Transparency

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities (closed)

Stuart Macleod — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:08:34 GMT

Many thanks to all those who have commented on the proposed code over the past few weeks. As the consultation finished on Monday the forum is now closed.

Transparency Team

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Jagusti — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:36:25 GMT

Comments and feedback from the Open Data Sheffield Community.

There is a significant emphasis on cost-savings in the Proposed Code, mandating release of spending data over performance data (either internal key performance indicators or third party service level achievements). This potentially skews the open data agenda to be about aspects of public administration that are likely to raise defensive heckles or sensationalist reporting, rather than encouraging positive discussion about the effectiveness or value of public services against cost (as well as clearer exposure of the targets being pursued).

While local authorities are being charged with releasing data, there is no provision in the Code for supporting authorities to ensure that their audience is equipped with the contextual information or basic skills needed to interpret datasets or data correlations appropriately. Allowing for this will mitigate against inaccurate correlative analysis and improve data literacy to ensure that citizens can positively contribute to a data-driven democratic accountability agenda.

It’s not clear how the proposed Code will support continued engagement between data owners and citizens or developers to ensure that there is indeed an ongoing dialogue that facilitates the proactive and demand-led approach that the Code will require of local authorities. It also references responding to best practice as it develops, but there seems to be no provision for ensuring a base level of consistency across authorities (by sector or geography) for either implementing the code or sharing best practice.

There is a question about whether the salary threshold is indeed gross salary or value of total remuneration. There is also some desire to see all public office salary details published without a lower threshold, including bottom-of-the-ladder grades. This will help demonstrate across-the-board fairness in pay structures within public bodies.

The proposed Code makes no recommendation to ensure consistency in dataset indexing across local authorities and areas, which will facilitate cross-authority analysis.

It is unclear whether there are inherited licence implications for derived data and derivative works based on openly licensed public datasets.

The Code makes no mention of independent service providers in health and social care, welfare support, criminal justice, education or environmental services sectors within the list of local authorities, particularly where they have opted to operate outside the purview of the listed authorities, such as schools that are no longer operated under local authorities.

In parallel to the consultation for the proposed Code, there have been separate announcements about both the Public Data Corporation and amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill. A clear statement of how these different statutory proposals fit and work together is welcomed.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

dwyatt — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:00:40 GMT

Here are some comments on draft code of recommended practice …

· The £58,200 threshold for publishing staff details based on a civil service pay band does not work for local authorities or for fire and rescue authorities. Generally speaking, the threshold will cut through an existing pay band for a single grade/role. This does not make much sense and would lead to a position where officers of similar responsibility levels are treated differently (i.e. some would have details published and others not). The threshold needs to be defined in relation to either a principle of some kind or a rule, not in relation to some arbitrary and non-universal pay threshold. For example, something like the rule for defining what is a "politically restricted post". Also, the ICO already have a ‘test’ for determining who are senior staff and can expect to have details published.

· There is a contradiction between the coalition programme for government commitment (May 2010) and what the Code says about publishing ‘performance information’. The programme for government says “We will require all councils to publish meeting minutes and local service and performance data” whereas the Code appears only to require publication of about financial and fiscal performance. Is this poor drafting or a change of emphasis?

· In the proposal to publish details about senior staff, the code outlines a requirement to publish ‘context’ information about each member of staff. The code requires “job descriptions” [although all previous material has mentioned ‘job title’] and “responsibilities” [if the reference to job description is correct it is not clear how “responsibilities” would be different from “job description”].

· How will the requirements of the Code work with other requirements to publish information linked to implementation of the Equalities Act 2010 (which were subject to separate consultation last August). In the consultation document there were potential requirements to publish a range of equality data relating to both their workforce and to the services they provide.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Volunteer1 — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:32:03 GMT

As a former Parish Clerk I appreciate the difficulties for Parish & Town Councils but as long as they record approval of all payments over £500 in their minutes (which they should be doing anyway) this would enable data transparency, should save any extra work and should not result in any extra precept costs.

The problems arise when these councils don''t do what they should be doing already!

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Julia H — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:25:20 GMT

A number of parish councils have said this in response to the consultation. Yes, it will add costs, but transparency is vital, particularly at the kind of level where there is little contest for seats and where fiefdoms can be built up.

I am afraid, given that almost every voluntary sector organisation I know is having to merge or share back office functions, whilst at the same time producing more and more complex outcomes and impacts data, I do not see why parish councils should be able to avoid these duties.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

ADP — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:10:38 GMT

Smaller Parish Councils do not have the finance, expertise, staff, and facilities to comply with the requirements of disclosure on data transparency. To employ staff to carry out these duties, necessitating an increase in the precept, would be defeating the object in trying to keep spending to a minimum.

Many of these councils, including ours, has a single employee, the clerk, who endeavours to keep abreast of all the new legislation in a very minimum amount of alloted time.

The best they can offer, if this becomes recommended practice, is to try to post all the information required as and when time permits.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Stuart Macleod — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:32:34 GMT

Many thanks for all the responses so far, much appreciated.

