FOI request re Dave Clark

[zetlander60]

How do people feel about the refusal by SIC to disclose information regarding Dave Clark's payout?

[Evil Inky]

How do people feel about the refusal by SIC to disclose information regarding Dave Clark's payout?

Speaking only for myself, of course: I'm a tad vexed.

[Guest Anonymous]

How do people feel about the refusal by SIC to disclose information regarding Dave Clark's payout?

 

 

What is the point of having a Freedom of Information Act, when the council can block people accessing the information?

 

The only reason I can think of, is that they have more to hide than they are letting on to, or it relates to personal information.

 

Links to the Act

 

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/foi/

 

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/ScottishInformationCommissioner.asp

[MaxFusion]

Taken right from the document you posted ULS...

 

The Shetland Islands Council’s aim is to be as open as possible. However, information may be withheld from any of the classes of information, where we consider that disclosure may seriously prejudice law enforcement, legal proceedings or our regulatory or enforcement activity or where the disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law. We may also withhold information that may seriously prejudice the commercial interests of any person or organisation. We may also withhold information that is personal information under the Data Protection Act 1998. In these cases we will withhold the information and indicate why the information is being withheld. If you wish to complain about information that is being withheld from you, please read the ‘Complaints and Feedback’ section below.

 

I would think this is personal information thus not applicable to FOI requests

[Spinner72]

^^ Unquestionably. Personally I'm surprised at the local media for thinking they can appeal against such an obvious decision.

 

It is very hard not to be cynical as anyone who has read even a summary of the act would have known from the start that the information they requested would not, and should not, be released. Aside from so much of what was requested being personal information, the mutiple aspects of the situation are the subject of more than one "live" enquiry/audit/legal process, which also excempts any related information.

 

So either they already knew they could get a nice headline when it was refused, or if it was granted they could again rip into the SIC for releasing private/confidential information. Very "tabloid". If, of course, that was the intention and it wasn't just an ill informed stab in the dark

[mainlander]

Unlinked, have you become unliked? If not, I'm going to have to pay proper attention to usernames in future so I don't get confused!

[Guest Anonymous]

all i know is AOFI is all over fair isle , but i can be bothered to write it out, FOI? wtf ffs

[JohanofNess]

^It would appear to be someone using an incredibly similar username which iirc is against the T&C's as it could be seen as impersonation.

 

Sure the mods are looking into it.

[Fjool]

^ Yes.

[mclaffalot]

Its all well and good witholding some information about personal stuff , But dont we , as taxpayers deserve to know how much of OUR money has been wasted in total by these bunch of losers paid to this ignoramus ? I for one think we deserve to know !

 

I would also like to know the names of the councillors who voted for this so we , as the voting public , can boot their arses out at the next election.

[Ghostrider]

By not offering any information to the public, the council, collectively and individually are being damn fools to themselves. People will just assume the worst and act accordingly.

 

Until and unless some figures and names come forth, all we can know is that Clarkie cost us someplace probably between £500,000 and £1 Million. (8/9 months salary + costs of sundry Complaints Commission/Audit Scotland enquiries he was party to + pay off + recruitment costs of a replacement), all for not one damn thing in return.

 

Also, in the absence of a list of names of those who supported his appointment in the first place, and those who supported his pay off. Seeing as both went ahead, we can only assume that all 22 were fully supportive of both, and treat them all according ASAP.

 

If I were a councillor and wanting to keep my seat, I sure as hell would have been shouting it from the rooftops long long ago if I had voted against the appointment and/or against the pay off.

[Njugle]

But then that lack of a coherent and unified response is exactly what made such a mess of Shetlands national reputation in this matter in the first place. Least said, soonest mended. There may be the aspersion that all our councillors are blithering idiots that care not for our money nor our land or well-being but this is unlikely to be the case and there is the remote possibility that they are tying to do their best in a bad situation.

Staffing matters are just that.

Vote however you see fit.

[Ghostrider]

^^ The lack of a coherent and unified response lies entirely in the lap of the leadership IMHO. The leader's role is multi faceted, its not just smiling for the cameras with the chain of office around your neck, and hiding behind closed doors, senior civil servants and convenient legislation at all other times. The leader is there firstly to mould the council in to a cohesive decision making machine, to drag them kicking and screaming ever forward, to be the link between elected members and salaried staff to ensure that what is required and requested is possible, and that it occurs timeously, efficiently and cost effectiovely, to be the public face of the council and to ensure the link between the public and council is maintained in such a way as both parties understand and respect the other. How many of those have the current leadership ever successfully achieved.

 

In the absence of such leadership it becomes every (wo)man for themselves and their own survival. A far from ideal situation, but its what we've had, what we have, and what we will continue to have until or unless the leadership get a grip, or are replaced by an effective one. 90%+ of the worst aspects of the Clark saga are as a result of inertia at the top of the elected side of the council, becoming involved, taking the initiative in damage limitation, and being seen to do so, instead of being seen as fiddling while Rome burned between hiding behind first one bit than another of convenient legisation, and the hole that's been dug,and continues to be dug even deeper, would barely have had the faels taen aff.

 

I don't doubt there are a few of the 22 who are as mad as hell as I am about the hellish state things have been let to get in to, and have very probably fought tooth and nail every step of the way to try and prevent it, but found themselves in a powerless minority. They are worthy of voting for again, but unless they identify themselves, no-one else apparently is going to. And unless folk know exactly who they are, nobody can risk voting for anyone that is there just now as they risk unwittingly putting back one of the numpties that made all of the current c*ap happen.

[Spinner72]

Also, in the absence of a list of names of those who supported his appointment in the first place, and those who supported his pay off. Seeing as both went ahead, we can only assume that all 22 were fully supportive of both, and treat them all according ASAP.

 

The decision on the severance payment was announced as being backed by all, and some details of the recruitment procedure can be found int the minutes of the full council meeting of 24th March. (Cant seem to direct link any fiurther than the Council Calendar page.)

 

I seriously doubt anyone will admit to any reservations they had about the Clark appointment now, at least officially, or they simply demonstrate thier lack of suitability to be part of the appointment process this time round.

[Ghostrider]

I seriously doubt anyone will admit to any reservations they had about the Clark appointment now, at least officially, or they simply demonstrate thier lack of suitability to be part of the appointment process this time round.

 

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

I agree, they've all left it far too late to speak out, any distancing of themselves from Clark and the whole fiasco surrounding him should have been done long, long ago. To do so now would smack of ulterior motives, most of them to do with 11th hour attempts to save their own asses. But anyone who considered Clark wrong from the start, as I'd see it, surely were the only ones with sense, and definitely should be in on the next selection panel.