------ Original Message ------
From: "Mahon, Gerry" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Cc: "Geddes, Craig" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Sent: Monday, 30 Oct, 2023 At 15:48
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Review Request - 6875-6351-3396-5725 - Complaints raised/Investigation regarding Chairing ofthe Planning Application Meetings held on 24 August 2022 and 20 September 2022

I refer to the above and to your request for information dated 27 September set out below.

As you are aware I handle review requests on behalf of the Council under both the Freedom of Information and Environmental Information regimes.

I appreciate that this response is beyond the normal statutory timeframe and apologise for that fact - I was awaiting clarification regarding the accessibility of mailboxes for former employees who are no longer with the Council before concluding my enquiry.

I now have that information and write to advise of my determination.

You are of course at liberty to refer the matter to the Commissioner in respect of this failure.

Turning to the queries raised in your review request I would firstly highlight that you are indeed correct to assert that the response to your request should not have been limited in time by reference to Mr Sweeney's own employment with the Council.

Having spoken to him he has advised that this was not in fact what he meant and that the searches undertaken by him did extend to all existing records held by what he considered to be the relevant services in the Council whether before or after his own recruitment.

He was merely referencing his appointment to explain that he was not in a position to offer any context as to the reasons why no such records could be identified.

Video recordings may indeed be recorded information held by the Council. In the present case, videos of the relevant meetings are however available and readily accessible to the public at large via the Council's YouTube platform.

In this sense they are otherwise accessible under s25 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland)Act 2002 and I would therefore confirm that they need not have been disclosed by Mr Sweeney.

I do however accept that he did not identify the particular exemption under which the information was withheld and I apologise for this omission.

In terms of the Council's obligation to provide advice and assistance in terms of s15 of the Act I would now provide you with links to the recordings in question.





The clerks referred to were Sharon McIntyre and Eamonn Daly both of whom have now left the Council's employment.

These individuals' mailboxes have been deleted as per standard council practice three months after their departure and as such there may have been other communications from these individuals that are no longer held.

My own enquiries have however unearthed some further communications from other sources which I have attached, subject to the redaction of personal information under s38(1)(b) of the Act insofar as the views expressed by the writers were provided in the expectation of confidentiality and to disclose their identities is to my mind a breach of the data protection principle of fair and lawful processing.

The further information includes correspondence outlining the resolution of the complaint.

Having spoken to Mr Sweeney he had been advised of the situation by his Director after taking up his role.

I too had a knowledge of the outcome in my other capacity as monitoring officer and advised Mr Sweeney of the situation to my knowledge when your request was received.

This is how his understanding was gained.

The correspondence highlights that as a result of the complaint the chair was involved in conversations regarding her future practice with the Director in question and the Leader of the Council.

There is no recorded information regarding any formal warning issued and I can confirm that no communication was received from the Standards Commission.

If you are dissatisfied with this outcome you have the right to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Any such appeal must be made no later than 6 months from the date of your receipt of this e-mail . The Commissioner's address is:
The Scottish Information Commissioner
Kilburn Castle
St Andrews
Fife
KY16 9DS

You also have the subsequent right of appeal to the Court of Session, on a point of law only, if dissatisfied with a decision issued by the Commissioner.

Yours sincerely
Gerry Mahon

Sent: 01 November 2023 15:32
To: Mahon, Gerry < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Cc: Geddes, Craig < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Review Request - 6875-6351-3396-5725 - Complaints raised/Investigation regarding Chairing ofthe Planning Application Meetings held on 24 August 2022 and 20 September 2022

Cc: Craig Geddes

Hi Gerry

Would appreciate some clarification on below.


'My own enquiries have however unearthed some further communications from other sources '

What/Who were the other sources?

Can you confirm this was a communication/complaint made by an East Renfrewshire Council Elected Member?

Did you have knowledge of this communication/complaint at time during complaints process in September 2022?

When contacted in September 2022 with complaint, why did Mr Daly not disclose the existence of this communication/complaint made by an East Renfrewshire Council Elected Member at time during complaints process in September 2022?

Why am I only being advised of this communication/complaint now?

