Friday joke: Broken Barnet, Freedom of Information, and yet another blunder

One of the most shameful characteristics which mark the blighted history of the Tory administration here in Broken Barnet is the obsessively secretive way in which it operates.

This obsession has moved from a deep suspicion of any scrutiny of its decision making processes to something which approaches a culture of corporate paranoia. 

Consider the farce that passes for consultation in this borough, the repression of all public debate, the probably unlawful amendment of the council constitution merely to prevent the electors and taxpayers of Barnet from discussing issues of concern at Residents Forums, and the abolishment of the council's own scrutiny committee dedicated to the One Barnet privatisation scam.

Consider, as well,  the truly deranged, manic denial of the principle and processes of transparency in this borough: the conflicts of interest that are not addressed, the interests which are not declared, the accounts which are removed from the statutory right of inspection - and most of all, the institutionalised contempt for the legal obligations that all public bodies have in respect of the Freedom of Information Act.

All the Barnet bloggers, and many other parties, are used to the many different tricks our council employs in order to dodge the requirement to obey the laws that relate to requests made under this Act of Parliament. I say dodge: they break the law, openly, continually, in order to hide material which is politically sensitive, or embarrassing. It is an abuse of the law that the Information Commissioner simply cannot cope with, as the procedure to deal with such breaches is so cumbersome, and inundated with similar complaints from many sources. 

Mrs Angry has already written about the latest brazen defiance of the FOIA by Barnet Council in regard to documents regarding the One Barnet DRS privatisation, and the decision by senior officers to change to a Joint Venture model, when such a decision should only be made by councillors.

This action by the Directors Group was taken in secrecy, without the knowledge or involvement of the Leader, Richard Cornelius, or any member of the political executive. In other words a major policy decision, that will affect contracts worth £250 million of local taxpayers' money, and affect hugely important public services, was taken by paid officers with no democratic accountability.

Mrs Angry requested the minutes of the Directors Group in August: she was told she could not have them for the ludicrous reason that they were 'imminently' to be put in the public domain. They were not, nor did the promised appeal take place, nor will any officer reply to enquiries about the request: all of these actions in breach of the law.  A complaint has been made to the ICO, this will take a certain amount of time, and in the meanwhile the competitive dialogue process regarding the DRS tender continues and indeed approaches a decision. 

This example is one of many instances where Barnet Council defies the law for its own purposes, and is frankly an illustration of the extent of corrupt practices that permeate the culture of this rotten Tory borough.

Other instances of the abuse of the FOIA include the treatment of fellow blogger Mr Mustard, who has been targeted for daring to do what the Secretary of State expects citizens to do, that is to be armchair auditors, and hold local councils to account, in particular for their financial and commercial activities. 

That this is necessary is due largely to Eric Pickles' decision to abolish any real external scrutiny of the audit process: see David Hencke's post here for details of the impact that this will have on local authority spending and accountability. 

Consider, if you will, how ineffectual has been the external audit process in Barnet, in the light of the huge failure in procurement practices that went unnoticed, until exposed by the Barnet blogosphere, and try to imagine how much worse it will be in the future. 

Mr Pickles wants councils to allow citizens to hold them to account, yet citizens who do attempt this in Barnet are obstructed at every attempt to obtain access to the relevant information.

Barnet Council, absurdly, has tried to silence Mr Mustard by claiming he is a 'data controller' in breach of the DPA, (a claim rejected out of hand by the ICO), and Barnet now routinely rejects all his FOI requests as 'vexatious', even thought the law states that an individual may not be vexatious, only a specific request.

When Barnet bloggers Mrs Angry, Mr Mustard, and Mr Reasonable attempted to exercise their right to inspect the authority's accounts last summer, again, in defiance of the law, we were prevented by being presented with material redacted to the point of almost total obscurity.

Why is Barnet Council so determined to repress the disclosure of information that should be right be in the public domain?

Because as part of their culture of secrecy and need to rule by force, rather than by reason, information is power, and represents a threat to their own ambitions and nefarious purposes.  The concept of the freedom of information, as well as the freedom of expression, is an affront, and a challenge to any regime of repression, or incompetence, or corruption. Open government, the stated aim of Mr Pickles, is an anathema to his Tory colleagues here in Barnet, and to the senior officers who are intent on running this borough according to their own purposes.

How ironic, then, that the disclosure of information that should be in the private domain, that belongs to the citizens whom this authority is meant to serve, is treated with such a lack of care. Or perhaps this is the predictable act of a council to whom respect for the rights of citizens is such a low priority.

