Mobile Phones

The request was refused by University of Salford.

Dear University of Salford,

1. How many members of staff at the University of Salford are currently issued with corporate mobile phones?

2. What was the the total cost of corporate mobile phone bills for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009? How much of these amounts related to actual call usage?

3. What was the total amount staff paid back for making personal calls from university mobile phones?

4. Please provide the cost of mobile phone bills for each of 2007, 2008 and 2009 for the following members of staff separately:
(i) Vice-Chancellor
(ii) Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Secretary
(iii) Pro-Vice-Chancellors
(iv) Executive Deans
(v) Director of Finance
(vi) Executive Director of HR
(vii) Executive Director of Estates
(viii) Executive Director of Information Technology
(ix) Head of Salford Business School
(x) Head of the School of Art & Design

5. How much did each of those listed below pay back in 2009 for making personal calls from university mobile phones:
(i) Vice-Chancellor
(ii) Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Secretary
(iii) Pro-Vice-Chancellors
(iv) Executive Deans
(v) Director of Finance
(vi) Executive Director of HR
(vii) Executive Director of Estates
(viii) Executive Director of Information Technology
(ix) Head of Salford Business School
(x) Head of the School of Art & Design

Yours faithfully,

Sophie Quinn

nutty (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Can someone explain to me why the University of Salford gets so many requests? Thank you.

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

Nutty,

Highly secretive managerial practise (we want to know what it is they're hiding) and general ill-treatment of rank and file staff and many a student inclines some to try and find out why the University is the way it is (which is to say in a precarious state).

nutty (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Thanks Damien. I note that most of the applicants appear to be students at the University.

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

I do not recognise the majority of the names of people making the requests - only two of them (one I believe is a journalist).

I am a student at the University. For my troubles in attempting to establish certain truths about it, I have recently been called a "little prick" by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

Foi, University of Salford

Dear Ms Quinn,

I write in response to your request for information made to the
University of Salford under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 via
www.whatdotheyknow.com. This request will not be processed because it,
along with a number of other requests, is being treated as vexatious
under section 14(1) of the Act.

Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a refusal notice.

You have the right to complain against the handling of your requests. If
you wish to complain, please set out in writing your ground(s) of
complaint and send to Matthew Stephenson, Head of Information
Governance, at the address below.

Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner
at the Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545 700, website
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

Matthew Stephenson

Head of Information Governance
Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
Salford
M5 4WT

show quoted sections

Dear University of Salford,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of University of Salford's handling of my FOI request 'Mobile Phones'.

I am dissatisfied by the response. My request for internal review still stands. You have provided no arguments or evidence to support the assertion that section 14 applies.

I expect the results of your internal review promptly, together with the information that I originally requested.

Incidentally, I am already considering a complaint to the Information Commissioner to encourage the engagement of his Enforcement Team with your University. I believe that your organisation has demonstrated systemic, repeated and serious non-compliance with the Act, and non-conformity with the associated Codes of Practice. I intend to highlight the following issues to the Commissioner, all of which have already been identified by the ICO as making such engagement necessary:

- serious or repeated failures to meet the requirements of section 10 (1)

- regular and / or unwarranted extensions to the timeframe for internal reviews, with particular emphasis on those which exceed the Commissioner’s guidance

- failure to have an internal review procedure in place, or the failure to operate that procedure in accordance with the recommendations of the section 45 Code of Practice

- repeated or serious application of blanket, or obviously inappropriate exemptions (or exceptions)

- repeated failure to explain why exemptions (or exceptions) apply

- evidence that the authority is failing to take its
responsibilities seriously

- evidence that an authority does not have a sufficient
understanding of the Act and the Codes of Practice

It would be inconvenient for both of us if the Commissioner has to become involved in this request. Therefore, I expect your prompt response to this request for internal review, together with the information requested. It will then be unnecessary for me to involve the Commissioner.

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

Yours faithfully,

Sophie Quinn

nutty (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Seems to be a campaign against the University to me Damien.

Damien Shannon left an annotation ()

It could certainly be a campaign. As mentioned, I am only privy to two of the people making the requests, so I cannot comment authoritatively over whether or not there is any central direction to their submission. Obviously one set of requests were bogus and made under a pseudonym (which contravenes the legislation on FoI). There is no link that I have been able to establish between the rest (except between myself and one man who pointed me to this website, but I was making FOI requests before I was aware of this website), but I suspect staff at the University and their affiliates have kept a close eye on the developments on this website.

Regardless, even if some link could be established between the submissions (which I highly doubt), is this a basis for a blanket rejection? I sincerely doubt it. Some extremely ominous accusations have been made of the administration of finance within the University of Salford to me by people who have absolutely no interest in beginning a campaign. I am attempting to establish the validity of these claims by tracing the financial transactions of the University's vast quantities of expenses (which in total run to almost 20% of institutional income). I have placed two adjacent claims, one of which was regarding emoluments of the Vice and Deputy Vice Chancellors. This information is routinely published anyway but it would not be released in the Annual Accounts until December 2010 and I wanted to acquire the information earlier.

I also placed a request for details of the number of academic staff on part time contracts (as this is the paramount complaint of virtually every student I speak to - being taught by part-timers). All the other requests have been finance related and have their genesis in extremely serious allegations made in private about University's Financial Administration and Management. If there is no truth to the allegations then there should be no basis under which to reject the requests. If there is any truth to them there is an absolute public interest in disclosing the information, and I believe the Information Commissioner will agree with me on this front.

Foi, University of Salford

Dear Sir/Madam,

As per your request, the University of Salford has conducted an internal
review of its decision relating to your request for information made
under the Freedom of Information.

I apologise for the delay in responding. The review was of a large
number of individual requests which contributed to this delay.

The outcome of the review was to uphold the original decision. The
request is considered, along with a number of other requests, to be
vexatious as specified under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act and so your request will not be processed.

Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a refusal notice.

You have the right to complain against the handling of your request.
You may do so to the Information Commissioner's Office whose address is:
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625
545 700, website www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

Yours faithfully

Matthew Stephenson

Head of Information Governance
Governance Services
University of Salford
Clifford Whitworth Building
Salford
M5 4WT

T: 0161 295 6856
F: 0161 295 6339
[email address]
www.infogov.salford.ac.uk

show quoted sections

Ben Harris left an annotation ()

This request is the subject of the Information Commissioner's decision notice FS50312233:

"The Commissioner finds that the public authority correctly refused the requests under the provisions of section 14 of the Act but the university’s response breached section 17(5) and section 17(7)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act."

<http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...>