Would this not have been helpful at the time?

'I too had a knowledge of the outcome in my other capacity as monitoring officer and advised Mr Sweeney of the situation to my knowledge when your request was received.'

Do you mean, you had this knowledge at time during complaints process in September 2022?

Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks


------ Original Message ------
From: "Mahon, Gerry" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Sent: Friday, 3 Nov, 2023 At 10:59
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Review Request - 6875-6351-3396-5725 - Complaints raised/Investigation regarding Chairing ofthe Planning Application Meetings held on 24 August 2022 and 20 September 2022

The other source was a mailbox from a former employee (the former Chief Executive) who I surmised may have been copied in to any communications received.

I was able to access the mailbox to check the content and the information you have been sent was the only relevant detail contained therein.

I have advised that the identity of complainers is considered to be personal data - the complaint I assume you are referring to is from a member of the public.

No, I was not involved in handling the complaint in September 2022.

I was aware complaint had been received but not the specific detail.

I cannot speak for Mr Daly as I do not know of his reasoning at that time but I would generally say that it would not be normal practice to disclose either the fact of or the content of any other complaint to another complainer.

Equally, requests under FOI made during a complaints investigation may well result in information being withheld on the basis that its disclosure would substantially prejudice the process and by implication the conduct of public affairs but that is of course an assessment that would be case and circumstance specific.

You have no right to be proactively advised of any complaint per se. You are only receiving information at this stage under the Freedom of Information regime in response to your specific request and then only after consideration by the Council of the appropriateness of release under that regime at this time.

I was advised of the position by Mr Daly prior to his departure from the council's employment earlier this year and so was able to advise Mr Sweeney of what I had been told.

Having dealt with both your FOI review request and points of clarification I would not intend to enter into any further dialogue on associated matters beyond this message.

Regards
Gerry


Sent: 03 November 2023 15:04
To: Mahon, Gerry < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Review Request - 6875-6351-3396-5725 - Complaints raised/Investigation regarding Chairing ofthe Planning Application Meetings held on 24 August 2022 and 20 September 2022

Hi Gerry

Sorry, but this does need further clarification to establish some facts.

You say -

'I have advised that the identity of complainers is considered to be personal data - the complaint I assume you are referring to is from a member of the public.'

I have not asked for/requested the name of anyone who has made a complaint.

No, I was referring to the correspondence/complaint (dated September 21 2022 11:13/ 22 September 2022 14:06) within the attached file of your email 30/10/2023 15:48 which contains the line -


'As an elected member, I expect all of my colleagues..............'


The person would appear to be going out their way to distinguish the fact that they are not a member of the public ?

Can you confirm indeed this was a communication/complaint made by an East Renfrewshire Council Elected Member?

I do think this is an important factor which changes the perspective of the matter.

Were yourself and Mr Sweeney aware/have knowledge of this communication/complaint, made by an East Renfrewshire Council Elected Member in September 2022, when

- I emailed John Burke on 4/7/2023 ?

- When Colin Sweeney gave his response on 10/8/2023 ?

- I made FOI request on 24/8/2023 ?

- I received FOI response on 26/9/2023 ?

If so, why did you not consider it appropriate to mention it?

I consider this a very important piece of information and that knowledge of this information should have been acknowledged when the matter was raised.

Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks


------ Original Message ------
From: "Mahon, Gerry" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >
Sent: Friday, 3 Nov, 2023 At 15:27
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Review Request - 6875-6351-3396-5725 - Complaints raised/Investigation regarding Chairing ofthe Planning Application Meetings held on 24 August 2022 and 20 September 2022

apologies but the terms of the document you refer to are self explanatory - you yourself quote the sentence where they state "as an elected member".

That being the case I had assumed you meant the other complaint as it does not make any such reference.

If Mr Sweeney had been aware of this complaint at the time of the request then he would presumably have disclosed it.

Equally, if I had been aware at that time I would have advised him of its existence.

I am not generally involved in first instance requests given my role in handling reviews - if there was an intent to withhold it from your knowledge then I would hardly have released it on review.

Gerry