For three months in 2010, Barnet was monitored by the ICO for 'timeliness' in its response to FOI requests, but Barnet also has a bad record with the Information Commissioner in regard to data protection breaches: there have been two serious breaches in the last couple of years, the first regarding the loss of personal information regarding 9,000 pupils  - including data relating to one of Mrs Angry's children - swiftly followed by the loss of very sensitive material regarding the 'sexual activities' of vulnerable children and young adults, for which the authority was fined £70,000 - a fine we, the taxpayers pay on behalf of the council's incompetence.

According to a statement from the Information Commissioner last May:

"Simon Entwisle, the ICO's director of operations, said the potential for "damage and distress" in this latest breach was obvious. "It is therefore extremely disappointing the council had not put in place sufficient measures in time to avoid this second loss," he said. 

"While we are pleased that Barnet Council has now taken action to keep the personal data they use secure, it is vitally important that organisations have the correct guidance in place to keep sensitive paper records taken outside of the office safe. This includes storing papers containing sensitive information separately from laptops."

Mmm. 

Mrs Angry can now exclusively reveal that Barnet is again breaching the requirements of the Data Protection Act through what appears to be the grossly incompetent management of its own website's FOI Disclosure Log.

A cursory inspection of the requests uploaded to this log has shown a number of requests and responses that have been uploaded with unredacted personal details of the individuals concerned. 

In one example, the private arrangements concerning the care of a vulnerable elderly resident have been published, despite the heading of the response itself clearly stating 'Do not publish'.

In another, a property that is the focus of a planning dispute is identified, and as in the first example, individual (non senior) officers are named, yet someone has carefully redacted the name of the developers involved (the redaction of 'commercial' sensitivity is always carefully observed, in Broken Barnet).

In another comically inept example, a resident has asked, rather like Mrs Angry, for details of empty residential and commercial property in the borough. The response is to refuse this request, on various grounds, including that there would be a breach of the data protection act: this concern for personal data, however, does not extend to the person making the request, whose name and email is published on the internet for everyone to see. 

In fact this last example is the perfect illustration of the attitude of Barnet Council: access to their information, material that is politically or 'commercially' sensitive, must be jealously guarded, even in defiance of the law, but the need to secure the personal information of residents is something which they regard with a laxity and complacency verging on contempt.

This latest breach has been reported to the ICO last week, but the website is still accessible. No doubt the Information Commissioner, in due course, will again censure the council, and perhaps another fine will be presented to residents. Junior members of staff will be held responsible, and the senior officers paid to oversee the proper management of this information will carry on as usual.

In the meanwhile, if you have made a FOI request to Barnet Council in the last few years, (or work for the council) - you might want to check to make sure your details are not being displayed.

Oh, and now nip across to Mr Mustard's blog, as he may well have something to say on the subject too ...   http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/

Updated:

Mrs Angry noted yesterday that the disclosure log was still full of unredacted data, and decided that, tempting thought it is to leave the council's latest data breach in place until the overburdened ICO deals with the complaint, it was not fair to some of the more vulnerable residents to continue to have their personal information displayed for everyone to view. The CEO and Tooting Twister have therefore been alerted to the breach, and now the log is no longer accessible. Let's see how long it takes them to go through all the FOIs, and weed out the ones  that should never have been published, shall we?

 Do you know, Mrs Angry is getting rather tired of running Barnet Council, and doing the job of senior officers on their behalf, as a long term interim but unpaid consultant. 

Just saying. 

Friday joke: transparency and the law in Broken Barnet

It's a week since Mrs Angry, Mr Reasonable, Mr Mustard and another party went to Barnet Council's offices to inspect the accounts, as is our right in law, only to be presented with an array of redacted and useless information, in contravention of the regulations. We complained, to Barnet, to the District Auditor, and to Eric Pickles.

This morning we all received an identical reply from Andrew 'Blackhole' Travers, the deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer of the authority. Here is my copy:

Dear Mrs Angry

Inspection of Accounts under ACA 1998 for the year 2011/12

I refer to: (i) your visit to the Council on Friday 6th July for the purpose of inspection of the Council’s accounts; and (ii) your subsequent email communication(s).

As I have received a number of email communications raising the same, or similar, queries, I have taken the approach of addressing two common queries within this response.

