Mayor Anderson 89.500k Chesterfield High School

Audrey O'Keefe 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.

The request was refused by Liverpool City Council.

Dear Liverpool City Council,

I wish to ask the following FOI.

Saturday 16th July Mayor Anderson made the public claim that he'd paid back the 89.500k he took from the Public Purse to pay his private legal fees re Chesterfield v Anderson saying the money was paid back last week.
This claim was made at the Black Lives Matter Demo to members of the public.

1. what date did Mayor Anderson pay the 89.500k back.
2. what account did it go into [2] who did it go via.
3. produce all paper worker relating to the 89.500k being paid back.
4. produce paper work relating to this between Mr Fitzgerald /Miss McLoughlin/Mayor Anderson.
5. Was the 89.500k paid from Mayor Anderson's personal account or other means.

Yours faithfully,

Audrey O'Keefe.

John Coyne left an annotation ()

This is a significant question.

Michael Committee Services Jones, Liverpool City Council

Information request
Our reference: 478146

show quoted sections

Josie Mullen left an annotation ()

It is clear from the Tribunal docs and Appeals docs that the whole case had nothing to do with the Mayoral position. In fact, the Appeals tribunal was solely about holiday pay remuneration etc.
Could this be Malfeasance While In Public Office [improper claims from public funds]? If so, this would implicate not only Mayor Anderson but also the City Solicitor and CEO

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms O’Keefe,

 

Please see attached response to your FOI Request as submitted to Liverpool
City Council.

 

Regards

 

Information Team

 

Information Requests

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2]LCC auto signature (2)

show quoted sections

References

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

Dear Information Requests,

Thank you for your reply which to say the least I find weird.

1 My FOI was ''Has Mayor Anderson paid back the 89.500 your reply ''we don't know what he said, and LCC have no information on it .
Q. (1a) Please ask Mayor Anderson has he paid back 89.500k I require a 'yes' or no' answer.

2. Q (2a)Why did you provided all that “context” as you call it, repeating the outworn justifications you used before. I never requested this information.

3. You state "The Indemnity was determined to be appropriate pursuant to Officers duty to safeguard the interests of the City Council and not by way of advising the Mayor as an individual personally or assisting in the conduct of his case" This is an outright non-truth providing no justification whatsoever for funding the appeal, which wasn't about the facts, but the money, Mayor Anderson’s pension as everyone now knows.

4. Also the problem of the assertion that LCC were safeguarding the interests of the Council - how exactly did Mayor Anderson's dismissal threaten the interests of the Council? It didn’t threaten the interests of the council, it threatened Mayor Anderson's pocket to be precise.
(4a)Q How did Mayor Anderson's dismissal threaten the interest of the Council.

5. You then state something that isn't true "Mayor Anderson’s employment had been terminated as a direct result of his appointment to the office of Elected Mayor the Tribunal makes it crystal clear that the dismissal was as a result of The Mayors behaviour and definitely did not justify the appeal.

6. You make the point that The Mayor doesn't need to pay back the 89.500 because "There is no liability, existing or future, placed on any Officer or Member who is in receipt of a properly applied Indemnity to contribute towards the cost of the City Council’s decision to apply the Indemnity. There is therefore no requirement upon Mayor Anderson OBE to make any form of contribution towards costs associated with the application of the indemnity".
(6a) I didn’t ask whether there was any requirement for The Mayor to pay back the 890.500 so this is actually irrelevant.
(6b)Q Why did the council feel the need to make reference to this.

7. You, LCC may have convinced yourselves that you could help Mayor Anderson by granting an indemnity to start the initial employment tribunal proceedings but there is absolutely no way that anyone could think that the appeal was a "proper application" of such an indemnity.

8. The external legal advice, if it was all about the Council's interests and not Mayor Anderson's, then why not release all the paper work.
(8a)Q I request LCC release these documents/paper work/emails regarding external legal advice.

My FOI was straightforward and I would have expected a straightforward reply
but for some reason that only LCC know you have provided all that “context” your reply is terminally stupid opening up another can of worms for the Mayor.

Mayor Anderson was absolutely crucified in both the initial tribunal and the appeal as stated in the Judgement. LCC have failed to answer my FOI obviously the cover up continues.

Yours sincerely,

AUDREY O'KEEFE

Dear Information Requests,

Can I please have an acknowledgment.

Yours Cordially

Audrey O'Keefe

Symm, Kevin, Liverpool City Council

Dear Ms O'Keefe

Can you confirm what you wish me to acknowledge as we have already responded to your request?

Regards,

Kevin Symm I Senior Information Officer
Liverpool City Council I Cunard Building I Liverpool I L3 1DS
T: 0151 233 0418 I E: [email address]
Postal address:
Liverpool City Council I Municipal Buildings I Dale Street I Liverpool I L2 2DH

show quoted sections

Dear Symm, Kevin,

1.Please ask Mayor Anderson has he paid back 89.500k I require a 'yes' or no' answer.
2.Why did you provided all that “context” as you call it, repeating the outworn justifications you used before. I never requested this information.
3.How did Mayor Anderson's dismissal threaten the interest of the Council please produce paper work
4.I didn’t ask whether there was any requirement for The Mayor to pay back the 890.500 so this is actually irrelevant. Why did the council feel the need to make reference to this.
5.I request LCC to release all documents/paper work/emails regarding external legal advice.
6.You gave me information I never requested can your good office explain this please

Yours sincerely,

Audrey O'Keefe

Josie Mullen left an annotation ()

Having read both the Tribunal doc. and the Appeal Tribunal doc. it is crystal clear that neither had anything to do with the position of Mayor. Anderson just wanted two pay packets. As I said before, the Appeal Tribunal was only about holiday pay etc. This sounds like alleged misappropriation of public funds.
Anderson,Fitzgerald, McLoughlin and Hellard think they have total control of everything and everybody in LCC.........NOT THE CASE. Little do they know that Audrey will NEVER give up!

