Freedom of Information

When they're not busy instructing solicitors to issue libel proceedings against former employees, another activity pursued by some at the University of Salford is to totally cock up the handling of Freedom of Information requests.

The Office of the Information Commissioner has now spent upwards of seven months investigating the University of Salford's application of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act (exemption on the grounds of vexatiousness), which they have so far used as the basis for refusing to supply great swathes of information ranging from the activities of senior management, to a more detailed breakdown of the expenditure contained within the sub-headings of the Annual Accounts (including the much loved £297,000 of 'Household Expenditure' declared in last year's accounts).

So why has there still been no movement on disclosure? For the simple reason that the University of Salford's reasoning for its application of Section 14 is one of the most convoluted yet conceived.

They are not arguing that the requests are vexatious - they are, in fact, arguing that the requests have only been submitted because a group of individuals have been in collusion, trying to think up dastardly ways of diverting the University's precious resources (presumably away from things like 'Household Expenditure') in order to meet the costs of compliance.

How did they arrive at such a fantastical notion? Well, apparently, because the requests were submitted over a period of months (described by the University as a "short period of time"), this is proof that the requestors MUST have colluded...

This line of argument has been somewhat complicated by Matthew "Accident" Stephenson's revelation in Freedom of Information correspondence that the University are treating requests from specific individuals as vexatious, in spite of the fact that the Information Commissioner's guidance on the application of Section 14 explicitly states that:

"It is the request and not the requestor that must be vexatious in order for the exception to apply."

So where is all of this likely to lead? It is hard to see how this fantastical application of Section 14 could possibly succeed, especially as the Information Commissioner very rarely grants applications for exemption under this rule even when the arguments in favour are ostensibly quite strong.

What the University of Salford may not have realised is that witholding details about expense accounts will inevitably give rise to the question of whether or not they contain impropriety. The legal position does not look at all encouraging - as this recent test case between a requestor and the Cabinet Office, which tried to apply the Section 14 exemption, seems to confirm.

As we look ahead to the new year, it will be interesting to see how these crucial events unfold. The expense accounts, the position of Ian Austin as Chair of Audit and the unfolding libel case over the Rat Catchers of the Sewers Blog might drown out the University's grand ambitions for MediaCityUK.