1. Entitlement to see original documentation: Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 – which, as you know, deals with the entitlement of electors to inspect the Council’s accounts – does not, expressly, provide that the original of the documentation must be available for inspection. Further, where documentation is to be redacted (please see below) it is reasonable for the Council to copy the original documentation and to then redact the copy as necessary.

2. Redaction: whilst the Council has no intention or wish to detract from or to obstruct the entitlement which the legislation gives to electors to inspect the Council’s accounts, which are to be audited, the Council is satisfied that, where documentation contains personal data and/or commercially confidential information, it must redact such documentation prior to inspection. Where possible, the Council does seek a view from the relevant Provider/Contractor/Supplier, but the Council is clear that the decision on whether or not there should be redaction of commercially confidential information is a decision for the Council, balancing the public interest in transparency against the public interest in maintenance of valuable commercially confidential information.

I hope that you find this helpful.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Travers

Deputy Chief Executive

Mrs Angry did not find this helpful, and has explained to Mr Travers why not:

Dear Mr Travers

Thank you for your reply, which I note has arrived, as I anticipated, on the last day of the period in which residents are able to inspect your accounts, and has therefore prevented any further inspection, redacted or otherwise.

I think perhaps you may be labouring under the misapprehension that I am some sort of idiot.

Or perhaps you are struggling to understand the legislation.

Let me assist you.

Section 14 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 gives residents the right to inspect the accounts of the local authority in order to raise any queries with the district auditor:

14 Inspection of statements of accounts and auditors’ reports.(1)A local government elector for the area of a body subject to audit, other than a health service body, may—

(a)inspect and make copies of any statement of accounts prepared by the body pursuant to regulations under section 27;

(b)inspect and make copies of any report, other than an immediate report, made to the body by an auditor; and

(c)require copies of any such statement or report to be delivered to him on payment of a reasonable sum for each copy.

(2)A document which a person is entitled to inspect under this section may be inspected by him at all reasonable times and without payment.

And, oh dear, look at this:

(3)A person who has the custody of any such document and—

(a)obstructs a person in the exercise of a right under this section to inspect or make copies of the document, or

(b)refuses to give copies of the document to a person entitled under this section to obtain them,
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

continuing:

Section15 Inspection of documents and questions at audit.(1)At each audit under this Act, other than an audit of accounts of a health service body, any persons interested may—

(a)inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them, and

(b)make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents.

(2)At the request of a local government elector for any area to which the accounts relate, the auditor shall give the elector, or any representative of his, an opportunity to question the auditor about the accounts.

The law allows for redaction in the case of personal information. If commercially sensitive information was meant to be redacted, this would be specified, and qualified. It is not. I note also that the district auditor has stated that he was not involved in any discussions in regard to the redaction of information.

Clearly one cannot inspect the accounts and raise queries with the auditor if one is not able to see the accounts, and analyse the relevant information.

Redacting information in such a way as you have, in fact, makes a mockery of the purpose of a right to inspect and is quite evidently in defiance of the regulations.

I wonder what the Secretary of State will have to say about yet another example of Barnet's bizarre interpretation of the concept of localism, and the principle of greater accountability by local authorities to the residents of their communities?

Amongst the documents we were given last week was an agreement which contained one no doubt accidentally unredacted page asking the contractor if any information should be exempt on the basis of commercial sensitivity. The company had clearly indicated N/A, yet you still chose to redact the entire agreement from inspection. This is a political decision, and clearly nothing to do with commercial sensitivity, not least because so much of the material was not in any way definable as such.

This is not a matter of the publication of information, in any case, so the issue of sensitivity is irrelevant - this is a matter of scrutiny, giving residents and tax payers the right to see how his or her local authority is investing and spending our money. The purpose of inspection is in order that we may raise with the district auditor any concerns we may have after viewing this information. Last year Mr Dix did just that, inspecting invoices and alerting the auditor to serious failures in the authority's system of payment. This, as you know, is set against our exposure of Barnet Council's total incompetence in matters of procurement, and the revelation of an entire network of non compliant contracts. This year, the same request to see invoices was refused. Why is that, I wonder?

I think it would seem to any reasonable person that by obstructing me and the other residents from viewing the accounts we asked to see, a criminal offence may have been committed.

I will be seeing the district auditor next week, and you may be sure that I have a list of interesting subjects to discuss with him.

