Author Topic: SBC CEO Gavin Jones & His Secret Report On Hitesh Patel's Secret DC Directorship  (Read 7293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
The above leads me to ask the following question.

Is it possible that following the implementation of the the 1,000 or is it 3,000 redundancies that are required to balance the budget that Mr Patel will fall on his sword having previously agreed an acceptable severance package?

Well, this leads in to a slightly different topic which I'm currently researching for a blog post, but....

...considering that Hitesh Patel and Cllr Finuala 'I'm leaving the cabinet' Foley spent 6 months compiling a report on Patel's former colleague and Director of HR at SBC, Jack Mackiewicz, in which they jointly stated: "It had become clear over recent months that this employee’s particular skill set did not fully match the Council’s future needs"

Here's a snippet from the relevent meeting of Bluhs 'Special' Committee:

Quote
The Cabinet Member for Leisure and Corporate Services and the Group Director, Business Transformation submitted a joint report concerning the voluntary severance arrangements with Employee 2000757.

The Group Director, Business Transformation explained that the Council was facing an extremely challenging future and that it was essential that services were re-shaped, re-configured and delivered in new ways. It had become clear over recent months that this employee’s particular skill set did not fully match the Council’s future needs. Discussions had taken place on ways to resolve the situation over the last six-months but it had been concluded that a voluntary severance was the best way forward for all parties. The Group Director commented on the detailed arrangements associated with the severance and on the financial implications for the Council.

The Chair, (Cllr Roderick Bluh) noted the contents of the joint report. He commented that there was a disparity between the joint report and its Appendix. The figure contained in the Financial Implications section of the report was a “net” figure, excluding the total income tax and employee National Insurance contributions. This meant that the financial impact on the Council overall was greater than highlighted in that paragraph. However, he remained supportive of the proposed action.

Resolved – That the Special Committee, on behalf of the Council -

·        Approves the voluntary severance arrangements for Employee 2000757.

·        Authorises the Director of Law and Democratic Services to conclude a compromise agreement between the Council and Employee 2000757 based on a final day of service no later than 31st July 2010, unless otherwise agreed in consultation with the Chief Executive.

·        With effect from Employee 2000757’s agreed final day of service approves that:

.       The Group Director, Business Transformation, be authorised to exercise the delegations numbered 384 to 390 in the Council’s Scheme of Delegations and Designations of Proper Officers (Part 8 of the Council’s Constitution), together with all other matters delegated to that post holder.

.       Interim arrangements are put in place to enable the holders of posts 1438675 and 1124139 to exercise key responsibilities of the vacant role.

·        Authorises the Director of Law and Democratic Services to make any necessary amendments to the Council’s Constitution to reflect the decisions set out above.


I understand that Jack Markiwicz was sent up the road with the minimum possible severance package....before Patel started doing Markiwicz's job in adittion to his own.  Whether Patel is now paid Markiwicz's previous salary in addition to his own is unknown

Given that Patel's 'skillset' appears to be severely lacking, and that the council is apparently committed to paying minimal redundancy and minimum 'voluntary severence' arrangements, we ought to reasonably expect Patel's severence package, (when his severence inevitably comes), to be similarly modest.

But I bet it isn't because Patel also knows where embarrasingly rotten & smelly bones are buried and his silence will cost us dearly.

Offline poemogram

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Hello !
Re: SBC CEO Gavin Jones & His Secret ....constitution massage ?
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2010, 03:56:22 pm »
Authorises the Director of Law and Democratic Services to make any necessary amendments to the Council’s Constitution to reflect the decisions set out above.

Is that normal for Norfolk ?

Offline Mellon

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
  • Gender: Male
  • Whatever it is , I didn't do it!
    • Mellons Blog
Thank you for your reply Mr Wakefield and I look forward to hearing your response, will you , yourself be asking the question?
"Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the world together."

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
[...considering that Hitesh Patel and Cllr Finuala 'I'm leaving the cabinet' Foley spent 6 months compiling a report on Patel's former colleague and Director of HR at SBC, Jack Mackiewicz, in which they jointly stated: "It had become clear over recent months that this employee’s particular skill set did not fully match the Council’s future needs"


So in what particular set of skills was he deficient? and who employed him in the first place.

