APPENDIX

QUESTION 1 TO COUNCIL 24 JUNE 2014TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL FROM COUNCILLOR EADES

“Can the Leader of the Council please detail the full costs to date of the recruitment process for the vacant Chief Executive’s post in Poole including a breakdown of the various items of expenditure between outside consultants, advertising costs and other expenses”

Councillor Phil Eades

RESPONSE

I thank Councillor Eades for his Question.

The total cost of the recruitment process was £59,167.74 which can be broken down as follows:

Consultants / £6,045.00
Pyschometric Testing / £3,473.70
Recruitment Search/Advertising / £20,930.28
Refreshments / £443.60
Interviewee Expenses / £3,173.52
Accommodation / £326.67
SW Council – External Advisors / £8,625.00
HR Internal Costs / £10,400.00

Our partners from the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership and the University gave their time and expertise free of charge.

May I also say that the costs of appointing the wrong person to this post would be immeasurable and far-reaching.

Councillor Ms Elaine Atkinson

Leader of the Council

QUESTION 2 TO COUNCIL 24 JUNE 2014 TO COUNCILLOR MRS RAMPTON, THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR HEALTH AND WELLBEING FROM COUNCILLOR EADES

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Housing explain exactly how the construction of 40 units of 3 bedroom Social Housing on the Montacute School site can be forecast to cost in the region of £7.4M (source: Appendix 2 to Agenda Item 5, Council Efficiency and Effectiveness Overview and Scrutiny Committee 15th May 2014) a sum equivalent to £185,000 per unit?”

Councillor Phil Eades

RESPONSE

“The figure of £185K per unit included in the Paper is indicative and is not being put forward by the Council. Officers needed to use a cost in order to test the models under development and it was right and proper that that cost was a worst case scenario so that each model was tested properly. Work is now underway to develop the agreed models and any proposal will be fully tested for value for money before being put before Members.

It is too early in the development to talk about actual costs per unit but it is expected that they will be in line with other developments when brought forward.”

Councillor Mrs Karen Rampton

Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing

QUESTION 3 TO COUNCIL 24 JUNE 2014 TO THE LEADER FROM COUNCILLOR CLEMENTS

“I have the impression that Council Officers are assiduous in attempting to answer queries from individuals and groups, both as formal Freedom of Information requests and less formal enquiries. I am, however, concerned that the amount of work and costs of doing this may not be fully recognised.

Can the Council please publish a summary of enquiries received, their source and the cost of dealing with them?

In addition, may I be told that information for the three individuals or groups that have proved to be the most costly over the past two years?”

Councillor Brian Clements

RESPONSE

“Quarterly disclosure logs of recorded Freedom of Information requests are published on the Council’s website along with quarterly volume and the average processing times:

The last published log is for January – March ’14 : Requests – January to March 2014

The logs are published in a reusable format and can be sorted by category; a brief description of the request and the source of the enquiry. They do not include the name of the requester but this can be provided to Members outside of the meeting if required. A summary of the sources of requests for the past 2 years is presented below:

Sources: / 2012/13 / 2013/14
Personal / 244 / 346
Special Interest Group / 159 / 213
Media / 132 / 153
Commercial / 151 / 163
Political / 28 / 33
Totals: / 714 / 908

We only record the time taken to respond to a request by the number of days, we do not record and analyse the cost of collecting information. The top 3 requesters for the past two years were:

2012/13 / No. of requests submitted / 2013/14 / No. of requests submitted
Journalist (J1) / 14 / Journalist (J2) / 17
Journalist (J2) / 13 / Individual (I1) / 10
Individual (I1) / 8 / Individual (I2) / 10

Please note this is only a summary of the information requests that have been recorded in the corporate Freedom of Information (FOI) log.

Service Units also routinely respond to a number of requests for information which are not logged or monitored centrally – individuals do not have to quote the FOI Act in order to obtain information but Local Authorities are expected to respond to enquiries in the spirit of the Act.

We are actively working with Service Units to try to reduce the burden of FOI requests as the number of FOIs has increased significantly over the past few months. We have been able to field a higher proportion through information published on the website and will continue to pursue opportunities for proactively publishing information this way.”

Councillor Ms Elaine Atkinson
Leader of the Council

Management Team

Information Management

2013–14 end of year update

1.Emerging Risks and Issues

1.1There was a significant increase in the number of Freedom of Information/ Environmental Information Regulation (FOI/EIR) requests received during 2013/14 and of these, a growing number of more complex enquiries. Fewer enquires have been fielded through the website and combined, these issues will impact on officers capacity to field enquiries within the prescribed 20 day deadline.

1.2Figures suggest a significant reduction in the number of Subject Access Requests (SARs) however, recording in the corporate log is not consistent across the organisation. The Council’s handling of SARs has been brought to the attention of the ICO in the past so there is concern that if Service Units are not following appropriate guidance or monitoring progress complaints further will be raised. Raising awareness across the Organisation on recording and responding to these requests in the form of developing a toolkit is included in the team work plan.

1.3The potential risk of data loss increases with the rapid increase in mobile working and the use of personal devices. Awareness has previously been raised with Service Unit Records Managers and an organisation wide communication campaign to highlight the risks is being prepared.

