt from disclosure. By contrast, junior officers who do not have a public facing role or as much responsibility can have the expectation that their information is less likely to be disclosed.

I have attached the ICO guidance to clarify this point.

I hope it is of assistance and use. If you have any further questions, please contact me directly.

Yours faithfully,

Lawrence Serewicz

Principal Information Management Officer
Durham County Council
Room 4/140
County Hall
County Durham
DH1 5UF

0191 372 8371
VPN 77778371

show quoted sections

Dear Lawrence Serewicz,

The ICO guidance does not provide the reason s for you to avoid covering the points raised.

The officers involved are not employed at a low level they are principle officers or above, regardless of their levels they have been quoted in the press and in Council press releases and so have 'a profile' which they encourage. If an officer seeks publicity and is allowed to do so by the County Council then they can not be classed as a "junior officers who do not have a public facing role or as much responsibility can have the expectation that their information is less likely to be disclosed."

I again ask for you to answer my questions and not to avoid doing so.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Dear Lawrence Serewicz,

I have read the ICO guidance and it does not provide the reasons for you to avoid covering the points raised.

The officers involved are not employed at a low level they are principle officers or above, regardless of their levels they have been quoted in the press and in press releases and so have 'a profile' which they actively encourage. If an officer seeks publicity and is allowed to do so by the County Council then they can not be classed as a "junior officers who do not have a public facing role or as much responsibility can have the expectation that their information is less likely to be disclosed."

Please answer my questions.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Lawrence Serewicz, Durham County Council

Dear Mr James
We did not redact officer names. I explained we had to consider the guidance on these questions, which is why I supplied the guidance to you.

These were the types of questions we had to ask and answer when disclosing the information to you.

Yours faithfully,

Lawrence Serewicz
Lawrence W. Serewicz
Principal Information Management Officer
Room 4/140
Durham County Council
DH1 5UF
0191-372-8371

show quoted sections

Dear Lawrence Serewicz,

I have taken ICO guidance.
I now request an internal review of your use of the IOC guidance to withhold information from me. I will then forward your response to the ICO so they can consider what action to take.

Yours sincerely,

Nick James

Freedom of Information, Durham County Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr. James,

 

Further to your request for all emails relating to the internal reviews of
your initial request regarding the Lumiere Festival, please find attached
our response and associated attachment.

 

Kind regards

 

Information Management Team

Durham County Council

 

show quoted sections