I wonder if The MJ’s readers are aware of a piece of what I judge to be startling hypocrisy on the part of the information commissioner. To my surprise, I have not come across any public criticism of this.
A few years ago, the information commissioner ruled that Corby BC ought to have revealed the exact money paid to a former temporary finance officer (click here for more information). This was not, of course, somebody as senior as a chief executive.
That ruling was reinforced by the information commissioner’s Freedom of Information Act awareness guidance No 1 (click here for more).
The ruling was further confirmed ‘for senior executives of public authorities’ in another case concerning a Birmingham hospital (click here for more)
As a result, councils have generally felt obliged ever since to provide exact financial information to – for example – the Taxpayers’ Alliance, down to the last penny – or, at least, pound – not just for chief executives, but for other senior staff as well.
Last year, somebody asked for the salary of the senior people at the information commissioner’s office.
And surprise, surprise, the inquirer was told, quite firmly, they could only have £10,000 salary bandings, not the exact salary.
After an appeal, the bands were reduced to £5,000 – but not dropped in favour of exact salaries (click here fore more).
Speaking personally, I have no objection to people knowing that my salary scale runs from £130,227 to £148,839 – plus whatever national increase is backdated to April 2008.
Local government salary scales are routinely advertised at the time of recruitment, so can hardly be said to be confidential. What is more, I have no objection to people knowing that my council’s highest-paid employee – obviously me – was paid between £140,000 and £149,999 in 2007/08 – information that is readily available from the statement of accounts on our website.
I would even not object to revealing that I was paid between £145,000 and £149,999 – using a £5,000 salary band, as eventually prescribed for the Information Commission itself.
However, I am less happy with the public knowing the exact sum. That’s like a paparazzi close-up, as opposed to a long-distance shot. And my senior colleagues feel the same way.
There comes a point at which transparency moves over into intrusiveness. Indeed, a member of the public is demanding to know what the £141 of taxable benefit – over and above my lease car – was for.
It was for physiotherapy, which the council finances for all employees, to cut down on sick leave, but I am less-than-enthusiastic about putting my medical records on the website. Why does the information commissioner believe that he and his senior staff are entitled to more privacy than senior council officers – including someone as junior as a former temporary finance officer?
What’s sauce for the goose is clearly not sauce for the gander.
A few years ago, the information commissioner ruled that Corby BC ought to have revealed the exact money paid to a former temporary finance officer (click here for more information). This was not, of course, somebody as senior as a chief executive.
That ruling was reinforced by the information commissioner’s Freedom of Information Act awareness guidance No 1 (click here for more).
The ruling was further confirmed ‘for senior executives of public authorities’ in another case concerning a Birmingham hospital (click here for more)
As a result, councils have generally felt obliged ever since to provide exact financial information to – for example – the Taxpayers’ Alliance, down to the last penny – or, at least, pound – not just for chief executives, but for other senior staff as well.
Last year, somebody asked for the salary of the senior people at the information commissioner’s office.
And surprise, surprise, the inquirer was told, quite firmly, they could only have £10,000 salary bandings, not the exact salary.
After an appeal, the bands were reduced to £5,000 – but not dropped in favour of exact salaries (click here fore more).
Speaking personally, I have no objection to people knowing that my salary scale runs from £130,227 to £148,839 – plus whatever national increase is backdated to April 2008.
Local government salary scales are routinely advertised at the time of recruitment, so can hardly be said to be confidential. What is more, I have no objection to people knowing that my council’s highest-paid employee – obviously me – was paid between £140,000 and £149,999 in 2007/08 – information that is readily available from the statement of accounts on our website.
I would even not object to revealing that I was paid between £145,000 and £149,999 – using a £5,000 salary band, as eventually prescribed for the Information Commission itself.
However, I am less happy with the public knowing the exact sum. That’s like a paparazzi close-up, as opposed to a long-distance shot. And my senior colleagues feel the same way.
There comes a point at which transparency moves over into intrusiveness. Indeed, a member of the public is demanding to know what the £141 of taxable benefit – over and above my lease car – was for.
It was for physiotherapy, which the council finances for all employees, to cut down on sick leave, but I am less-than-enthusiastic about putting my medical records on the website. Why does the information commissioner believe that he and his senior staff are entitled to more privacy than senior council officers – including someone as junior as a former temporary finance officer?
What’s sauce for the goose is clearly not sauce for the gander.