Just to remind people the consultation closes on Monday so you only have a few days left to comment on the code.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Julia H — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:14:50 GMT

I have a number of comments to make.

1. I believe it is right that senior officers should have their salary published.

2. I also believe that benefits, such as pension, car etc should be published.

3. I think that the Code should make it absolutely clear that the names of individuals providing services to the Council for payment over £500 should not have their name redacted. In my local borough (Barnet) this practice has led to some unfortunate incidents. For example payments to May Gurney plc had the name of the company redacted because the officer uploading assumed that this was the name of an individual ("Oh yes May, Mr and Mrs Gurney's daughter" as one local blogger commented). Another example was that a hip hop artist who had been paid by the Children Services had her name redacted after a blogger commented on her use of foul language and questioned the appropriateness of employing her. If someone is providing services in a business capacity (and why else would they being paid?) their name should be published. If the work is controversial, the local authority should be prepared to defend it.

4. A searchable database, such as Excel, should be mandatory.

5. Given the rise in outsourcing, I think that gifts, lunches etc provided to any councillors or officers should be registered on the same database.

6. I think the code of practice should include guidance on how often the database be updated.

7. I fully approve of increased transparency. Although I appreciate that it will entail investment, hopefully it will reduce the need for expensive FOI requests.

8. I am concerned that the rise in outsourcing may lead to increases in conflicts of interest. I am not convinced the Code takes this into account. An example might be GPs involved in commissioning who also own or have a stake in nursing homes or private healthcare providers, or private companies providing planning services, who also act as planning consultants for the same developer elsewhere.

Thank you

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

TraceyS — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:40:30 GMT

Just a couple of comments:

On page 4 of the Code of recommended practice, the last bullet point in Paragraph 7 ,the definition used in the Audit and Account Regulations 2009 would be a preferable definition,

and we do believe that there is a conflict with the provisions of the Data Protection Act in the suggested disclosure of names equated to senioir staff salaries.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

quintain — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:17:26 GMT

I wish it were different but full disclosure of LA costs including salaries is needed.

My very limited experience when instructing such as ground work for new roadway/s determined that contractors have a price for LA contracts and are willing to discuss/reduce them substatially for private clients even though it is generally accepted that a private knowledgeable client will more thoroughly inspect the work carried out and insist on any remedial work needed without additional client cost.

Cost and fully understandable contract detail should be available immediately following the placement of any contract.

Salaries should be fully disclosed especially for senior post holders, I have no problem with removing the officers name.

Full disclosure includes all money recieved by an officer, pension, salary, expenses (including any C Card facility/allowance) etc.

In addition a probable abbreviated description of the most senior officer/s should be publicly available this will allow the public to identify the "Butterflies" sometimes known as "Flutterbies" who come in as highly paid individuals, shine momentarily and disappear before their decisions can come back to embarrass them.

As a Country/Society we need to initially understand the cost of our public services at which time we can look to best practice to either control or reduce or perhaps in remote circumstances increase costs.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Ken Abraham — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:33:10 GMT

There are various aspects of the code that seem to me to make it inefficient.

Firstly the amount of £500 is ridiculous. I was at a client where they were looking at Cornwall County payments over £500...it produces reims of gibberish that is not useful for measuring economy efficiency or effectiveness.Ther was a phone supplier paid £79,500 or so...what for? How many phones?.. was it phones or phone installation? or was it for IT links? ...the unanswered questions far outweigh the provided information.. and how do we know whether the call cost was high or low etc etc

The nature of the information then could then be improved in quality.

Parishes

As far as parish and town councils are concerned they lack capacity or expertise to be fully compliant with such a code. It would almost certainly result in significant additional cost. Most do not even have computerised accounting in place nor do they have accounting staff. The vast majority are staffed by a single employee who is less than full time who is expected to carry out a range of tasks already that is broader than is expected in most posts, and therefore some aspects are already weak in certain areas. Few are IT whizz kids! Some still write minutes by hand!

There are contradictions.

If the system is cumbersome to administer for small organisations are the costs justified? Is it efficient use of taxpayers money to tell them that a payment for £500 has been made or is it better to encourage more people to get involved in running a local council, given that most vacancies are uncontested? Having such a system has an additional cost attached:

Someone has to prepare and review all this data. What does that cost?

There has to be webspace on which to put all this data. What does that cost?

Someone has to uplift and update all this data. What does that cost?

How much saving to the public purse will be made as a result of publishing all the data? Can it even be quantified? Is it worth the investment?

At a time when the drive is to get people involved in localism activity, will this act as a force for or against people considering virtually unpaid service when subject to Big Brother like scrutiny of this idiosyncratic nature?

There are numerous parish websites already that are not able to keep up to date with publication of minutes and agendas?

I am reminded that under the old Best Value Regime Councils published quite a lot of data to the public most of which was promptly recycled because they were told they had to do this by the Audit Commission not because it was useful.

