Showing posts with label Magherafelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Magherafelt. Show all posts

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Hiding your Publication Scheme defeats the purpose of having one ... and raises your costs through needless FOIs

Publication Schemes are supposed to publicise what information a public body holds and regularly makes available. The Information Commissioners Office have a Model Publication Scheme for District Councils in Northern Ireland, listing the type of information that they must make available.
You should publicise the fact that information is available to the public under the scheme. You should make sure the model scheme, guide to information, and schedule of fees are all available on your website, public notice board, or in any other way you normally communicate with the public. [Source: ICO Guidance]

As well as listing the information being made available, a publication scheme also signposts how to access it, usually offering URLs for online documentation. In theory this should cut down on needless Freedom of Information requests, since interested parties can find the information themselves without assistance. It cuts cost and improves transparency.

North Down council have (recently?) revamped their web presence, and in the process taken a step backwards in transparency. The new website has a nice look and feel, but it’s very light on information in some areas.

There is a page devoted to their Publication Scheme. However, it just lists the headings in their scheme and doesn’t link to the actual scheme. So the public are none the wiser about exactly what information is already available and how to access it. Mandatory items like the “most recent election results” are now missing from the website.

Oddly, at the time of writing – 21 March – not a single set of minutes from 2013 have been loaded onto North Down’s public repository. (Minutes tend to go online about one month after a meeting takes place: approved at the next month’s meeting. So I'd expect February's minutes to be missing.)

Their Local Government Reform page also refers to “images on this page show our current boundary, and the areas (in red) which will become part of the new North Down and Ards district council”. Yet there are no images on the page.

Magherafelt District Council have a reasonable publication scheme. Some other councils go further and keep the scheme as a set of browsable webpages with live links to the information. However, Magherafelt District Council haven’t managed to publish any council minutes since June 2012, rather contradicting their publication schemes advice that “minutes of Council meetings available on the website”.

Back in 2009 I blogged about my experience asking Magherafelt District Council for electronic copies of minutes. After been offered paper copies (at a cost) they relented and sent them electronically. And after a struggle it turned out that the council had voted in March 2005 to publish their minutes on their website. But four and a half years later they still hadn't got around to it. Seems that the wheels have fallen off that wagon again.

From past experience, I’d say that Belfast City Council has a pretty slick FOI process. However, checking their Publication Scheme tonight I found that the document (linked to from two different webpages) is dated February 2003 and has just celebrated its tenth birthday.

Someone in Belfast didn’t get the "memo" from the ICO that “Authorities which are still operating publication schemes from before 31 December 2008 should note that these expired on 1 January 2009.” While they might want to claim that they’re not a District Council and that the NI District Council model publication scheme does not apply, they could default to other model publication schemes for NI.

I’m sure the local ICO office in Belfast would be glad to offer advice …

Missing publication schemes, absent minutes and out of date documents lead me to make two conclusions: (1) transparency is not at the heart of local government in NI; and (2) members of the public are disinterested – or disheartened – and not reminding councillors and council officials that information is missing.

Neither of these is a sign of a healthy local democracy.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

NI Council website performance = poor ... the results from Socitm's Better Connected 2010 report

Socitm logo

Socitm have published their Better Connected 2010 report looking at council websites across the UK. Only eleven councils (3%) across the UK came out with the maximum four stars. In general, Northern Ireland’s 26 councils didn’t fare well.

There are some extenuating circumstances. Some of the six specific topics that the report assessed and rated as important (jobs, library services, schools, family history, planning, rubbish collection) fall outside the remit of NI’s councils. So while rubbish collection is in scope, library services and schools are dealt with by the remnant Education & Library Boards and the relatively new Northern Ireland Library Authority.

However the thrust of the Socitm research remains valid.

  • assessing whether the council websites have the information that people are looking for (in terms of content, links elsewhere, being up-to-date)
  • allowing people to “transact business” with the council
  • offering the opportunity to influence council policies and decisions
  • usability and navigations
  • accessibility

Belfast City Council quickly put out a statement to trumpet their three star success, noting

“A total of 11 councils received four stars, while Belfast was among the 105 who received three stars, putting it in the top 25 per cent – a major achievement given the resources and budget of councils across the water.”