Table 1 - Information requests / Apr 11 to Mar 12 / Apr 12 to Mar 13 / Apr 13 to Mar 14 / Direction of Travel
FOI/EIR requests received / 726 / 714 / 908 /
FOI/EIR - % answered in 20 days / 95% / 90% / 91% /
FOI/EIR - Average days to reply / 10.9 / 11.5 / 11.8 /
FOI/EIR - % of requests fielded through website / 14% / 10% / 6% /
SARs recorded / 48 / 68 / 37 /
SARs - % answered in 40 days / 66% / 80% / 68%
Data Breaches reported and investigated / 40 / 45 / 31 /
  1. Information requests (FOI/EIR)

2.1There was a 27% increase in the number of requests received during 2013/14, the highest ever recorded, and already a 34% increase in requests for April 2014, compared to April last year. Dorset County Council reported a 23% year on year increase.

2.2Despite the increase in case load, Poole has still achieved a 91% rate for responses sent within 20 days and although a slight decline in the average turnaround time to 11.8 days, this compares favourably to DCCs 13 days.

Information was provided for 98% of the requests.

Poole was recently commended in a Tweet by a reporter from the Guardian for its quick response:

Laura McInerney @miss_mcinerney 7h

43 working days since I put an #FOI internal review to @oldhamcouncil. Still waiting.

(NB: @boroughofpoole gave me all info in 24 hours).

2.3The number of requests fielded through bop.com was disappointing last year but proactive work with Service Units during the last quarter to encourage the publishing of information and data sets, such as Skip Licensing and Business Rates, and a review of the Council’s publication scheme has shown that 25% of requests received so far this year have been answered with direct links to the Council’s or other websites.

2.4There were eight requests for reviews of FOI/EIR responses during 2013/14 with one case upheld, three partially upheld and four not upheld.

  1. Transparency Code of Practice

3.1On 1st May 2014, following a consultation process the Department for Communities and Local Government published the Local Government Transparency Code. The code sets out what Local Authorities must publish and has additional recommendations for enhancing the data published. It sets out that Local Authorities must provide some data in a fully open and re-useable format such as csv or xml by 31 October 2014. (MS Excel and pdf formats are not considered by the code as fully open).

A table summarising what is currently published and the Council’s progress in meeting the requirements of the Code has been circulated to Records Management Officers and Service Unit Heads and will be discussed at the next Statutory Officers Group meeting.

Areas requiring further work to ensure the Council meets the Code in full are:

  • details of individual transactions made by credit cards
  • details of current and upcoming tender invitations and contracts awarded to include identifying voluntary and community providers
  • details of all grants to voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations
  • an organisation chart covering staff in the top three levels of the organisation with additional information on pay scales and responsibilities
  • details of Trade Union Facility time provided
  • the number of employees whose remuneration in that year was at least £50,000 (this has been to £50,000 from £58,000)
  • the pay multiple, defined as the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median salary of the whole of the authority’s workforce
  • annually, details ofour counter fraud work
  1. Subject Access Requests

4.1Recording and monitoring of SARs across the organisation is patchy so it is difficult to gauge how well the Council is responding. Information from the corporate register suggests almost a 50% reduction in the numbers received last year but whilst DCC have also seen a reduction, this was only 7% so Poole’s figures would appear exceptional.

4.2Failure to respond to a SAR within 40 calendar days is a breach of the Data Protection Act and the Council has been criticised by the ICO for this in the past so a review of advice, guidance and the development of an SAR toolkit for Service Units is planned for later this year.

4.3There were no requests for reviews of SAR responses during 2013/14.

  1. Data breaches

5.1The number of potential data breaches reported includes those from Adult Social Care, which were not included at mid year reporting. Figures are lower than reported last year and engagement with Service Units has improved. Detailed breach reports are requested for each reported incident and this has helped to identify organisational and SU development needs.

5.2One data breach is currently being reviewed the ICO enforcement team. This concerns information held in a database which had not been updated and led to personal and sensitive information being sent out to someone in error. We are awaiting the outcome from the ICO.

5.346% of the breaches (11) were reported by Children’s Services, with 2 each being reported by Housing & Community Services, Financial Services and Human Resources. The most common cause of data loss was through the use of email.A re launch of the Safe use of Email Campaigns is planned over the coming months.

5.4Data Protection Awareness training continues to be offered as a mandatory training module and there is also on-line Data Protection training via the E-learning portal.

5.5The Council’s Data Protection Policy has recently been reviewed and updated and will be promoted to the organisation shortly.

5.Next Steps:

5.1To undertake Information Governance campaigns to promote and raise awareness of new and emerging data protection issues.

5.2To complete an analysis of the type of FOI requests to inform FAQs and work with Service Units to encourage proactive publication of information.

5.3To undertake a review of Subject Access Request processes and promote across the organisation.