Is this not similar? The drive for this comes from where? The very place that says it wants to take its hands off local services Central Government.

I would like to know what assessment has been undertaken to look at parish and town council capacity to undertake this. Whether costs have been assessed. Whether anyone involved in making this proposal has any practical experience of what local people want or is it just another catchy of the moment idea that will cost a lot and produce little.

If you want to identify waste, this seems to be a very inefficent way to do so. It is also probably going to further disillusion both Cllrs and staff in parish councils and make retention and recruitment even more difficult when turnover of parish clerks is generally running at 20% per annum and filling council seats is becoming more and more precarious.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

jacobs1 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:35:05 GMT

Thanks for the info.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

Volunteer1 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:52:47 GMT

I am a volunteer director/trustee of a locally based small charity, and we have been experiencing a complete nightmare in trying to get access to information from our local Town Council most of which should already be in the public domain.

Stamford Town Council which serves a population of around 20,000 people and currently has a precept of over £400K (so not a small council by any stretch of the imagination) will not even comply with providing the basic information it already has a statutory duty to make available (including minutes of meetings, agendas, policies and procedures) let alone anything more advanced such as salaries, contracts etc. It has completely flouted Freedom of Infomation provisions and requests.

Unless and until Parish & Town Councils are made accountable to external bodies there is no chance that they will comply with making more advanced information such as that proposed here available. Stamford Town Council also routinely exclude the press and public from part of the majority of their meetings, again this is a power they are only supposed to exercise in limited circumstances and even then should report in the public domain on the business they transact in these 'closed sessions' but fail to do this as well.

They ignore communications by letter, e-mail, formal complaints and even appeals made in the public forums of Full Town Council meetings, and act as a complete law unto themselves.

Currently no matter how 'rogue' a Town Council are, there is no external body that a member of the public can complain to about the actions or failings of a Parish or Town Council . The Local Government Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over these Councils and some of our local councillors have been heard to be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect that they will soon be released from any accountability under the Standards Board and Code of Conduct.

Reporting on Funding for Voluntary & Community Groups & Section 137

Parish & Town Councils generally have been shown in the main to make poor use of their powers to provide grants to voluntary and community sector organisations which they can make from Section 137 funding. They can currently precept for up to £6.15 per elector per year under their Section 137 powers.

I believe that Parish & Town Councils should be forced to make an annual report on how much they could raise if they fully utilised their powers under Section 137 each year, how much they actuall do raise, and if they do not raise the full amount explain the reasons why they have not done so.

For example Stamford Town Council have 15,702 electors on the electoral role at present, so could currently raise up to £96,567.30 per year @ £6.15 under this power, but currently only raise a total of £7,500 @ £0.48 and are proposing to cut this further to £5,000 @ £0.31 for 2011/12, but very few members of the public are even aware of this and it is obvious that many of the Councillors themseleves do not understand their precepting powers. Being forced to report on this might help local accountability and transparency.

Reporting on Salaries

I believe all salaries over the higher rate tax threshold should be disclosed alongside purely the job titles these apply to.

I do not believe there is any need to name the recipients, although this would have applied to the salary I used to earn which would have fallen within the lower threshold I am proposing when I used to work in the NHS and I personally would have had no problem with my name being published as well.

Members Expenses

I have a concern at the number of public appointments and councillors who serve on more than one Council who when their expenses and allowances are combined are claiming significant sums form the public purse. I think where Councillors are in this position they should make a single declaration about all expenses from all public sources that they are claiming, which is then declared by all the public bodies they are members/connected to

This also begs the question where some people are serving on so many bodies about how well they might be carrying out their duties given that they are spreading themsleves so thinly, again many members of the public are unaware of just how widespread this is.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

PaulaH — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:12:21 GMT

The Comments made about this code is interesting, but appear to be made only from Principal Authority points of view. This Code will also affect every Parish and Town Council in the Country. Because of thier nature being at the most basic local level many of the requirements of the code will have a more direct impact.Many of the Local Councils do not have the finance, expertise, staff, and facilities to comply with the requirements of disclosure and in order to provide that level asked would need to increase the precept, thereby putting the full funding of complying with the code on the very people this code is designed to give transparancy too.

In smaller communities many of those employed by the Council, are contractors, or supply the Council work and live together making all thier details known could have a damaging effect on a community and ability of the Council to undertake thier work. There needs to be a flexability within the code for Parish and Town Councils that takes into account the diversity and range of the sector. from the tiny parish of under 50 electors with a precept of a couple of hundred and a clerk who works on the kitchen table to the large councils with 30K+ electors 500K+ precept and 20-30 employees.

Re: Code of recommended practice for local authorities

martinw — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:35:07 GMT

I don't understand why an individual's salary should be a private matter; particularly when employed by a public body. Many salaries can be worked out fairly well already for military, police etc, based on published pay-scales. Perhaps I lack imagination but the only reasons for non-disclosure of salary that come to mind involve the baser elements of the human character.