Dear Symm, Kevin,

My FOI is overdue by law the authority should respond promptly.

Yours sincerely,

Audrey O'Keefe

Symm, Kevin, Liverpool City Council

I no longer work for Liverpool City Council. Please forward your email to
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Liverpool City Council,

My FOI is over due please address

Yours faithfully,

Audrey O'Keefe

Dear Liverpool City Council,

I have not received a response informing you my FOI is out of the legal frame time - please address with urgency.

Yours faithfully,

Audrey O'Keefe

Dear Liverpool City Council,

My FOI is seriously overdue - please address as my other notifications have been ignored

Yours faithfully,

Audrey O'Keefe

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms O’Keefe,

 

Please see attached response to your FOI Request as submitted to Liverpool
City Council.

 

Regards

 

Information Team

 

Information Requests

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2]LCC auto signature (2)

 

show quoted sections

References

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

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

Information Requests would like to recall the message, "Response to FOI Request ".

show quoted sections

Dear Information Requests,

Information Requests would like to recall the message, "Response to FOI Request ".......

Can you please explain the above please.

Yours sincerely,

Audrey O'Keefe

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Ms O’Keefe,

 

Please see attached the outcome of the Internal Review in respect of your
recent FOI Request to Liverpool City Council.

 

Regards

 

Information Team

 

Information Requests

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2]LCC auto signature (2)

show quoted sections

References

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

Katie M. left an annotation ()

Hi Audrey,
I would definitely appeal to the Information Commissioner about the application of the Section 42 exemption (LPP) to your request for the documentation.
The Internal Review contains the following assertion:
"Notwithstanding the limited level of public interest in this issue as evidenced through information requests from a limited number of individuals, in determining the application of Advice Privilege and the engagement of a Section 42 Exemption under Freedom of Information legislation, it is considered the importance of maintaining the necessary quality of confidence to communications and advice between client and lawyer is such as to
significantly outweigh any public interest in disclosure."
Ludicrous.
To seriously suggest that there is only a "the limited level of public interest in this issue" as "evidenced through information requests from a limited number of individuals" is bizarre. The issue was quite rightly widely reported in the press, both local and all the big nationals, on the BBC - in news programmes and on its websites, and in countless online news sites, blogs, etc. etc. And it is still raised almost every time Joe Anderson manages to get his name in the Echo.
But the reason the correspondence and advice should be released is not because there is a lot of public interest (i.e. curiosity/nosiness) about it, it's because it is IN the public interest to release it. People are still outraged about the whole thing, and it has undermined their trust in the competence and professionalism of the Council and its officers to have spent a large sum of public money on what appears to be a personal matter. At a time of massive cuts in essential services. So it surely is in the public interest to publish the documents that substantiate their assertions that it was appropriate.
Joe Anderson and Ged Fitzgerald have repeatedly claimed that the decision was solidly based on legal advice that stated that it was in the Council's interest, i.e. in the public interest, to fund the case. You cannot do this and then hide behind legal privilege. It's having your cake and eating it. If this really is as solidly based as they claim, they should release the advice and correspondence you have asked for, redacting any irrelevant personal information.

George Murray left an annotation ()

Katie and Audrey, the public interest test is just that, the level of public interest there is in releasing what you're after. Just because you want it and provide any kind of argumement reinforcing your opinion doesn't mean release is either a given or is warranted.

Genuinely, this isn't meant as a dig, but this insistance on pushing for public interest tests over almost every issue does no good and only reinforces the view, some may have, that this website harbours and assist individuals with the odd grudge.

Audrey O'Keefe left an annotation ()

Hello George
Thank you for your comments - I don't hold a grudge and I'm sure Kate doesn't. The reason I asked this FOI Mayor Anderson at 'The Black Lives Matter' rally when approached by members of the public re the 89k he told them [quote] '' I paid the money back last week'' if the Mayor had paid back the 89.500 it should be highlighted, I was asking for clarification .....sadly The Mayor was being sarcastic.
Mayor Anderson has removed all Scrutiny from the authority he will not allow any critical observation this is the reason the public submit FOI's
'' I did not ask for an internal review''
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/201...

Katie M. left an annotation ()

George, please look at the ICO guidance. You seem to have comprehensively misunderstood the Freedom of Information Act. Over and over again, in its guidance on the various exemptions, and in its decisions on appeals, the ICO makes two points:
the first, that a public interest test has to be carried out in the overwhelming majority of exemptions. So it really isn't a question of people pushing for it, it's supposed to happen, and must be carried out properly (i.e., in accordance with the law and guidance);
and the second is that you do not measure whether or not something is in the public interest by looking at whether or not people find it interesting, and how many of them there may be. This point is made repeatedly in most ICO decisions. It's not about curiosity, it's about whether people should know about it.
The "in the public interest" argument that wins most appeals - mine for the KPMG stuff, for example - is usually
based on the requirement for decisions to be properly transparent, and for decision-takers to be properly accountable, especially when large sums of public money is involved. Which means the whats, whens and hows. And that's what this request is about, and why I think it will win if appealed to the ICO.