Freedom of Information Requests Can Now Be Considered 'Harassment' against Council Officers ICO rules.....
- teessidetoday
- Dec 15, 2024
- 3 min read
Local member of the public's request for information rejected on the grounds it was 'harassing' council staff, however many claim its a cheap cop out for an organisation trying to bury its 'dirty linen'...
14th December 2024
Hartlepool Borough Council has reportedly sparked controversy once again, this time by branding a local resident’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request as "vexatious", claiming it amounted to the harassment of council officers.
The request, submitted in January 2024, sought clarity on claims a substantial payment was made to former HBC Chief Executive Gill Alexander. Specifically, the resident alleged that Alexander’s “golden goodbye” package may have been paid from via a special reserve fund created in 2010 or 2011.
The council’s refusal to disclose the information, backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), has reportedly raised serious questions over transparency and accountability at the heart of what's claimed to be one of Teessides most clandestine & corrupt local councils...
A History of Controversy
Gill Alexander departed Hartlepool Borough Council in 2020, amidst widespread criticism.
Allegations included political bias, claims of underperforming departments, and ballooning executive salaries marred her tenure. Despite this, Alexander reportedly left with a generous £46,000 payout and over £70,000 every year paid in pension contributions—costs which were all borne by local taxpayers.
Her replacement, Denise McGuckin, ascended to the role amid accusations of cronyism. Many locals criticized her appointment as a “calculated career move,” pointing to her lack of prior leadership experience.
The FOI request sought to uncover whether Alexander’s golden handshake came from a discretionary council reserve fund. However, instead of providing answers, the council outright rejected the request, accusing the individual of using the FOI process to “further a campaign against senior officers.”
Council: FOI Requests Are 'Harassment' sets a dangerous precedent
Hartlepool Borough Council managed to argue that the request amounted to “allegations of wrongdoing, without any clear or logical basis.” According to the council, these allegations were having “a detrimental impact” on staff morale and mental health. They further claimed that responding to the request would be “burdensome” and constitute 'harassment' of its officers.
The ICO sided with the council, stating that the “value or purpose” of the requested information did not outweigh the burden of compliance. It upheld the council’s refusal under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), effectively shutting down the resident’s attempt to bring clarity to Alexander’s mystery departure package....
This decision leaves many questions unanswered. Why would a simple request for transparency about public money be deemed “vexatious”? Should councils be able to shield themselves from scrutiny by claiming that inquiries harm their staff’s well-being?
For years, Hartlepool Borough Council has faced accusations of political bias and mismanagement.
Transparency is the cornerstone of democracy, yet decisions like these only deepen the public's suspicion that activities within Teesside's most clandestine extremist organisation are operating seemingly above the law & without any spotlight being shone upon them. .
Residents deserve to know how their money is being spent, especially when it comes to controversial payouts for high-ranking officials. If councils can block legitimate FOI requests on such subjective grounds, what does this mean for accountability in local government?
Many claim it's time for councils to stop hiding behind bureaucratic jargon and start delivering the transparency taxpayers deserve.
