Post Twelve - The times they are a-changin’…

A commentator on Angus Nicolson’s Blog “Have a nice weekend!” re CnES Single Status outcomes, intimated that only one candidate had been interviewed for the vacant Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Emergency Planning Officer post. I thought that this could not possibly be true; Emergency Planning couldn’t have been devalued to that extent, surely. I remember back in 1985 when the Comhairle’s first EPO had been appointed, four candidates had been interviewed by a panel of elected members following an informal lunch with men of real stature; the then Chief Executive and Convener. I queried the correspondent and he suggested that I find out for myself; so I did. I submitted to the Comhairle a request for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. I was not surprised to find the process akin to pulling teeth; indeed my request probably triggered a ‘gnashing of teeth’ outbreak within those hallowed walls.

It emerged however that the report was absolutely correct. ONLY ONE CANDIDATE HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED FOR THE POST

The Comhairle told me that:

Applications had been received from 15 people; nine of them were resident in the Western Isles but no Western Isles residents were selected for interview. Three candidates were short-listed for interview on 06 June 2007.

I was advised that of the three short-listed candidates, one had withdrawn their application and one had just not turned up. I followed this up by asking on what date had the candidate referred to in that answer withdrawn their application.

The Comhairle replied:

“The date is not recorded but I can confirm it was after 11^th June 2007.” This answer does not make sense. If the interviews were held on 06 June, why would anyone withdraw their application at a later date?

I can however understand why applicants would have second thoughts about taking the post. I’m pretty sure that by this time there were few people in emergency planning circles who were unaware of the way the last Comhairle EPO had been treated. Not only that, but they would have realised that the salary for the post had been considerably downgraded. The vacancy had been advertised at Grade PO1-6; several thousands of pounds per annum below the PO8 salary enjoyed by by the previous incumbent. This of course had nothing to do with Single Status; just the usual bloody-mindedness of Human Resources.

I received another rather strange response to my question regarding why no Western Isles residents had been selected for interview. After an explanation of the criteria used for selection, the writer goes on; “Due to the high calibre of candidates who applied for the post the Panel were only able to shortlist those candidates who were full time emergency planning practitioners and on this occasion were not able to shortlist all those who had emergency planning experience through either the HM Forces or Blue Light Services.”

Where on earth are they coming from with this answer? You could really only legitimately use the description “full time emergency planning practitioners” in this context in relation to local authority emergency planners. Does not this statement reveal discrimination against members of the armed forces and the emergency services; particularly as the same bar does not appear to have been applied to other non local authority “emergency planning practitioners”.

So - to recap:

The Comhairle advertises for an Emergency Planning Officer.

Fifteen people apply.

Nine applicants live in the Western Isles.

Three candidates are selected for interview.

None of the three live in the Western Isles.

None of the three had emergency planning experience through either the armed forces or the emergency services.

One short-listed candidate does not turn up for interview.

One short-listed candidate tells them he or she is not coming the week after the interview.

One candidate is interviewed and appointed by the Head of Human Resources and the Risk and Emergency Planning Manager.

I asked:

Does the Comhairle have a policy or procedure which addresses the situation where only one candidate out of an original short-leet of several candidates, is available for interview?

The Comhairle answered:

“No”.

This of course is in marked contrast to other authorities who do have such policies or procedures and in fact the Comhairle’s own “RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE”, available on the authority’s website acknowledges that this could be a problem; viz:

32.7 Common problems experienced at this stage include:

“no suitable candidate, only one applicant, and high volume of response”.

Now you dear reader may consider that to have given some thought to this kind of eventuality is the least one could expect of a competent personnel service. Please bear in mind however that Human Resources have other priorities and that attention to detail does not appear to be a strong point. They are very busy at the moment making sure that as many staff as possible get screwed benefit under Single Status. Maybe someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow, will insist that a grip is taken, that procedures are put in place to ensure consistency, fairness and impartiality - but I’m not holding my breath!

Will the Convener; the de facto political head of the authority, do it? I doubt it - he’ll be thinking of trips to foreign parts or preparing for his next ‘State of the Islands’ speech.

Will the Chief Executive do it? Nah! I see him as part of the problem.

Will the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman do it? Perhaps.

Will I do it? Well, it has been suggested to me that I should allow my name to be put forward at the next Scottish Local Government Elections. We’ll see.

Watch this space!

Post Eight - The Data Protection Merry-go-round

Dear Convener

Hi - it’s only me, Murdo MacLeod, your former Emergency Planning Officer.

Remember this? “The Comhairle is confident that correct procedures were followed at all times in the case of Mr Macleod and maintains that he was always treated fairly at all times.”

Oh yeah?

On 10 March 2006, I wrote to Gavin Lawson, Solicitor, the Comhairle’s Data Protection Officer, in the following terms:-

“My name is Murdo MacLeod and I am currently employed by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar as an Emergency Planning Officer. My payroll number is XXXXXX. Under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, I require my employer to provide me with a copy of everything in my employee records. I also require a copy of all the information presented to the Chief Executive by all parties, pertaining to my grievance of bullying and harassment against Katherine Mackinnon, together with the Chief Executive’s own records.

I would appreciate early confirmation of receipt of this communication. Thank you for your co-operation.”

I received a letter from Mr Lawson dated 14 March, acknowledging receipt of my request and seeking clarification regarding the information I required from the Chief Executive. I replied on 15 March as follows:-

“Thank you for the prompt response to my letter of 10 March. You requested clarification on two points:

(1) My request for all the information presented to the Chief Executive does include the information supplied by myself.

(2) I refer to any notes or other records created by the Chief Executive in the process of addressing my grievance.

Thank you for your co-operation.”

By my reckoning, the prescribed 40 day period (as stipulated in the Act) expired on 22 April. I had not received any further communication from Mr Lawson by then. I wrote again to Mr Lawson on 02 May, as follows:-

“I wrote to you on 10 March 2006 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, seeking copies of information referring to me held by my employer. Your letter of 14 March acknowledged receipt of my communication and in your reply you stated that my “request will be processed promptly and in any event within 40 days of receipt.”

The prescribed 40 day period is now long past and I have not received any information, nor have I received any explanation for the failure to provide it. Please note that if I do not receive the information I am entitled to by Tuesday 9 May, I will consider lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner.

I look forward to your early response.”

On 06 May, I received a letter from Mr Lawson, in which he claimed that “I have not yet an answer to my request for clarification. The 40 day clock was stopped when I made my request and will not begin again until you provide the clarification sought. It is therefore in your best interests to provide the clarification as soon as possible. There has therefore been no failure to provide you the information within the statutory time limit”

My letter of 15 March was sent by first class mail and posted by me in the letterbox beside the Royal Mail Sorting Office in Stornoway (across the road from the council offices), as indeed were all my letters to Mr Lawson. I do not believe that the Comhairle did not receive my letter of 15 March.

I wrote to Mr Lawson on 12 May, expressing astonishment that he claimed not to have received an answer to his request for clarification. I enclosed a copy of my letter of 15 March and I sent copies of both letters to the Chief Executive. I requested Mr Lawson’s and Mr Burr’s early confirmation of receipt. Mr Burr confirmed receipt in a letter dated 15 May, in which he advised that he would discuss the matter with Mr Lawson “over the next few days”. No confirmation had been received from Mr Lawson by 26 May, so I wrote to him again, copied to the Chief Executive. I received a letter of apology from Mr Lawson dated 29 May and a letter from Mr Burr dated 30 May, confirming that Mr Lawson had received my previous communication.

On 02 July, 49 days after my second request for data access and 111 days after I had first asked for copies of information about me held by the authority I had still not received a single piece of paper. I wrote to the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC), requesting his intervention and I copied my letter to the Chief Executive. On the evening of Tuesday 04 July, about 6.40 pm, an A4 envelope was pushed through my letterbox. I did not see the person who delivered it. The envelope was addressed to me but not postmarked and I assumed this was the information I had asked for, being hand-delivered. It wasn’t very bulky and as I looked at it I thought it didn’t look much to show for nearly 20 years service.

On opening the envelope, I found a compliment slip signed by Mr Lawson and copies of various documents pertaining to my sick absence and my grievance against the Head of Human Resources. In fact, the only documents I didn’t already have were statements from the Head of HR and the Risk and Emergency Planning Manager. The earliest dated document was 07 April 2004 and the latest was 01 February 2006. There were multiple copies of several documents; six in one case. This was not what I asked for, this is not all I’m entitled to and this is not what I was promised. It beggars belief that my employer made me wait 113 days for what was provided. On Thursday 06 July, I received a letter from the SIC’s office advising me that he has no remit under the Data Protection Act and to send my complaint to the UK Information Commissioner. I did that the same day.

I received a letter dated 17 October 2006, from the Information Commissioner’s Office, advising me that they were now in a position to deal with my complaint. The Commissioner’s Office intend to approach the Comhairle “in order to clarify the situation and establish why, so far, they appear to have failed to comply with your subject access request”. I received a letter dated 14 November (184 days after my original request) from the Comhairle’s Freedom of Information Officer, together with a package of papers described as a “copy of your file” held within Personnel. If what I received is a copy of everything in my personal file/records there is something seriously wrong with the upkeep of the authority’s personnel records. I had no alternative but to bring my dissatisfaction to the attention of the Information Commissioner again.

The Chief Executive had not fully complied with my information request either. I have not had sight of Helen Froud’s submission nor of Mr Burr’s notes. The Commissioner was so advised.

Following correspondence with the Comhairle’s newly appointed Freedom of Information Officer (FOI), I met with her at her invitation on Monday 26 March 2007. She allowed me to read a file which contained material relating to my grievance against the Head of Human Resources. I did not see any notes, handwritten or otherwise, which I could attribute to the Chief Executive. The FOI Officer had stated in her letter of 20 March, that; “You have been provided with copies of all notes and records taken by the Chief Executive in the process of addressing your grievance”. I asked her during our meeting if she had written that statement because she knew it to be true, or because that was what she had been told. She replied that it was because that was what she had been told.

I have never received a copy of the notes the Chief Executive took at our interview.

Dear reader - Did the Comhairle’s actions conform to the spirit and the letter of the law?

You decide!