Final questions answered?

Don Buxton got his final response:

— On Wed, 30/5/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FOI Request – 105
To: donbuxton
Cc: “Corbett, Sarah” <Sarah.Corbett@rotherham.gov.uk>, “Pike, Christine” <Christine.Pike@rotherham.gov.uk>, “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 30 May, 2012, 13:45

Mr Buxton, I write in response to your latest email. Apologies, but I thought I had answered point one. I enclose a copy of the cost sheet that was used in calculating the cost of responding to your FOI of the 15th May. I hold no further information on this matter.

In relation to your second point, the answer is no. I did not answer this point, as I thought that this was a rhetorical question. My response would still have notionally cost the same, as I spent time drafting the response and checking the ICO advice. Responding to this correspondence clearly costs time, and therefore money.

I think that we have now exhausted this issue, and I consider the matter closed.

Regards
Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Don Buxton responded thus:

Dear Battersby, Karl Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk  et-al,

Your apology is very publicly noted as indeed is your assumption that part of my letter was “rhetorical”. As you are now no doubt very aware it has proved both embarrassing and expensive for you to yet again make assumptions.

I note with interest that you will not be including further costings to Leeds City Council in relation to their failure to reimburse the Rotherham taxpayers, via RMBC, for the Leader’s profligate use of the civic vehicle for non-RMBC use.

Clearly any further requests to Leeds City Council for payment don’t attract any cost from RMBC in their myopic jumbled-up approach to civic finance. RMBC seems to have developed a highly selective approach to those issues which it decides cost something and those politically embarrassing issues which it wishes to bury and decides don’t cost anything.

Your notional spurious costings are entirely rejected by me, and I would suggest and advise that you consider that it is the fact that Cllr Roger Stone’s non-RMBC use of the civic vehicle which created the cost to the town’s ratepayers in the first place. Happily this was brought to my attention by a strategic friend within Town Hall Towers.

I now choose to end this matter as I can no longer be bothered to spend my time and money exchanging communications with you.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

Questions that went unanswered?

Don Buxton received this response:

— On Mon, 28/5/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FOI Request – 105
To: “DON BUXTON”
Cc: “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Monday, 28 May, 2012, 14:43

Mr Buxton, I write in response to your request on behalf of the Chief Executive.

In terms of the first issue, advice from the Information Commissioners Office is that for a request to be valid under the Freedom of Information Act it must be in writing, but requesters do not have to mention the Act or direct their request to a designated member of staff. We should therefore treat every request for information as an FOI request.

In terms of the cost, we use a cost calculator based on the amount of time taken to find the information and deal with the request. This includes the time taken to log in the request, retrieve the information,  and subsequently respond. We do not make a charge ( although the regulations allow a charge to be levied), but we do show what it has cost to respond. The regulations state that:

“ A public authority can charge for the time taken by its staff on the activities included in communicating the information. Regulation 7(5) indicates that staff time is to be charged at the flat rate of £25 per hour, irrespective of whether a higher rate is actually incurred by internal staff or charged by external contractor staff”.

We use this regulation as the basis for communicating what it has cost to respond to the request for information. In this instance, the cost to the authority in responding to this request has been £12.50.

Regards.

Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Still dissatisfied, Don replied thus:

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

In response to the latest e-mail from your subordinate employee I note that there has been a complete failure by RMBC to answer these two points –

(a) – I would appreciate a detailed costing from you or a subordinate which explains how your organisation is able to concoct such a ridiculous notional imaginary sum.

(b) – Will you be adding such a spurious notional sum to your subsequent requests to Leeds City Council for reimbursement of the costs of RMBC’s civic vehicle. If not, please explain to me why not.

I also note the pedantic nature of your response which alleges the further spurious notional cost of £12.50.

To quote a previous Chief Executive of RMBC, the e-mail was read, but not read thoroughly enough. Perhaps if it had been read thoroughly enough then you could have saved £12.50 instead of incurring it.

I have costed my time at 0% in relation to my request to obtain statutory information held by RMBC, and as such will not be making a request for payment or reimbursement to RMBC.