Belfast also noted some of the comment in the full report (which you have to pay for to see):

“Reviewers described Belfast as one of their favourites, saying it was `a really good all-round website` and `a joy to read`. It praised the plain English style, content, availability, homepage performance and use of social media.”

Well done to Belfast. I wonder will any of the other councils publish the comments made about their lesser-rated websites along with their proposals for improving how they serve local ratepayers?

Drum roll ... the full results for NI’s 26 councils from Socitm Insight. I’ve noted the areas which the specific areas and themes that the report highlighted as being good.

THREE STARS

  • Belfast City Council – jobs, rubbish collection, up-to-date, content newsworthiness, A-Z index, search, navigation, accessibility

TWO STARS

ONE STAR

It has got to be a wake up call for Northern Ireland's councils as they prepare to shuffle down from 26 to 11 larger council blocks if this element of the Reform of Public Administration goes ahead. In an age of technical improvement, shrinking budgets and a move to self-service, council processes have still a long way to go.

Update - You can use Pezholio's mashup to get a feel for the spread of council website performance across the UK.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

(Magherafelt) Council accountability, transparency, FOIs and internal reviews

I’ve posted about local council websites a couple of times recently. Some offer their ratepayers a lot of visibility of council business, publishing an online calendar of meetings (some of which the public can even attend) and following these up with links to the approved minutes. But some councils seem to live in a world of obfuscation - either deliberate or by inaction - and give very little information to the ratepayers who they serve.

If politicians want members of the public to take an interest in what they do and come out in greater numbers to vote at elections, perhaps they would need to up their game on accountability and transparency.

ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) logo

The Information Commissioner’s Office is the UK’s independent public body set up to promote access to official information and protect personal information. They enforce and oversee the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. They offer best practice advice to public authorities, as well as mandating a Model Publication Scheme that had to be adopted by 1 January 2009.

In general, public authorities are encouraged to regularly publish a core set of information that would be useful or frequently requested by the public. The ICO’s scheme states:

Where it is within the capability of a public authority, information will be provided on a website. Where it is impracticable to make information available on a website or when an individual does not wish to access the information by the website, a public authority will indicate how information can be obtained by other means and provide it by those means.

Magherafelt District Council logo

Having mentioned Belfast and Lisburn City Councils in the post, someone suggested looking at Magherafelt District Council.

The ICO even give specific examples of the kinds of information that they expect district councils in Northern Ireland to provide in order to meet their commitments under the model publication scheme. This includes information (online or offline) about recent election results, timetable of council meetings, register of councillors interests etc.

Magherafelt District Council mention none of this information in their current publication scheme which is still dated January 2003 ... missing the ICO’s 1 January 2009 deadline by a country mile. And fundamentally, no council minutes online.

So I asked them about it.

And exactly twenty days later I got a response (at half six in the evening). Odd how it takes exactly twenty days to answer questions! Even worse the text of the emailed reply suggested that they hadn’t started processing my request until day twenty and then seemed to be answered in a rush.

Despite the ICO explaining:

A public authority must inform the applicant in writing whether it holds the information requested and if so, communicate that information to the applicant, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after receipt of the request; section 10(1). [text bolded in the ICO original]

Can I have a copy of your minutes?

Given that there’s no online accountability of what the council debate and decide, I asked:

Can you supply electronic copies (or point to an online version) of the full council minutes that have been signed off/approved for 2009 so far ...

Their reply:

Council minutes are not presently available in an electronic format. Paper copies may be obtained on payment of the requisite photocopying charge as detailed in the Councils Publication Scheme. Please advise if you are willing to pay the relevant charges and arrangements will be made to invoice you for the requisite amounts. Council minutes are not presently published online.

Their publication scheme outlines the photocopying charges that were set back in 2003 and presumably have not been reviewed since.

Current charges are as follows:

Photocopies (per page):

1-10 copies 25p per copy (inc. VAT)
11-25 copies 20p per copy (inc. VAT)
26 copies plus 15p per copy (inc. VAT)

Certified copy charges (per page or part thereof):
£2.50 per copy

Administrative/retrieval time £20 per hour

Postage and packing at cost

A minimum charge of £10 will apply.

