The case of the disappearing emails –
POOF!
Welcome to Washington “Perishing” Council, our version of a similarly named assembly in Washington Parish, West Sussex – and the mysterious case of the disappearing emails.
What if your local Parish Council promised £12,000 of residents’ money to a charity which claimed financial hardship, yet held £1.2bn in the bank (and heading for £1.6bn), for upgrading a lane?
…And if, within three months of that lane being upgraded, the Council themselves declared it “unfit for purpose” and pulled out of the deal?
You might wish to probe the due diligence which goes into such decisions to commit public funds.
Under an FOI you might, perhaps reasonably, ask for details including how the request was assessed (financially; the composition/ likely longevity of the lane; etc.) and – more importantly – copies of all correspondence (internal emails and emails to/from bodies around (eg the County Council, who would have been consulted)).
You might, then, be surprised when the Perishing Council confirmed they could do this but would have to charge for amassing correspondence beyond a certain point (how much could there be?), but promised – over several weeks, with profuse apologies for the delays – they were actively assembling all the correspondence they could, ready for imminent despatch, and would forward/ provide a cost for the remaining emails.
At least, you might think, precisely this was in hand, especially when 1) they confirmed this in writing on several occasions; and 2) the chairman sent – to your own email address – a copy of an internal email to his colleagues confirming they were assembling the emails, yet the importance of assessing the costs of the “extra” emails (ie those above the charging threshold).
You might then, however – after several months – be staggered to receive an email saying that despite weeks and months of promises, and apologies for the delays, from a very polite Clerk (who was wonderful and responsive throughout), they would provide no correspondence whatsoever – zero, zip, zilch, nada. A complete 180 degree U-turn on everything (repeatedly) promised.
On receiving this news you might be reasonably justified in asking yourself : “hold on – what happened to the promises, all the delays, and the many emails? And why didn’t they just say this in the first place?”
Also, you might wish to explore an alternative route to secure at least some of the correspondence – an FOI to the County Council, asking for all correspondence held by them relating to precisely the same matter. And you might be refreshed to receive all this correspondence, from the County Council, totally willingly, free of charge and within the 20 day FOI period.
Having received this you might go back to the Perishing Council and say, in effect “you initially promised me all correspondence, yet now claim you can provide me with nothing at all – so how can the County Council have sent me all their correspondence with you – four batches – when you now claim you couldn’t send me even this? And precisely where are the internal (and other) emails?”
But this is where it gets even more astonishing.
After you query this, they then name you in their council minutes: “Members raised serious concerns about the disproportionate amount of the Council’s and Clerk’s time being taken up in dealing with Mr XXXX’s repeated emailing, despite providing all the information it could (our emphasis) to his previous FOI requests” i.e.
1) Accusing you by name of harassing them while failing to mention their own (repeated) emails/ promises, subsequently reneged upon; and:
2) Stating – in their official records and available to the world on the internet that you (as a named individual) were out of order because the council had provided “all the information it could to his previous FOI requests”… which is blatantly incorrect.
So surely it would be prudent, for the sake of complete clarity, to provide the Perishing Council with conclusive proof their published minutes are indeed grossly incorrect, by sending them one batch of their own correspondence (albeit provided by the County Council) back to them. This provision:
1) Directly contradicts their statement that the Perishing Council had provided all the information it could; and…
2) Demonstrates, breathtakingly, their bid to falsely blame the resident (based on what is surely a lie?)
And yet Washington Perishing Council refuses to amend/ retract this statement – or even apologise.
Right or wrong?
Note – The (real) Washington perishing council in West Sussex responded to certain FOI questions, but failed to clarify the full picture which the emails would surely have revealed. Out of courtesy, the above was submitted to them, inviting comment on any elements which were factually incorrect, prior to publication here. They failed to respond.
However, the offer stands.
And to site visitors meantime, thanks again for reading. As with so much in this world today, you couldn’t make it up.
Keep smiling 🙂