Did he dare stick is head above the parapet and say soemthing Rod or gavin didn't like. Was he pushed Pushed or did he fall?

If this was teh bloke who came to waterside depot and tried to convince us that the recent pay and grading was 'fair and equitable' i think i can see the point...

being able to p*** o** 4,000 to 5,000 people in one go is a pretty good skill to have if you've got it.

Can i suggest the woman who introduced herself as head of 'talent' explain exactly what she does at SBC, talent for what....

Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse

So in what particular set of skills was he deficient? and who employed him in the first place.

Did he dare stick is head above the parapet and say soemthing Rod or gavin didn't like. Was he pushed Pushed or did he fall?

If this was teh bloke who came to waterside depot and tried to convince us that the recent pay and grading was 'fair and equitable' i think i can see the point...

being able to p*** o** 4,000 to 5,000 people in one go is a pretty good skill to have if you've got it.

Can i suggest the woman who introduced herself as head of 'talent' explain exactly what she does at SBC, talent for what....

Worth remembering which Cabinet member was 'in charge of' the equal status pay and grading review. Ms Foley I think?

Is it possible Jack Markiewicz served his designated purpose and then, when he'd delivered the 'bad news' which was considered 'too toxic to touch' by other Directors and Cabinet members, they put their heads together and got rid of him ?

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on

So in what particular set of skills was he deficient? and who employed him in the first place.

Did he dare stick is head above the parapet and say soemthing Rod or gavin didn't like. Was he pushed Pushed or did he fall?

If this was teh bloke who came to waterside depot and tried to convince us that the recent pay and grading was 'fair and equitable' i think i can see the point...

being able to p*** o** 4,000 to 5,000 people in one go is a pretty good skill to have if you've got it.

Can i suggest the woman who introduced herself as head of 'talent' explain exactly what she does at SBC, talent for what....

Worth remembering which Cabinet member was 'in charge of' the equal status pay and grading review. Ms Foley I think?

Is it possible Jack Markiewicz served his designated purpose and then, when he'd delivered the 'bad news' which was considered 'too toxic to touch' by other Directors and Cabinet members, they put their heads together and got rid of him ?

If that was the case why not employ him on a short term contract?
Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
What are the skillset requirements to be a successful executive officer on this Council, because I am damned if I know?

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
What are the skillset requirements to be a successful executive officer on this Council, because I am damned if I know?

Repeat this mantra...

Lie about what business i've been a director of, Yes of course Cllr Bluh (smarm smarm),
Legitimise your giving away £450,000 to a mate, of course Cllr Bluh (crawl crawl)
Hide away any evidence of the last two, straight away Cllr Bluh (grovel grovel)

Is that a Pay rise? thank you very much.

Kerching

Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1300
    • komadori's green corner
Was he pushed Pushed or did he fall?
I think that can be judged by how long it took to reach a settlement. Fallers tend to fall quickly.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
Was he pushed Pushed or did he fall?
I think that can be judged by how long it took to reach a settlement. Fallers tend to fall quickly.

Interesting point Komadori, incidentally welcome back you have been missed.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse

Confirmation that FOI has been received.

Quote
Sharon Druett
Swindon Borough Council

20 August 2010

Dear Mr Reid ,

Ref FOI101000229747 Freedom of Information Request

Thank you for your attached request received in our office on 16 August
2010.

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Council has a
duty to respond `promptly' or no later than 20 working days, which in this
case is 13 September 2010.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me as detailed,
quoting the above reference number.

Yours sincerely,

Sharon Druett

Sharon Druett ([email address])
Freedom of Information Officer
Law and Democratic Services
Swindon Borough Council

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
I think Rod's Bluhligans don't want their, (anticipated), refusal to answer this Freedom of Information discussed before the Full council meeting on the 23rd September 2010.