Steve Otter

Information & Performance Officer

Communications, Information & Marketing Team

QUESTION 4 TO COUNCIL 24 JUNE 2014 TO COUNCILLOR WHITE, PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR REGENERATION AND INWARD INVESTMENT FROM COUNCILLOR WOODCOCK

“On May 10, I attended a meeting of information, debate and consultation on Navitus Windpark at the BIC in a venue for 700+ people, where we were able to listen to the pros and cons of the project and then express an opinion by ballott on the biggest industrial project for this area in a generation. All those who wished to speak afterwards in the question and comment section, did so, some at length and with little restriction on timing.

Households had received invitations to, "Have Your Say on Proposals for an Offshore Windfarm". This was an open invitation to all residents (copy given to you and your Scrutiny Chairman).

By contrast, Poole Council held a Council Scrutiny Committee to which selected individuals and groups were invited - missing out the most prominent speaker against the Proposal - in a venue which would struggle to hold 70 people, never mind 700. Moreover, speakers had to register to speak and were instructed to restrict their comments to what was presented in a limited Officer's report.

Why has Poole Council's attempt to inform and gauge public opinion been so woefully inadequate and when are you going to offer the townspeople a proper information and consultation in a venue appropriate to the magnitude of the proposal?”

Councillor Tony Woodcock

RESPONSE

“I thank Councillor Woodcock for his question.

As statutory consultees it is NOT the Council’s role to inform and gauge public opinion. The Council’s role is to identify from a technical perspective whether the Application and supporting Environmental Statement are adequate, NOT whether or not it supports the Application. The Applicants have held a number of exhibition seminars, displays and indeed I should be very surprised if any member of the public was unaware of the proposals.

The Economy Overview and the Scrutiny Committee convened to address the proposals to inform the Council’s consideration on 3 June 2014 was well attended and the public have been advised that representations can be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. There are no proposals to hold a public meeting.”

Councillor Mike White

Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Inward Investment

QUESTION 5 TO COUNCIL 24 JUNE 2014 TO COUNCILLOR MRS WALTON, PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR FAMILIES AND YOUNG PEOPLE – THE FUTURE OF POOLE FROM COUNCILLOR WOODCOCK

“On 9 April 2014, I sent you a copy of a report titled, "Climate Control- brainwashing in schools".

The report instanced examples of serious errors, misleading claims, and bias through inadequate treatment of climate issues in school teaching materials. It also found encouragement to create "little political activists" in schools.

All of this is in direct contravention of the legal guidance in the Education Act 1996.

Can you please outline the steps that the Local Authority has taken to ensure that nothing of this sort is occurring in Poole’s maintained schools?”

Councillor Tony Woodcock

RESPONSE

“The National Curriculum lays out the framework within which schools determine their own curriculum provision. Effectively it defines the subject knowledge and content that need to be delivered. It is up to the Headteacher, in consultation with their staff, to develop this into a curriculum suitable for their children within the local context.

Curriculum monitoring:

Governors approve the curriculum policy. This is reviewed at frequent intervals. Governing Bodies and the Headteachers also employ external school improvement Professionals (SIP) to provide professional challenge to ensure that their practice and provision is fit for purpose.

Schools publish details of the curriculum on their website and many schools communicate this directly with their parents and carers so that all can work to support the children’s learning.

Headteachers and their senior and middle leaders regularly monitor the quality of teaching and learning. This involves lesson observations and learning walks, as well as reviewing lesson planning, workbook scrutiny and pupil interviews to ensure that the curriculum is being adhered to.

All schools have a complaints policy and procedures to deal with any issues raised by parents.

The Local Authority (LA) monitors schools in accordance with the LA and School Monitoring and Intervention Policy. All schools receive a minimum of one formal review visit per year but the LA frequently visits schools on a number of matters during the course of the year. For example: Moderation of work, LA full school and themed reviews. The School Monitoring and Intervention Team also gathers information from other units within the LA at key times during the academic year and acts on any issues raised”.

Councillor Mrs Janet Walton

Portfolio Holder for Families and Young People – The Future of Poole

QUESTION 6 TO COUNCIL 24 JUNE 2014 TO COUNCILLOR MRS RAMPTON, THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR HEALTH AND WELLBEING FROM COUNCILLOR MISS WILSON

“Can the Portfolio Holder inform me of what Council scrutiny and public consultation took place before the decision was taken to close Mitchell House against the wishes of its residents, relatives of its residents and the staff members and is the Portfolio Holder satisfied that this in the best interest of all concerned?”

Councillor Miss Lindsay Wilson

RESPONSE

“The Council has been aware for over ten years that Mitchell House was not, as a building, able to afford residents and staff with the physical and space standards required for the care of people with dementia and complex physical needs. The lack of en-suite facilities and size of the bedrooms mean that it is difficult for care staff to maintain the dignity and privacy of residents while providing care. With people living longer with higher complex care needs it is very important that the Borough of Poole, and organisations which provide residential and indeed nursing care, develop and build care homes which are fit for purpose for the long term.

At its meeting on 12 April 2005 the Council approved the transfer of the provision of specialist dementia services to Care UK. These contractual arrangements included an agreement that the residential service at Mitchell House would be transferred to a new care home, which was to be built by Care UK. The initial plan was for this to be implemented within two years of the contract being agreed.