Have a nice weekend,

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

Transparency in Broken Barnet: Mrs Angry writes to Lord Palmer

Mrs Angry has written today to Lord Palmer, the Chair of the Audit Committee of the London Borough of Broken Barnet in regard to the issues raised in the former post regarding the declaration of interests by council officers in the course of the One Barnet outsourcing programme:

"Dear Lord Palmer,

You may recall that at the last Audit Committe meeting I submitted several questions regarding the issue of the conflict of interests of senior officers of the borough, expressing particular concern about the need for transparency during the One Barnet programme and the current tendering process that will outsource £1 billion worth of council services.

I raised the specific example of an officer who had taken an active part in the dialogue process for the customer service package, worth £750 million, and has now taken a post with one of the four short listed companies competing for the business on offer.

Without making any personal accusation of wrong doing in this case, it seemed to me, and to many others, that this is an extraordinary development within the context of such a hugely sensitive commercial negotiation, and that in the interests of transparency and probity there must be an urgent investigation into the circumstances in which this former employee was able to take up a position with a shortlisted tendering company. I am uncertain as to whether any such investigation has since taken place.

At the audit meeting I had asked:

1.What controls and procedures does Barnet Council have in place to manage the risks of conflicts of interest - and the perception of conflicts of interest - inherent in the appointment and secondment of Senior Officers to and from organisations with which the Council has, has had or is likely to have, commercial relationships?

Response:

"Barnet Council's pre-employment recruitment process requires that all selected candidates complete a Code of Conduct-Declaration of Interest questionnaire. Secondees sign a three-way secondment agreement between the individual, Barnet Council and the seconding organisation which will be specific to the requirements of the particular post. All senior individuals working on One Barnet projects sign a declaration of interest form for each One Barnet project for which they are involved in the procurement. In addition, anyone involved in the procurement must sign a Competitive Dialogue Confidentiality Agreement specific to One Barnet."

I asked then if such declarations were in the public domain. You suggested that such material would be available on request made via the Freedom of Information Act. I replied that I had had a less than satisfactory experience of asking questions on 'sensitive' subjects in FOIs to Barnet Council.

If you care to read this piece I have written in my blog on Friday:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2012/01/tender-mercies-peeking-through-keyhole.html

you will see that on 1st November I submitted an FOI request to Barnet in regard to a register of interests for senior officers, the implementation of which was agreed in March 2011.

"In March this year, the council's directors and senior officers proposed creating a register of interests in order to log any potential conflicts of interest relating to procurement and other issues resulting from the One Barnet outsourcing programme. Please tell me when this register was implemented, and give me copies of all entries to the current date."

As is, regrettably, usually the case with any FOI request to the authority on a politically sensitive issue, no response was made within the statutory time limit. This is deliberate practice by the authority and such obstruction, as well as the failure to make the declarations of interests properly accessible, is in direct contradiction of the oft repeated committment to transparency and scrutiny, and the principles of the new localism act adopted by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and supposedly a keystone of Coalition government policies.

The eventual response sent 18 attached forms of declaration of interests by senior officers, and refused to forward the details of another 67 'non senior' officers.

Despite the register supposedly being implemented in May, most of the 18 forms were signed in October, the rest in September, yet the 105 working day period for the competitive dialogue process for the DRS package ended, as I understand it, on 28th October. There are some curious omissions too: why are there no declarations from the Chief Executive, and only one from the Deputy Chief Executive? And where, one might ask, is the declaration from the employee who has gone to work for the shortlisted company?

I wonder if, as Chair of the Audit Committee, you would care to comment on the response I have had, and consider what action might be appropriate to pursue in the light of what appears to be a failure of the due process of regulation of the declaration of interests?

Last year's exposure of the MetPro scandal was instrumental in revealing not just an example of gross negligence in the specific case of the authority's security arrangements, but in the wider and frankly astonishing scale of incompetence in the management of procurement, contractual procedures and payment - in the greater context of the failures that needed to be addressed, one issue was overlooked. That was the consideration of whether or not any malpractice had taken place by any council officers. In my view, there was clearly evidence sufficient to warrant an inquiry by the Corporate Anti Fraud Team, and it is deeply regrettable, in my view, and that of many other residents, that no such investigation took place.

In the case of the declaration of interests, and I know that there was some confusion over this at the audit meeting, without suggesting any specific example of alleged fraud, I think that it is paramount that there is an urgent investigation into the broader issue of the apparent lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the interests of senior officers - and any less senior officers with direct responsibilities involving them in the dialogue process of the One Barnet outsourcing project.