Quote
Sharon Druett
Swindon Borough Council

13 September 2010

Dear Mr Reid

Ref FOI101000229747 Freedom of Information Request

The Council has a duty to respond promptly or no later than 20 working
days, which in this case is today. However, as in this case, if a
qualified exemption applies to the information and the public interest
test is engaged, the Act allows the time for the response to be longer
than 20 days, and the information must be supplied within what is
considered a `reasonable' time scale considering the circumstances of the
case.

We are currently considering your request for the report under Section 36
Freedom of Information Act 2000 exemption.

Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs :

(2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in
the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the
information under this Act....
(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit -

i. the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of
deliberation, or
(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise
to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs

In the meantime I have attached a link to the Special Cabinet Report dated
31 March 2010. The report set out the position relating to the Group
Director Business Transformation's involvement in the Wi-Fi Project and is
available via the Council's website.

[1]http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/Publ...

We anticipate we will be able to come to a full conclusion no later than
27 September 2010.

If you have any queries about this matter please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in all future communications.

Yours Sincerely,

Sharon Druett

Sharon Druett ([email address])
Freedom of Information Officer
Law and Democratic Services
Swindon Borough Council
Tel: 01793 463377
Fax: 01793 463405
Web: [2]www.swindon.gov.uk


Considering that my FOI request is all about the 'effective conduct of public affairs' at Swindon Borough Council I think the Information Commissioner, (when this inevitably ends up on his desk),  may raise an eyebrow at Section 36 being employed by the Council to hide the conduct of a publicly employed Director of the Council.

Without the public having sight of the report I have requested, how can it know whether Hitesh Patel is just incompetent and not also dishonest?

Without sight of the report how can any of us know whether Hitesh Patel is the only one?

At present I imagine Hitesh Patel, Gavin Jones and Roderick Bluh are wondering how many of us already know quite a bit about the report, and are even now biting their nails nervously wondering if they could, or should, risk releasing a doctored version of it to satisfy the FOI.

Would we spot the differences between the documents if they did?...

How many people on the 'inside' may have already blabbed?....

Far from being irritated by this I find myself looking at the calendar and thinking that the longer SBC tries to avoid answering the questions, the worse it will eventually be for most of those involved. 

I also think that the lies and half-truthswhich were deployed at an early juncture are now taking an increasing amount of effort to sustain.  Their last line of defence would seem to be the outright refusal to answer legitimate questions.  SBC passed this point some time ago when the Deputy Leader of the Council, (himself a Director of Digital City (UK) Ltd and supposedly Swindon Borough Councils representative in Digital City's boardroom), flat out refused to answer Councillors questions regarding the company, now the Officers seem to have caught up.

A Director,  (from a different council), described this as a game of poker, but actually it isn't.  Jones, Patel and Bluh know that we regularly see far more of their 'cards' than they would like us to, but can't be sure exactly which cards we already have seen which makes slipping a dodgy card out of a shirt sleeve a bit risky...

...in short, playing with anything other than a straight deck of cards is risky for them. Not one of them can be sure that on the next hand we won't kick the table over, shout 'Cheats!', and then proceed to prove that they're cheating.....

....so I think they'd like to avoid dealing the next hand entirely, but also realise that the longer they delay means more people will cram into the saloon to watch the end of the game, especially if the last hand is dealt at the insistences of the commissioners gun barrel.


Anyway, to continue with the frog boiling: I've now heard back from Companies House regarding Mr Patel's 'Accidental Directorship'. 

It makes interesting reading  :)

 :popcorn:

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
I hope that these people Geoff realise that the truth always comes out in the end and that this whole issue has been made a thousand times worse by trying to conceal it.

and the expression

'What goes around comes around' seems appropriate.

Offline Mart

  • Charter Member
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3169
  • Never fight an inanimate object.
I like 'Yippeykayay motherf*cker'.

But I am a bit coarse.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
Frog boiling, what a great phrase and so completely apt!

The problem with lying is that you do it too often and you invariably end up tripping yourself up!

The truth will out. Can't wait :popcorn:
Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse

A short, pre-breakfast, note to the lovely Sharon.  :)

Quote
To: Sharon Druett
Subject: Re: FW: FOI101000229747 Freedom of Information Request

Dear Sharon Druett,

Thank you for including the link to the Special Cabinet Report dated 31 March 2010. Although the general public are well aware of the Special Cabinet report it does serve to illustrate why refusing my request using a Section 36 Freedom of Information Act 2000 exemption would be an inappropriate use of that exemption.

I note that the Chief Executive of Swindon Borough Council instructed his deputy, Celia Carrington to investigate Hitesh Patel within the following, closely defined parameters:

6.2 The scope of the investigation was:

• To investigate the circumstances in which Hitesh Patel formally became a director of Digital City (UK) Limited;

• Whether he, or anyone else, was aware that this had happened;

• Why he named himself as a Director of Digital City (UK) Limited on his professional network website;

• Whether he deliberately misled Cabinet on 10 March, by not revealing that he was already formally a director.

The council is considering refusing my request by using a 'prejudice-based exemption'.

To correctly refuse my request using a prejudice-based exemption Swindon Borough Council must first show that a disclosure of information would, or would be likely to, cause the harm identified in the exemption - (in this case: 'Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs'.

If that prejudice can be established, the exemption may be engaged but Swindon Borough Council must then go on to apply the public interest test.

As it is my understanding that the scope of the Chief Executives investigation was deliberately narrow, focussing solely on the conduct of Hitesh Patel, so that future publication of the report would not, in fact, prejudice the future conduct of public affairs.

Claiming a section 36 exemption would be inappropriate and would, in my opinion, further harm the publics willingness to trust that Swindon Borough Council conducts its public affairs openly, honestly and transparently.

I am concerned that Senior Officers at Swindon Borough Council wish to prevent publication of the Chief Executives Investigation into Hitesh Patel's Directorship of Digital City (UK) Ltd because publication will further highlight the many significant disparities between Swindon Borough Council's 'version' of events and facts already available in public records.

In short, I believe Officers of the Council are concerned that the Chief Executives report will not stand up to the robust scrutiny which continues to be applied to the Swindon WiFi project by the general public, and therefore seek secrecy rather than transparency.

However, I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Reid

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1300
    • komadori's green corner
Considering that my FOI request is all about the 'effective conduct of public affairs' at Swindon Borough Council I think the Information Commissioner, (when this inevitably ends up on his desk),  may raise an eyebrow at Section 36 being employed by the Council to hide the conduct of a publicly employed Director of the Council.
I think their main reason for using Section 36 is that they can then apply the Public Interest Test, which the legislation allows them an extra 29 days for, hence delaying things further.

Note that if all you have received is that email, without a formal Refusal Notice, then SBC has failed to comply with the Information Commission's guidance.

Quote from: Information Commission Guidance Note GPG4
Where any additional time beyond the initial 20 working days is required to consider the public interest, the public authority must still serve a "refusal notice" under section 17 of FOIA within 20 working days of a request even in those cases where it is relying on a qualified exemption and has not yet completed the public interest test. That notice must state the exemption(s) being relied on and, if not apparent, why. The notice must include an estimate of the time by which this decision will be made. If the final decision is to withhold the information requested, a second notice must then be issued providing the reasons for the decision on the public interest.

Indeed, not only would they failed to comply, they would have knowingly failed to comply, as this error in their ways was pointed out to one Mr G Jones of Swindon Borough Council less than 4 months ago.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse


The refusal: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/44773/response/117245/attach/html/2/FOI101000229747%20Refusal%20Notice%20Reid.doc.html

Quote
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Refusal Notice

Ref: LCG/SD/FOl1 01000229747

Details of Request:

A request for a copy of the report into the investigation into directorship of WIFI

1)Exemption relied On:

Section 36: Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs

(2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a
qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act. ...

(b) would, or would be likely to, inhibit:

(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation, or

(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs

Reasons:
It would be appropriate, in this case, to apply the exemption set out above to the report that was issued following the internal investigation that took place. The purpose of the report that was commissioned by the Chief Executive was to assess the conduct of an officer of the Council and was never intended that it should be made public as it may lead to disciplinary action.

The scope of the report was wide and if it were known that the information might be released into the public domain it would 'inhibit' the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.

The Information Commissioner's Office advises that although the term 'inhibit' is not defined in the Act, in their view it means' to restrain, decrease or suppress the freedom with which opinions or options are expressed'.

