What % of the £500k per year restructuring of senior management at RBC in 2018 was allocated for salary increases?

The request was successful.

Dear Reading Borough Council,

What % of the £500k per year 2018 restructuring of senior management at Reading Borough Council was allocated for salary increases?

Background
The ICO has officially ruled that a Background statement accompanying a Request is permissible in the case of an FOI Response. This is because, they say, there's nothing in the wording of the FOI Act that specifically excludes the inclusion of a Background statement, which might, for example, be a contextualisation of the Request in the light of the Response. Since it gets the official approval of the ICO, the assumption must be that the Requestor can also include a Background statement.

Clearly, however, the ICO didn't feel it was essential the Background statement had any connection at all with the information requested in the FOI Request. I say this because the Background statement by Chris Brooks (Head of Legal Services at Reading Borough Council at that time) that accompanied the FOI Responses of 29/06/2018 and 02/08/2018 bore no relation whatsoever to the Requests I had made. It's also worth pointing out that they comprised solely of a totally biased malicious attack on me. These attacks were simply repeating verbatim the attacks made against me in emails sent to me months before the FOI Responses. I'd replied to these emails demonstrating they were unfair, ignored the written evidence provided by me & were totally biased.

Furthermore, in 843 FOI Requests by RBC, only three [those 3 made by the Head of Legal Services to me] include either a home address, or a Background statement. Mr Brooks published my home address in full on each of his 3 Responses to me which led to me receiving an anonymous abusive letter delivered to my house. Brooks was ordered by the ICO to 1) provide me with the SAR he'd illegally rejected my request for on 4 occasions and 2) delete my home address on his 2 Aug 2018 FOI Response. Unfortunately the ICO investigator forgot it was still there on Brooks' 29 June Response. It remained there for a year despite frequent requests from me to delete. It took the threat of legal action for the Ass. Director of Legal Services at RBC to finally agree to delete it.

Chris Brooks was a senior manager whose position was restructured. His title changed from Head of Legal & Democratic Services to Assistant Director for legal & Democratic Services.

Yours faithfully,

Dudley Jones

Fuh, Ngwa, Reading Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for your request received on 5th August 2019 and please accept
our sincere apologies for the delay in our response. You requested the
following information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000: 

What % of the £500k per year 2018 restructuring of senior management at
Reading Borough Council was allocated for salary increases?

Background

The ICO has officially ruled that a Background statement accompanying a
Request is permissible in the case of an FOI Response. This is because,
they say, there's nothing in the wording of the FOI Act that specifically
excludes the inclusion of a Background statement, which might, for
example, be a contextualisation of the Request in the light of the
Response. Since it gets the official approval of the ICO, the assumption
must be that the Requestor can also include a Background statement.

Clearly, however, the ICO didn't feel it was essential the Background
statement had any connection at all with the information requested in the
FOI Request. I say this because the Background statement by Chris Brooks
(Head of Legal Services at Reading Borough Council at that time) that
accompanied the FOI Responses of 29/06/2018 and 02/08/2018 bore no
relation whatsoever to the Requests I had made. It's also worth pointing
out that they  comprised solely of a totally biased malicious attack on
me. These attacks were simply repeating verbatim the attacks made against
me in emails sent to me months before the FOI Responses. I'd replied to
these emails demonstrating they were unfair, ignored the written evidence
provided by me & were totally biased.

Furthermore, in 843 FOI Requests by RBC, only three [those 3 made by the
Head of Legal Services to me] include either a home address, or a
Background statement. Mr Brooks published my home address in full on each
of his 3 Responses to me which led to me receiving an anonymous abusive
letter delivered to my house. Brooks was ordered by the ICO to 1) provide
me with the SAR he'd illegally rejected my request for on 4 occasions and
2) delete my home address on his 2 Aug 2018 FOI Response. Unfortunately
the ICO investigator forgot it was still there on Brooks' 29 June
Response. It remained there for a year despite frequent requests from me
to delete. It took the threat of legal action for the Ass. Director of
Legal Services at RBC to finally agree to delete it.  

Chris Brooks was a senior manager whose position was restructured. His
title changed from Head of Legal & Democratic Services to Assistant
Director for legal & Democratic Services.

Our response is as follows:

The additional cost to which you refer, entirely represents the cost of
new posts.

You are free to use any information supplied to you for your own personal
purposes or for non-commercial research, private study or news reporting.
However, you do not have the right to re-use the information in a way
which infringes copyright, for example, by distributing, making copies of
or publishing the information, without the permission of the copyright
holder, which in most cases will be Reading Borough Council. If you wish
to obtain permission for such use, please contact Mr C Brooks, Assistant
Director of Legal and Democratic Services, at Reading Borough Council.

Please note that your request may itself be the subject of a FOI request
and will be disclosed in that event.

If you are unhappy with this response to your request for information
under the Freedom of Information Act then you may ask for an internal
review. Please make a request in writing to Mr C Brooks, Assistant
Director of Legal and Democratic Services, at Reading Borough Council.  If
you request such a review and are not content with its outcome, then you
have a right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.  The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely

 

Innocent Fuh

Finance | Directorate of Resources

 

Reading Borough Council

Civic Offices

Bridge Street

Reading

RG1 2LU

0118 937 4626 (x74626)

 

[1]Website | [2]Facebook | [3]Twitter | [4]YouTube

 

[5]cid:image004.jpg@01D45BD4.81A6E5A0

 

The information in this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient to whom it has been addressed and may be covered by legal professional privilege and protected by law. Reading Borough Council does not accept responsibility for any unauthorised amendment made to the contents of this e-mail following its dispatch.

If received in error, you must not retain the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please notify us immediately quoting the name of the sender and the addressee and then delete the e-mail.

Reading Borough Council has scanned for viruses. However, it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any) for viruses.
Reading Borough Council also operates to the Protective Document Marking Standard as defined for the Public Sector. Recipients should ensure protectively marked emails and documents are handled in accordance with this standard (Re: Cabinet Office - Government Security Classifications).

References

Visible links
1. http://www.reading.gov.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/readingcouncil
3. http://www.twitter.com/readingcouncil
4. http://www.youtube.com/readingbc