I would go further, in fact, and say that the process should be suspended until it can be ascertained that the two separate dialogues - and possibly other recent contractual negotiations - have taken place with due regard to the proper regulation of such processes. Failure to do so could arguably place the authority in a difficult position should it later be challenged by any accusation of improper practices or failures in regulation that may have taken place throughout the course of the tendering process.

As I am sure you are aware, since 1st July 2011 there has been a new Bribery Act, which applies not just to senior officers of the authority, but to all employees, and I would also be interested to hear your opinion as to whether or not Barnet has made adequate provision within its processes and commercial transactions to minimise the risk of breaches of the new legislation, taking into consideration the lack of transparency and apparent laxity with regard to compliance with the register of interests in the case of the One Barnet procurement process.

Yours sincerely,

"Mrs Angry"

The lights are going on all over England: but not in Broken Barnet

Barnet Council responds to Eric Pickles call for greater transparency

Update 6.30pm and 3oth September, see below:

Oh dear, naughty, naughty London Borough of Broken Barnet, yet again ... in trouble with Uncle Eric - what are you like?

On Monday, the Barnet bloggers wrote to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the obstructive, anti-democratic practices here in Barnet which the local authority is imposing in flagrant defiance of Eric's drive for greater transparency and accountability: obviously Uncle Eric is a big fan of the Barnet bloggers, and listens to our advice, and now look at the press notice he issued this morning ...

Read it carefully, Mr Cornelius, Councillor Coleman, and Mr Walkley, and then each of your write Mrs Angry a 5,000 word essay on "why I must try harder to make Broken Barnet one of Mr Pickles' best local authorities', and stop being such a fucking embarrassment to the government".

Thank you.

Pickles hails next wave of council transparency

Published	29 September 2011

The next wave of council openness was hailed today by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles as he published the final Code of Recommended Practice for council transparency which will help reveal the fine details of authorities' daily business, including senior salaries and contracts.

Already every council in England except Nottingham City Council publishes data on all their spending over £500 on a regular basis.

Ministers believe that data transparency should extend beyond local spending and that full disclosure should be every council's default position. Councils will now be expected to have regard to the Code in all their data publications. Subject to consultation, ministers are minded to make the Code a legally binding requirement to ensure authorities can be held fully accountable to the local people they serve.

The code of practice calls on local authorities such as councils and fire and rescue services to shine a light on every part of their business, from employees' salaries over £58,200 and details of all their contracts and tenders to details of grants to voluntary organisations, performance information and the locations of public land and building assets. It also establishes three key principles behind council transparency; timeliness, openness and mindfulness of local demand.

Releasing this information to the public could provide a wealth of local knowledge and spark more improvements in the way services are delivered. Faster publication and easier access for the public and companies could open new possibilities for real-time analysis and response and opportunities for small businesses to enter new markets.

The best local authorities have already adopted the code of practice into their normal publishing routines. Councils like Northamptonshire County Council, Hammersmith and Fulham and Windsor and Maidenhead for example have long ago thrown their books wide open for public scrutiny and publish much of the data specified in the code already.

Eric Pickles said:

"We have always maintained that the best local leaders, those with control of the public purse strings, should be open and accountable for every one of their decisions. We have abolished top down inspection making local accountability more important than ever. Central Government has a role in ensuring that local people can exercise their right to know how their money is being spent and have the information they need to question that spending.

"But spending data is just one aspect of transparency. There is a wealth of information on the inner workings of councils across the country - from senior salaries and council assets to everyday decision making processes - and we shouldn't have to be data experts to see and understand it.

"The code sets out clear expectations. It will help unlock more information and increase accessibility for everyone, taking us one step closer to our ambition to be the most transparent government in the world."

In June the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to the Cabinet outlining what the Government has achieved in terms of transparency over the past year and what it intends to do over the next (see link right).

In the spirit of transparency the Department for Communities and Local Government has already released a vast amount of its data, including spending figures, contracts, Ministerial data and organisational information. We will continue to lead the way, and are publishing all 229 responses to the consultation on the Code of Practice today.

Notes to editors

1. The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency applies to England only. Local authorities, including councils and fire and rescue services, will be expected to comply with data protection law and to take a risk management approach to payment fraud. (www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/transparencycode)

2. The Department consulted on the Draft Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency from 7th February 2011 to 14th March 2011. Consultation Summary and all responses to the consultation can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/codepracticeladataresponses

3. The Code asks local authorities to follow the three principles of transparency when publishing data - Demand-led, Open and Timely. The Code also proposes the minimum datasets that should be released for reuse.