In order to allow proper deliberation to take place in relation to such investigations, competing arguments will have to be examined by the investigator. These will include different opinions and if it was thought that the report was to be published, this would in all likelihood lead to some disclosures being less candid. This would undermine the whole purpose of this and future
investigations.

It should be noted that the Council has released a large amount of information about the issues concerning Digital City (UK) Ltd. and the WIFI project. These have been considered
in the presence of the public by various Committees of the Council including Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committee.

In addition internal and external auditors have also examined the
issues.

This information has been made available via the Council's website.

In particular, on 31 March 2010, a report was presented to Cabinet. It's purpose was;

'To set out the position relating to the Group Director Business Transformation's
involvement in the Wi-Fi project.

To explain the circumstances around him becoming a Director of Digital City (UK) Ltd. And his subsequent resignation from the position on 11 March 2010.

Decision on Public Interest test:

Further to be considered is whether it is in the public interest for the Section 36 exemption is to be applied.

The term 'public interest' is not defined within the Freedom of Information Act. However, the Act stipulates that a qualified exemption can only apply where the public interest in maintaining an exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

This means the Council has a duty to balance the arguments against each other bearing in mind there is a general presumption in favour of disclosure.

The Information Commissioner advises that 'there is a presumption running through the Act that openness is, in itself to be regarded as something that is in the public interest'.

The advice goes on to say it is also relevant to consider 'the possible adverse effect of disclosure against the positive benefit of openness'. Accordingly, it is necessary to distinguish between things which are in the public interest from things that may be of interest to the public.

It has been argued by the requestor that if the report was released it would increase public confidence that a full investigation had taken place. However, this view has to be balanced against how this would inhibit this and future investigations or affect the opportunity for 'nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out' discussions to take place.

On balance, it is more likely than not that there would be a prejudicial effect on how internal investigations are carried out if such reports were to be released.

This would not be in the public interest and it is important that there is space for Officers to evaluate competing arguments, deliver advice and express themselves in order that a free and frank discussion can take place.

Given the amount of information that is already in the public domain, it is considered that the public interest in withholding this particular report is not outweighed by the public interest in releasing it.

Stephen Taylor

Monitoring Officer and
Director of Law and Democratic Services


Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
The request for internal review: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/chief_executives_investigation_i#outgoing-87103

Quote
Geoff Reid

30 September 2010

Request for internal review.

Dear Swindon Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of my FOI request:
'Chief Executives Investigation Into Hitesh Patel's Directorship of
Digital City (UK) Ltd'.

There exists a high, and continuing, level of public interest in
the Public/Private partnership which exists between Swindon Borough
Council and Digital City (UK) Ltd and, as the corporate board and
elected members of Swindon Borough Council are well aware, this
partnership was the subject of a Parliamentary adjournment debate.

Serious questions remain unanswered as to how £450,000 of
taxpayer’s money came to be lent by Swindon Borough Council to a
company which the Councils Director of Business Transformation,
(Hitesh Patel), was negotiating with on behalf of Swindon Borough
Council, but of which he was also already a Director.

Other directors and executives of the Council indicated that Hitesh
Patel had not disclosed his Digital City Directorship to them,
prior to, or until several months after, the loan had been ‘drawn
down’ by Digital City (UK) Ltd and Swindon Borough Council became a
significant shareholder in the company.

However, I possess evidence which leads me to believe that:

1. Other directors and executives of the Council were aware of
Hitesh Patel’s Digital City directorship and that information
confirming or further denying, this prior knowledge is being
deliberately withheld behind inappropriately applied Freedom of
information exemptions to unreasonably protect individuals and/or
the administration from reasonable, lawful and independent
inspection of their actions.

2. Hitesh Patel’s claim that he ‘did not know’ he was a director of
Digital City (UK) Ltd until his directorship of that company was
subsequently disclosed by a member of the public will not stand up
to open, transparent and independent scrutiny when the Chief
Executives report into Patel’s actions is finally released as a
result of this freedom of information request.

