Vexatious Requests to CRT under Freedom of Information Act ?

[Iain_S]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

But should minutes be published before they are approved, which normally happens at the next meeting?

The next meeting may be some time away, and if important decisions have been made, then it is right to publicise them, particularly if the meetings are public or attended by others  outside the organisation. They can be draft minutes until passed at the next meeting. The next meeting can be a bit late to discover that one's memory does not accord with what was minuted.

I was once on a committee where the chairman and secretary would re-write the minutes after the meeting and it was not uncommon to find that decisions taken at the meeting had been reversed. I didn't last long on that committee!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

51 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Legally??? I'm not aware of the legal obligation (specifically) for CRT to publish minutes at all; or a legally defined timeframe to do so. While its probably true to say that "best practice" would suggest (draft) minutes are published in a timely manner, I think we're diverging slightly from what the underlying issue is.

 

Its not about the minutes, its about one or a few individuals in particular, who are maybe abusing the FOI process for their own self-importance/amusement. If its not the minutes then its something else, and if its not that then its something else again. There's nothing stopping people making reasonable use of the FOI process; but there is a procedure for stopping vexatious use of it - and CRT have initiated it. Let's see what the Information Commissioner's Office makes of it all.

As well as responding to requests for information, authorities must publish information proactively. The Freedom of Information Act requires every public authority to have a publication scheme, approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and to publish information covered by the scheme.

The scheme must set out a commitment to make certain classes of information routinely available, such as policies and procedures, minutes of meetings, annual reports and financial information.

C&RT's publication scheme related to to board minutes and papers is published on its website.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Guest]

What a sad life somebody must have to spend it nit picking and examining each and every miniscule detail regarding each decision a corporate body takes.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, MJG said:

What a sad life somebody must have to spend it nit picking and examining each and every miniscule detail regarding each decision a corporate body takes.

As one of the thousands of boaters who were assured that C&RT's recent licence consultation would be revenue neutral, I do have a passing interest in finding out why my licence fee is going up rather than down ...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

36 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The next meeting may be some time away, and if important decisions have been made, then it is right to publicise them, particularly if the meetings are public or attended by others  outside the organisation. They can be draft minutes until passed at the next meeting. The next meeting can be a bit late to discover that one's memory does not accord with what was minuted.

I was once on a committee where the chairman and secretary would re-write the minutes after the meeting and it was not uncommon to find that decisions taken at the meeting had been reversed. I didn't last long on that committee!

Some years ago, when BW  were abusing its own publication scheme by not publishing information regarding board meetings, I made FOI requests over a two year period to obtain information they had committed to publish. In the end, the board decided that it would publish 2-3 weeks after each bi-monthly meeting subject to approval by the chair. This commitment was never honored. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As one of the thousands of boaters who were assured that C&RT's recent licence consultation would be revenue neutral, I do have a passing interest in finding out why my licence fee is going up rather than down ...

A passing interest?

 

Pull the other one Allan....

[Allan(nb Albert)]

27 minutes ago, MJG said:

A passing interest?

 

Pull the other one Allan....

I assure you it is only a passing interest not shared by others who responded to C&RT's consultation on the understanding that if they agreed that fat boat owners should pay more then they would pay less.?

 

Quote

4. Copies of any report or presentation made by Jon Horsfall, Matthew Symonds or any other person in connection with minute 18/007. This includes both reports and presentations made during Board meetings, prior to Board meetings or subsequent to Board meetings.

 

[1st ade]

7 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Having served some years as Parish Clerk for a number of years I knew that this was an erroneous arguement, and asked them what the legal foundation for the change in practice was. They were unable to find one, and have reverted to the earlier practice of publishing draft minutes marked subject to approval.

Thanks - as a Parish Councillor I'll make a note of that!

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, 1st ade said:

Thanks - as a Parish Councillor I'll make a note of that!

Why don't you 'minute' it ?

[David Schweizer]

8 hours ago, Paul C said:

Legally??? I'm not aware of the legal obligation (specifically) for CRT to publish minutes at all; or a legally defined timeframe to do so. While its probably true to say that "best practice" would suggest (draft) minutes are published in a timely manner, I think we're diverging slightly from what the underlying issue is.

 

Its not about the minutes, its about one or a few individuals in particular, who are maybe abusing the FOI process for their own self-importance/amusement. If its not the minutes then its something else, and if its not that then its something else again. There's nothing stopping people making reasonable use of the FOI process; but there is a procedure for stopping vexatious use of it - and CRT have initiated it. Let's see what the Information Commissioner's Office makes of it all.

 

I agree but, in fairness, it was yourself who expressed surprise that people did not understand a concept , and I merely sought to clarify/correct what is a well excercised misunderstanding:-

  14 hours ago, Paul C said:

Its fairly normal that the minutes of a meeting are approved at the next meeting; and that before they are approved, they are unsuitable for wider distribution. I am personally surprised that so few understand this concept.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by David Schweizer

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Dear Canal & River Trust

 

I am writing to complain about your handling of of my information request ‘Board Minutes & Papers (January & March 2018)’ and request a review.