This has been part of my civic duty as an active and empowered citizen who wishes to scrutinise and challenge the costs of activities of those who are elected to discharge public duties on behalf of Rotherham citizens.

I hope to have the courtesy of a reply to my two unanswered points.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

Don’t miss Trambuster’s comment, which reveals the amazing and outrageous deception at the heart of Karl Battersby’s reply! Karl Battersby should learn that Rothpol’s contributors and readers are neither fools or mushrooms!

Don gets his response!

— On Fri, 25/5/12, FreedomofInformation <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: FreedomofInformation <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: FOI Request – 105
To: “DON BUXTON”
Date: Friday, 25 May, 2012, 14:04

Dear Mr. Buxton,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Request for Information – 105

Thank you for your request for information received on the 15th May 2012. Please find the information requested below.

I attach for your information a PDF response I received yesterday from Leeds City Council in relation to an FOI, part of which (see highlighted section below) relates to the use of the RMBC statutory civic vehicle, YM08DZP, used to convey RMBC Cllr Roger Stone and Wakefield MDC Cllr Olivia Marie Rowley to Manchester Airport and return on business which is totally unrelated to any specific duties directly connected to Rotherham MBC which are funded by Rotherham taxpayers.

Will Migration Yorkshire at Leeds City Council be reimbursing fuel costs and driver staff costs to Rotherham MBC for the use by RMBC Councillor Roger Stone of RMBC statutory vehicle, BMW saloon registration number YM08DZP used to convey him and Councillor Olivia Marie Rowley, Wakefield MDC to Manchester Airport on Migration Yorkshire business?

Yes. All costs will be reimbursed by Migration Yorkshire, Leeds City Council.

Please inform me of the following:

(a)    Has Rotherham MBC already requested reimbursement from Leeds City Council?

Yes

(b)    If not why not?

N/A

(c)    Please confirm the detailed itemised reimbursement cost which will be requested.

£150.00 plus VAT

(d)    If not, when will Rotherham MBC request reimbursement from Leeds City Council?

N/A

(e)    If Rotherham MBC has already requested reimbursement from Leeds City Council on what date was the request sent and on what date can Rotherham ratepayers expect that Rotherham MBC will receive reimbursement for the use of the RMBC statutory vehicle referred to?

The Invoice was sent on the 20th April 2012, Rotherham MBC requested reimbursement within 14 days of invoicing.    As of the 15th May, we still hadn’t received the payment from Leeds CC so they have exceeded the 14 days.

In accordance with the procedures of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC), I am advising you that the cost to the authority in responding to this request has been £71.10 which reflects the staff time and administration costs involved. RMBC however does not currently make any charge to customers for processing Freedom of Information Act requests.

If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to an internal review by the Council.  Please contact us via the above email address or by post to Sarah Corbett, Information Governance Manager, Legal Services, Riverside House, Main Street , Rotherham , S60 1AE .

If you are not satisfied with the internal review, you can appeal to the Information Commissioner.  Contact details are: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane , Wilmslow, Cheshire . SK9 5AF. Telephone 01625 545700. Alternatively go to http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Yours sincerely,
Kyle Hopkins
Access to Information Assistant
Information Governance Unit
Legal Services
Resources Directorate
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Don replied by return making the following points:

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

Thank you for your response to my questions in connection with Cllr Roger Stone’s use of the civic vehicle for non-RMBC personal use.

As you are very well aware, I did not request this information under Freedom of Information, and therefore I cannot understand at all why you have processed it as such.

I did however repeat my request for this information, and suffixed that request that if the information did not appear I would consider either a Formal Complaint to RMBC and/or a Freedom of Information Request to obtain the information if I thought that RMBC were engaging in dragging their heels.

I would like you to explain to me why therefore you have summarily decided to treat my simple request as an FOI and why there is the stupid spurious notional costing of £71.10. Leeds City Council made no such pretentious financial statements when they very professionally and willingly supplied me with information relating to Cllr Roger Stone’s trip.

