Reason for delay in specific minutes

Dear Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment,

I note that in a request to publish minutes of Council and ARAC meetings that have not been published but which took place many months ago that in response to a separate FOI you state various reasons why they have not been published. This is an unrelated new request ( not regarding the seeking of publication which has been referred for internal review ) rather to ascertain which minutes of unpublished minutes fall under reasons given in response to that previous request

Specifically and for avoidance of doubt I refer to Council Meetings numbers 149, 151,152,153

Can you in respect of each of those outstanding minutes confirm following
1. Dates that those meetings were held
2. What is reason for non publication and specifically based on reasons previously stated to a different FOI request seeking publication this request requests only that you state for each unpublished minute what is the specific reason and in particular which of following applies
(a) minutes have not been ratified
(b) minutes have been ratified but resource and company secretarial pressures mean that uploading a copy of minutes is not possible
(c)if minutes have not been ratified please advise reason ( disagreement etc ) and assuming that can only mean disagreements has an independent minute taker been appointed and how if historic disagreements exists preventing agreement to publication has this been noted in subsequent council meetings and if so which meetings ? Refer by number)
(d) Confirmation that all those who attended any such meetings that they are in agreement that minutes should not be published and if not who issued instructions not to publish and in particular was it Chairperson, DE official, CEO of CCEa or some other and are all those who attended aware that requests to publish have been made and this has been refused

Thank you

Yours faithfully,
M Manning

Dear Data Protection Officer,

I note that your independent internal review is now complete. This comment is merely just that, a comment in response and no response is required as you have stated CCEA comment on this matter is concluded but I feel it states obvious issues of concern by way of record for future reference for those that will now take matters forward on my behalf.

1. You have previously stated that minutes had not been ratified. That is a huge concern in a public body particularly when they refer to unpublished minutes of meetings that took place many many months ago. Why is the question when other subsequent recent meeting minutes have been and no reference on those minutes to non ratified prior meetings.

2. You incredibly refer to the fact that no obligation is stated by way of specific timeframes to publish minutes. That is not worthy of comment so can I therefore assume that schools or other public bodies are under no such obligation or reasonable expectation to publish minutes in a timely manner. In your case minutes of meetings of @circa year ago are outstanding and you seek to rely on the idea that no specific timeframes exist. It must be assumed that going forward minutes will simply be published if and when you feel like it with no statutory or expectation to do so within a predefined timeframe.

3. It is noted from published minutes that that many senior positions within CCEA including CEO, finance and others were acting up positions so public’s assurance over accuracy and disclosure of decisions taken in Council and ARAC meetings I think it is reasonable to suggest that minutes would be published in a more timely manner to reassure public on many levels.

4. Going back to fundamental point it was you in your previous response that referred to need for minutes to be ratified as one reason for delay . Perhaps you could explain how if minutes were unable to be ratified of meetings that took place up to year ago ( how many minutes of meetings not ratified you didn’t say ) then how possibly could they be ratified now as no one could possibly given passage of time accurately now confirm such accuracy so the simple point raised by way of previous legitimate concern was that it appeared there may be dispute which is highly irregular.

5. It was also suggested to you that where issues arise alternative arrangements may reasonably be expected to have been out in place to as a minimum ensure accurate and critical contemporaneous recording of minutes and if any issue prevented ratification that this would have been addressed and noted within subsequent meetings. No response was given.

6. Publication requires simple uploading of a document ( minutes) and to suggest that staff had other priorities or that this required some level of work that could not be attended to is without stating obvious at best strange

You have stated your reasons on record and I certainly hope that my school can apply such exceptions in relation to publication of minutes of meetings they hold if requested.

I spoke with a company who is a very large business and they advised me they can upload minutes in 30 seconds so the question remains are there minutes, are they contemporaneous and approved and what unique systems in place that require other than a simple scan upload to web.

You have concluded your enquiry and internal review stating in your opinion exemption to publish to date so this will serve simply as a note for ICO and others this matter will now be referred to.

7. Finally I on various occasions if I recall asked taht yiu confirm that all attendees of meetings in which minutes have not been published have been made aware that firstly the minutes have not been published ( albeit subsequent more recent meeting minutes have ) , that you have stated amongst your reasons that the meetings were not ratified and thirdly that deep concern exists over non publication. This note served again by way of reference that all those attending agree with reasons as stated by you for non publication

Yours sincerely,

Mr Manning