Didn’t seem very reasonable to me. Unless council minutes are being written out by hand or formatted on a typewriter, a reasonable person might expect that the council use modern word processing and already internally hold electronic copies of their minutes, perhaps as Microsoft Word documents or PDF files! The very helpful ICO website pointed me towards Section 11(1) of the Freedom of Information Act that states:

Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication the authority shall so far as is reasonably practicable give effect to that preference.

Many public authorities offer an Internal Review “appeal” process that allows someone independent of the original respondent to reassess the decision to withhold information - and avoids objections reaching the official ICO complaint process too quickly!

So in the strong likelihood of electronic copies being internally available, I asked them to consider whether it would be reasonably practical for the Council to forward them to me by email as requested.

The full response to the internal review of the issue stated

Copies of the minutes from January to May/June 2009 are attached to this email.

It should be noted that the attached PDFs were scans of the printed minutes, not searchable without OCR!

Remarkably, it took exactly twenty days for their response to the internal review - once again missing the spirit of the ICO’s expectation that “internal reviews should also be completed promptly”.

Do you have an offline policy?

Intrigued that there didn’t seem to be any increase in the information published online in the six and a half years since their Publication Scheme was issued in January 2003, I also asked whether it was their policy to not make this information online.

Can you provide documentation (not limited to council or committee minutes) that explain the council's strategy and policy on access to council services through online/web by rate payers within the Magherafelt Council area.

The reply:

The Council does not hold the information requested.

This didn’t feel quite right.

  • Given the very rapid and last minute response to my request, I feels likely that little effort was able to be put into discovering the evidence to answer question five.

  • Magherafelt District Councils Publication Scheme is dated January 2003 and specifically rules that some information is available online on the council website and some is not.

  • The Council’s website was revamped in the six and a half years subsequent to the Publication Scheme being issued. The 2007 copyright notice at the bottom of each website is one such clue. Difficult to believe that decisions were not made and documented about what council services would be made available online as part of the process of tendering or specifying the requirements for the revised Council website.

  • And it is difficult to believe that the Publication Scheme has not been formally reviewed (even if left unchanged) in the six and half years subsequent to its publication, resulting in discussion and note of whether to extend the material or services made available online.

To still have so little information and so few services available online perhaps points to a deliberate and continued strategy that is likely to have been reviewed and renewed at intervals. So I asked whether they would reconsider their response to question five in case a less cursory search would show that they did hold discoverable information that explained the council’s strategy and policy on access to council services through online/web. Alternatively, they might want to confirm the kind of assets did not hold this information.

All council policies and strategies are approved by council and as such would be recorded in council minutes. A search of the council minutes indicates that council does not hold the information requested. However extracts from the council minutes, as listed below, indicates what might be considered aspects of a policy:

  • Meeting 08/03/2005 – It was resolved that arrangements be made for the Minutes of Council meetings to be put on the Council’s website as soon as possible.

  • Meeting 13/11/2007 - It was resolved that the council would only allow external links to official Government websites.

  • Meeting 17/01/2006 – It was noted that Mr Johnston advised that they were acutely aware that a number of the members had expressed concerns regarding the standard and level of presentation on the council’s website. He reported that following internal discussions regarding this matter the Chief Executive had instructed each department to visit their section of the website on a monthly basis and provide updates as appropriate.

So there was more information not provided in the response to the original FOI request. And although the council resolved in March 2005 to publish Council minutes on their website as soon as possible, four and a half years later, they still haven’t managed it.

Picking on Magherafelt District Council might seem a bit unfair. It’s a reasonable case-study into what happens when you apply FOI, and then request an internal review. Magherafelt are not the only web-averse Council. Castlereagh Borough Council - due to merge with Lisburn City Council - doesn’t publish a calendar of meetings or any minutes online.

Lisburn City Council

Firstly, hats off to Lisburn City Council for being quite open and publishing a fair amount of information already.

And despite asking Lisburn City Council back at the beginning of September (and chasing a couple of weeks ago) whether they would consider publishing details of the Lisburn/Castlereagh transition meetings (visited last week by Lisburn councillor Edwin Poots in his guise as Environment Minister, but normally doesn’t publish its timetable of meetings, location or minutes) - as they promised to do in a public press release - they have still to formally respond.

Update - Magherafelt have now started to publish their monthly minutes online. The earliest minutes are from their August 2009 meeting. Perhaps they'll now work backwards towards March 2005 when they agreed to publish them online!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Council and DPP websites – part 2

Starting to look at websites which belong to public bodies does feel a bit like looking under a stone and realising that while it’s shiny on top it can be all muddy and dirty underneath.