They are:

• expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information)
• senior employee salaries, names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid over £58,200 - equivalent to the lowest Senior Civil Service pay band
• an organisational chart
• the 'pay multiple' - the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median average salary of the whole of the authority's workforce
• councillor allowances and expenses
• copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector
• grants to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector should be clearly itemised and listed
• policies, performance, external audits and key inspections and key indicators on the authorities' fiscal and financial position
• the location of public land and building assets and key attribute information that is normally recorded on asset registers
• data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision - making processes and records of decisions.

4. The Code is published under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a code about the publication of information by local authorities about the discharge of their function. The Act also empowers the Secretary of State to introduce subsequent regulation should that be necessary to enforce greater transparency.

5. Details of local authorities' publishing spend data can be found via the Local Directgov council expenditure over £500 search tool (see link right).

6. The Department for Communities is leading the way across Whitehall and Local Government by publishing a wealth of information including spend (see link right).

Comment later, as Mrs Angry is off to enjoy the localised sunshine that is pouring down like honey over the blighted wilderness of Broken Barnet. x


Updated: 6.30pm

Well, yes, thank you, Mrs Angry had a nice wander around Kenwood with her friend, and had the usual women's rambling, pointless, what is the meaning of life conversation, as we always do, listening to the parakeets and risking concussion from the nuts dropping like bullets from the oaks and chestnut trees. Very nice. And talking of nuts, while we stopped for tea, Mrs Angry checked her phone and found someone had emailed her the funniest ever story about Councillor and deputy Barnet Tory leader, Daniel 'John' Thomas. Obviously she rushed home, yawn, and read the following article with vast amusement.

John Thomas has been talking to something called 'Public Service.co.uk' about the letter to Eric Pickles sent by the Barnet bloggers on Monday. It seems the Barnet Tories are a little windy. Are they worried that Uncle Eric might diss them again at the Tory Conference? Oh, surely that's just a nasty rumour?

Thomas wants people to think that Barnet is a shining beacon of localism in action and a marvellous example of transparency and accountability. He says:

'... we are committed to open government as well as responding to freedom of information requests in a timely manner."

Thomas said one of the bloggers had submitted a total of 175 FoI requests between April and September of 2011. This meant a total nearing £40,000 was spent by the council responding to this one individual, based on a typical cost of £225 in dealing with each request.

Thomas went on to say that Barnet council "completely rejects complaints about lack of transparency around the One Barnet programme". He said there had been "numerous cabinet reports, a full debate in council and the agreement of the One Barnet framework last October".

Goodness me. Let's not mention the fact that without the Barnet bloggers, and their use of the FOI act, none of the staggering revelations of MetPro would have been brought into the public domain.

Let's not ask the Labour councillors and LibDem councillors, especially Lord Palmer, what they think about the amount of transparency surrounding the One Barnet programme. Or what happened to the One Barnet scrutiny committee, for example?

As for the naughty blogger Councillor Thomas is badmouthing, we must let him speak for himself, but Mrs Angry reminds Mr Thomas that even if this ludicrous accusation was true, by such obstinate behaviour, daring to demand the answer to awkward questions about the disgraceful, furtive, incompetent and self indulgently wasteful activities of Barnet Council, he is only costing residents as much as Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers, the Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, (you know, who didn't spot the massive procurement, payment, monitoring, tendering and contractual balls up we unearthed), as much as he earns in - forty days. And whereas Mr Travers is paid £1,000 a day, and the first thing that Councillor Thomas and his colleagues did when elected was to vote themselves a whopping pay rise, your bloggers here in Barnet do everything they do as armchair auditors for NO pay at all. The Big Society in action, here in Broken Barnet. A ruthless drive for efficiency, and better services for less money.

No need to thank us, Councillor Thomas. You're very welcome.

Update 30th September:

Mrs Angry sends very few FOIs, as it happens - although they do have a habit of remaining unanswered, which is odd, and quite vexing - but this morning she felt moved to send the following, just in case Mr Mustard was busy:


"Good morning, Mr Lustig:

I would like to make the following request under the Freedom of Information Act:

A copy of any correspondence between Councillor Daniel Thomas and any council officer within the last four weeks regarding the number and cost of any FOI requests.

I have been specific as to the time period, as, in my relentless drive for efficiency, I am always keen to avoid unneccessary cost.

Yours as ever,

Mrs Angry"