Until the requested information is transparently and independently
scrutinised it is impossible for members of the public to ascertain
whether criminal acts and a conspiracy to conceal such acts exist,
or that the withholding of such information is being done merely to
prevent the public learning further details of fiscal and legal
incompetency which may exist at the highest levels of Swindon
Borough Council than are currently available in the public domain.

I believe it was inappropriate for Swindon Borough Council’s
Director of Law & Democratic Services to be the officer who
considered and refused this information request because, on the
12th of October 2009, Mr Taylor had co-authored a cabinet member
briefing note with Hitesh Patel, (partially quoted below), which
authorised Patel, at some future date, to enter Swindon Borough
Council into a partnership with Digital City (UK) Ltd:

“That the Group Director Business Transformation will, on behalf of
Swindon Borough Council, enter into a joint venture partnership underpinned
by a Shareholders' Agreement with aQovia UK Limited and Avidity
Consulting Limited to form Digital City UK Limited,

I believe that, on the balance of probabilities, Swindon Borough
Council’s Director of Law & Democratic Services and/or staff in his
office would, more likely than not, have been aware that Hitesh
Patel’s was already a director of Digital City (UK) Ltd before the
cabinet member briefing note was published and presented to cabinet
members.

At a cabinet meeting held in March 2010, Patel was challenged on
the issue of his Digital City directorship by Councillor Peter
Greenhalgh - Cabinet member for Transport. Stephen Taylor publicly
denied, (on Patel’s behalf although Patel was also present at the
meeting), that Patel was a director of Digital City.

Although Cllr Greenhalgh’s challenge, and Stephen Taylors denial,
are well remembered and documented elsewhere, the minutes of that
particular cabinet meeting do not appear to record the event. This
is one of several instances where the discussion of subjects
related to, but not limited to, this aspect of the public/private
partnership between Swindon Borough Council and Digital City (UK)
Ltd have been omitted from the published minutes of council
meetings.

The public trust in Swindon Borough Council and its ‘WiFi’ project
has been severely damaged by a belief, whether genuine or
perceived, that a culture of denial and concealment has been
employed by elected members and council officers to frustrate
public interest in, and scrutiny of the probity and competency of
officers and members involved in creating the Swindon Borough
Council/Digital City partnership.

I also note with interest that Councillor Derique Montaut, leader
of the Labour Group of Borough Councillors has stated that the
Chief executives report into Hitesh Patel’s Directorship at Digital
City (UK) Ltd should not remain secret, saying:

“I was asked by the Chief Executive not to publicly disclose any
information that was in the drafted report, if I decided to read
it. I did not agree that, if I read this report, I should keep the
contents of it secret. Therefore I decided not to read the report.”

I infer from Councillor Montaut’s that he did not wish to become
implicated in an orchestrated attempt to conceal facts which, in
his opinion, should have been made public.

I also note that despite Digital City failing to meet progress
measures set by the council, and the cabinet's subsequent
relaxation of those progress measures to such a low threshhold that
they were described in a cabinet meeting as "redefining failure as
success", the ‘WiFi’ project is now many months behind schedule if
not completely stalled.

The initial installation phase in the town of Highworth remains
unfinished and work in Swindon Town did not begin when promised.
The likelihood of the £450,000 loan being repaid in full and
on-time by Digital City (UK) Ltd seems remote and the projected
£700,000 profit by the end of year two, (December 2011), seems
unlikely to be realised by that date, if ever.

With the above in mind I believe it is entirely fair, appropriate
and in the public interest that the taxpaying electorate of Swindon
see the Chief Executives report in full, and I respectfully invite
Swindon Borough Council to take this final opportunity to review my
freedom of information request and supply the requested information
without undue delay.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ch...

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Reid



The process rumbles onwards....

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1300
    • komadori's green corner
The refusal to allow disclosure on grounds of 'public interest' looks very familiar. You could be forgiven for thinking that they just churn these refusals out without actually considering the individual cases.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

 

Sorry, the copyright must be in the template.
Please notify this forum's administrator that this site is missing the copyright message for SMF so they can rectify the situation. Display of copyright is a legal requirement. For more information on this please visit the Simple Machines website.