Lisburn City Council

Firstly, hats off to Lisburn City Council.

When informed about the missing minutes and bad links quite quickly published most of the misplaced minutes online and fixed the erring pages. Just 24 March and a special meeting of the full council on 18 April remain absent.

Magherafelt District Council logo

Someone suggested taking a look Magherafelt District Council’s website.

Their Publication Scheme – published more than six years ago in January 2003 – explains

“It is intended, as far as possible, to make material available on the Magherafelt District Council website on an ongoing basis ...”

Later, it goes to on state

“Although the Council has an operational website, which includes partial disclosure of information regarding Elected Members (refer to Classes of Information – page 9), the website has not yet been upgraded to accommodate requests for information governed by the Publication Scheme.”

But more than six years on, a reasonable ratepayer might have expected the council to have upgraded?

Unfortunately I can’t find much evidence of some of the classes of information (ie, document types) being available online. Council minutes seem to be available as photocopies, but not kept for online browsing.

ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) logo

To my untrained – and perhaps ill-informed eye – this seems to fly in the face of both the Council’s own ambition (stated six years ago) to make information available online, and also the Information Commissioner’s Office’s “model publication scheme that all public sector organisations should have adopted from 1 January 2009”. The ICO’s scheme states

“Where it is within the capability of a public authority, information will be provided on a website. Where it is impracticable to make information available on a website or when an individual does not wish to access the information by the website, a public authority will indicate how information can be obtained by other means and provide it by those means.”

And the ICO’s specific “examples of the kinds of information that we would expect district councils in Northern Ireland to provide in order to meet their commitments under the model publication scheme” seems miles away from what Magherafelt say they provide. Nothing about most recent election results, no timetable of council meetings, no register of councillors’ interests.

I’d be very surprised if Magherafelt District Council didn’t hold much of this information, and if asked I’m sure they’ll willingly supply it. But they do seem to be falling short of the ICO’s guidance that

“authorities should look to provide as much information as possible on a routine basis.”

Oh, and emailing them last night on their published enquiry address was useless as the messages were bouncing!

The following message to was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1 is not a valid mailbox'

Final-Recipient: rfc822;info@magherafelt.gov.uk
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [194.46.8.26]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'5.1.1
is not a valid mailbox' (delivery attempts: 0)

District Policing Partnership logo

To finish off, back to the District Policing Partnerships. To recap, I’d noticed that the Lisburn DPP had lots of missing information on their website.

They hadn’t updated their homepage to announce the public meeting in August; had only half the 2008 minutes published and none of the 2009 ones; their link to a calendar of meetings was broken; and they have the wrong phone number on their How to ask questions page.

Flicking through other regional DPP sites, some seemed to be a better state.

To be fair, Lisburn DPP did reply very quickly to my email pointing out the issues and the local DPP Manager explained that the Northern Ireland Policing Board host the DPPs’ websites and are in the process of updating them. However, at the moment “there have been unavoidable delays in the process”. The good news is that “it is due to go 'live' by the end of the week”.

But the lack of minutes for such a long time does seem to run against the (April 2008) DPP Code of Practice, in particular section 7.4 which expects

Reports of Meetings in Public

... Not later than 7 working days after the report of the meeting in public of a DPP has been formally ratified, the report must be available on the DPP website.

While public attendance of Lisburn DPP meetings is still high when compared with other districts, the total attendance did fall by more than a third between 2007/8 and 2008/9. So communications in general may not be working ... or else 2007/8 had some particularly well attended meetings.

Public attendance at DPP meetings

So is any of this important? Obviously to many people it’s not, as if they’d asked earlier, much of the information might not available and not missing. But doesn’t that point to a lack of engagement by society in the (very many) public bodies that help administer and monitor its affairs?

While Northern Ireland councils may be unwilling to make large scale improvements in the face of imminent changes to their number and distribution, now is a good time to highlight the good, the bad and the ugly.

To me, it seems that it’s all very well having central guidance and thought through best practice. But if public bodies on the ground don’t follow the advice, then it’s the public at large who are less well informed about what is being done on their behalf, or inconvenienced in not being able to quickly find out.