Full details of this request can be found at - 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...

 

My complaints are -

- C&RT failed to respond to this request promptly and within the time limit set by law.

 

- By conflating this request with a dissimilar one and making unfounded allegations relating to it, C&RT is seeking refuse the request whilst no basis exists to do so.

 

I would point out that, in her response of 23 April 2018, Melissa Ashdown-Hoff states ‘I can confirm this request was received on 18-Apr-18 and I am dealing with it in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under the terms of the Act you are entitled to a response within 20 working days of receipt’.

 

Having accepted that the data requested falls within the scope of the the Act and that I was entitled to a response within 20 days she eventually replied slightly later than 20 days claiming that she had replied earlier.

 

Her lengthy and confusing reply conflates this request with another and makes various demands of the requestor unrelated to the request. However, essentially she has refused the request as vexatious.

 

I would refer the reviewing manager to C&RT’s publication scheme -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publi... (last updated 18 October 2016)

 

- and, in particular, its commitment to pro-actively publish minutes and other papers relating to meetings of its Board of Trustees -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publi... (last updated 1 December 2016)

 

I would ask the reviewing manager to explain why it considers this request to be vexatious when it relates to errors and omissions in information that C&RT is committed to pro-actively publish under its publication scheme.

 

I would also ask the reviewing manager to ensure C&RT honors its commitment to pro-actively publish this information and provides me with the relevant links when it has done so.

 

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Edited May 22, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)
added some line spacing

[MtB]

59 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

I agree but, in fairness, it was yourself who expressed surprise that people did not understand a concept , and I merely sought to clarify/correct what is a well excercised misunderstanding:-

Its fairly normal that the minutes of a meeting are approved at the next meeting; and that before they are approved, they are unsuitable for wider distribution. I am personally surprised that so few understand this concept.

 

 

 

This all seems irrelevant as CRT don't publish meeting minutes at all. They publish 'meeting notes'. 

 

No-one seems to know the difference between notes and minutes except CRT, but the difference seems important enough to them to insist on meeting records being known as 'notes', not 'minutes'.

 

Should we be focusing on this rather then whether meeting minutes can/should be published?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Dear Canal & River Trust

 

I am writing to complain about your handling of of my information request ‘Board Minutes & Papers (January & March 2018)’ and request a review.

Full details of this request can be found at - 
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...

 

My complaints are -

- C&RT failed to respond to this request promptly and within the time limit set by law.

 

- By conflating this request with a dissimilar one and making unfounded allegations relating to it, C&RT is seeking refuse the request whilst no basis exists to do so.

 

I would point out that, in her response of 23 April 2018, Melissa Ashdown-Hoff states ‘I can confirm this request was received on 18-Apr-18 and I am dealing with it in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under the terms of the Act you are entitled to a response within 20 working days of receipt’.

 

Having accepted that the data requested falls within the scope of the the Act and that I was entitled to a response within 20 days she eventually replied slightly later than 20 days claiming that she had replied earlier.

 

Her lengthy and confusing reply conflates this request with another and makes various demands of the requestor unrelated to the request. However, essentially she has refused the request as vexatious.

 

I would refer the reviewing manager to C&RT’s publication scheme -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publi... (last updated 18 October 2016)

 

- and, in particular, its commitment to pro-actively publish minutes and other papers relating to meetings of its Board of Trustees -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publi... (last updated 1 December 2016)

 

I would ask the reviewing manager to explain why it considers this request to be vexatious when it relates to errors and omissions in information that C&RT is committed to pro-actively publish under its publication scheme.

 

I would also ask the reviewing manager to ensure C&RT honors its commitment to pro-actively publish this information and provides me with the relevant links when it has done so.

 

Yours faithfully,

Allan Richards

Ah good, a vexatious complaint about them complaining about your previous vexatious complaints.

 

I can see that will help. That is up to the point where they just start ignoring you, which under some circumstances they can legitimately start doing.

[David Schweizer]

40 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This all seems irrelevant as CRT don't publish meeting minutes at all. They publish 'meeting notes'. 

 

No-one seems to know the difference between notes and minutes except CRT, but the difference seems important enough to them to insist on meeting records being known as 'notes', not 'minutes'.

 

Should we be focusing on this rather then whether meeting minutes can/should be published?

 

Yes they do.

 

Minutes of a meeting are the official legal record of a meeting which must be agreed and approved by a subsequent meeting of the body that generated them. Meeting Notes are a less detailed record which sumarises the meeting, and may be taken any person who was present at the meeting. There is no requirement for them to be agreed or approved, and they have no legal or official status.

 

Edited to add:- The fact that C&RT only issue Meeting Notes rather than Minutes of the Meeting raises an interesting legal point. Although they are published by C&RT the Meeting Notes are not legally the official record of the meeting, nor may they contain everything that was discussed or agreed at the meeting. So how much attention can be paid to them, and could C&RT be required to demonstrate that they have acted upon any noted decions contained within them.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by David Schweizer

[Allan(nb Albert)]

40 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Yes they do.

 

Minutes of a meeting are the official legal record of a meeting which must be agreed and approved by a subsequent meeting of the body that generated them. Meeting Notes are a less detailed record which sumarises the meeting, and may be taken any person who was present at the meeting. There is no requirement for them to be agreed or approved, and they have no legal or official status.

 

Edited to add:- The fact that C&RT only issue Meeting Notes rather than Minutes of the Meeting raises an interesting legal point. Although they are published by C&RT the Meeting Notes are not legally the official record of the meeting, nor may they contain everything that was discussed or agreed at the meeting. So how much attention can be paid to them, and could C&RT be required to demonstrate that they have acted upon any noted decions contained within them.

 

If you click on the links of my previous post you will find that C&RT undertakes to publish redacted MINUTES (not notes) of board meetings together with other papers usually within a few days of the next bi-monthly board meeting. The reality  is that two to three days is usually three weeks after the subsequent meeting which means a delay of almost three months.

BW's Board undertook to publish of draft minutes within two to three weeks of a meeting after approval by the chair. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Ssscrudddy]

Perhaps you could make a new vexatious FOI request to find out how much the rebranding is going to cost. We're already seeing new signs uniforms & vehicles, I don't believe the £60k figure they're bandying about

Edited May 22, 2018 by Ssscrudddy

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Ssscrudddy said:

Perhaps you could make a new vexatious FOI request to find out how much the rebranding is going to cost. We're already seeing new signs uniforms & vehicles, I don't believe the £60k figure they're bandying about

 

I printed out two licence 'disks' this afternoon for one of my boats. 

 

Still has the swan/bridge logo on it. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

8 hours ago, Ssscrudddy said:

Perhaps you could make a new vexatious FOI request to find out how much the rebranding is going to cost. We're already seeing new signs uniforms & vehicles, I don't believe the £60k figure they're bandying about

The figures given by a Regional Manager at a waterways forum a while back were £2-3m of which £60k was spent on logo design.

 

[Naughty Cal]

On 22/05/2018 at 01:39, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As one of the thousands of boaters who were assured that C&RT's recent licence consultation would be revenue neutral, I do have a passing interest in finding out why my licence fee is going up rather than down ...

Even if it was revenue neutral, which it isn't, that didn't guarantee that your licence fee would be going down.

On 22/05/2018 at 02:39, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I assure you it is only a passing interest not shared by others who responded to C&RT's consultation on the understanding that if they agreed that fat boat owners should pay more then they would pay less.?

 

 

So the only reason you effectively voted that wide beam boats should pay more is so that you could pay less.

 

Thanks for that 

[furnessvale]

17 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I printed out two licence 'disks' this afternoon for one of my boats. 

 

Still has the swan/bridge logo on it. 

No swans and bridges on my discs.  I have portholes.  If I put those great big square "discs" in 2 of them (used to be 4) I would have no light entering.

 

By the time I have finished cutting and pasting, just leaving ALL the writing, they are about a quarter of the size and I can still see inside my cabin.

 

George

[Ray T]

Just printed my squares (discs) 15 minutes ago, they have the swan on them.

 

I actually preferred the bridge and the bulrushes

[Jerra]

26 minutes ago, Ray T said:

I actually preferred the bridge and the bulrushes

Same here.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Can Alan Fincher please reply to my PM of May 24 (currently showing as unread).

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Can Alan Fincher please reply to my PM of May 24 (currently showing as unread).

Oooh, Allan publicly names and shames somebody who didn't answer a PM shocker....

[Tanglewood]

On 22/05/2018 at 01:30, MJG said:

What a sad life somebody must have to spend it nit picking and examining each and every miniscule detail regarding each decision a corporate body takes.

I'm sure you didn't intend for this to come across in such a jeering, sneering way.

 

Certainly such a life would become sad and lonely, if the sole purpose was  to gain some sense of personal worth and well-being, but it usually starts with some-one trying to shed light on something that seems to have gone badly wrong, and then being blocked. There have been so many cover-ups exposed in the last 20 odd years  that no-one should be complacent.  We may seem to be in a 'blame culture' now, but it is against a background of passing the buck, obfuscation and misinformation.  Those who campaign to get information into the public domain especially when it is information that should, in any case, be available, should not be ridiculed.   It is very easy for corporate bodies to accept public money - but they should also accept that public scrutiny is part of the contract.  And that means that every member of the public has a right to  know how, when and why decisions are made, and who by.