I would appreciate a detailed costing from you or a subordinate which explains how your organisation is able to concoct such a ridiculous notional imaginary sum.

Will you be adding such a spurious notional sum to your subsequent requests to Leeds City Council for reimbursement of the costs of RMBC’s civic vehicle. If not, please explain to me why not.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

Bulgarian jolly raises more important questions?

From: DON BUXTON
Sent: 15 May 2012
To: Chief Executive

I attach for your information a PDF response I received yesterday from Leeds City Council in relation to an FOI, part of which (see highlighted section below) relates to the use of the RMBC statutory civic vehicle, YM08DZP, used to convey RMBC Cllr Roger Stone and Wakefield MDC Cllr Olivia Marie Rowley to Manchester Airport and return on business which is totally unrelated to any specific duties directly connected to Rotherham MBC which are funded by Rotherham taxpayers.

Will Migration Yorkshire at Leeds City Council be reimbursing fuel costs and driver staff costs to Rotherham MBC for the use by RMBC Councillor Roger Stone of RMBC statutory vehicle, BMW saloon registration number YM08DZP used to convey him and Councillor Olivia Marie Rowley, Wakefield MDC to Manchester Airport on Migration Yorkshire business?

All costs will be reimbursed by Migration Yorkshire, Leeds City Council.

Please inform me of the following:

(a) has Rotherham MBC already requested reimbursement from Leeds City Council?

(b) if not why not?

(c) please confirm the detailed itemised reimbursement cost which will be requested.

(d) if not, when will Rotherham MBC request reimbursement from Leeds City Council?

(e) if Rotherham MBC has already requested reimbursement from Leeds City Council on what date was the request sent and on what date can Rotherham ratepayers expect that Rotherham MBC will receive reimbursement for the use of the RMBC statutory vehicle referred to?

I look forward to your prompt and comprehensive response.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H Buxton

Eight more interesting questions

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

Further to the information provided to me in relation to RMBC statutory vehicle, BMW saloon reg no YM08DZP, I have scrutinised the document Car Mileage0001[1].pdf and I have the following questions which I wish to put to you and to which I require you to provide me with further information –

Log Entry No 19723 – 12.03.2012
This entry shows the vehicle was deployed from its depot at 0330 hrs to Kilnhurst (where I believe Cllr Stone lives) to pick up the Leader, Cllr Stone, and then onto 160 Agbrigg Road, Wakefield WF1 5BY to collect Cllr Olivia Marie Rowley, of Wakefield MDC, and then onto Manchester Airport, returning back to its depot at 0730 hrs.

Question 1 – Who within RMBC, and in what function, authorised and approved the RMBC vehicle to deploy to another Council area to collect Cllr Olivia Marie Rowley, of Wakefield MDC?

Question 2 – Will RMBC be seeking to recover partial fuel costs reimbursement and driver staff costs reimbursement from Wakefield MDC? And if not, please explain why not.

Question 3 – Is it standard operating practice for an RMBC statutory vehicle, paid for and provided by Rotherham taxpayers for the use of RMBC Elected Members and/or Officers, to be at the disposal of other Council’s Elected Members and/or Officers in other Authorities?

Question 4 – Please provide specific details of the flight destination, flight number, reason for air travel, accommodation venue, and specific details of the nature of the visit on which Cllr Roger Stone was engaged.

Question 5 – What was the cost of Cllr Roger Stone’s air travel and accommodation costs? Please supply an itemised breakdown, including any drinks, meals, supplementaries etc.

Question 6 – Did RMBC, via its ratepayers, pay for the costs of Cllr Stone’s air travel and accommodation costs?

Question 7 – Did RMBC, via its ratepayers, pay for the costs of Wakefield MDC Cllr Olivia Marie Rowley’s air travel and accommodation costs?

Question 8 – Please provide copies of any hospitality declarations by Cllr Roger Stone in relation to this particular visit.

Please supply your responses to the above questions in electronic format and in as timely a manner as possible.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton