Don’t read this letter to the City Solicitor of Manchester City Council below until you read THIS.
Dear Ms Ledden,
Re: Internal Review of Freedom of Information Act request 5790.
thank you for your prompt and thorough internal review, dated 15th November and received by me on 19th November.
Thank you also for the apologies from the Comms team and yourself.
What the apology lacks – and what I am writing to you about – is an explanation of how such inaccurate information could have been generated and sent to me in the first place, and what is being done to make a repeat less likely in future.
There is also no indication that any learning is taking place, and that such an occurrence could not recur in the future.
I remain keen to avoid the complaints procedure if I can, as I was keen to avoid an internal review.
I have the following questions, which I trust will be answered promptly and fully.
1. What was the staff level grade of the individual(s) who drafted the inaccurate reply?
2. Was the reply “signed off” by someone of higher grade before being sent? If it was, and that person was a member of the SMT, who was it?
3. Is there any formal process by which officers receive verbal or written warnings for providing inaccurate information to elected members or members of the public who have requested information either through the FOIA or other means?
4. If there IS a formal process, is it being/has it been applied in this case? If so, what action has been/will be taken?
5. If there is NOT a formal process, a) why not and is one planned?b) what action is being taken in response to this case.
6. How many apologies has the Comms Team been compelled to make in the last 12 months?
7. Mostly I am interested in what processes the Council (and let’s narrow it down to the Comms Team for now) has for actually learning from mistakes. I mean, an apology is good, albeit unexpected, but a real apology contains information about how the behaviour being apologised for is being made – systematically – less likely to occur in future. With relation to this particular release of inaccurate information, what remedial proactive/prophylactic action has been taken/is planned?