Universally of Salford: Taking Information Seriously

Thursday, 13 January 2011

Taking Information Seriously

Remarkable revelations on Freedom of Information website 'WhatDoTheyKnow' today as the University of Salford gave us an indication of the sort of information requests they believe "lack any serious purpose or value".

Yes, the primary question the Information Commissioner expects a public authority to consider when considering applying the Vexatiousness exception to Freedom of Information Requests is that of whether or not the request lacks any serious purpose or value.

And so in response to two FoI requests recently submitted to them, the University thought nothing of applying the Section 14(1) exception when asked to provide information about the Procurement of Legal Services and Incidents of Bullying and Abuse by SLT Members.

How a public authority could make the deduction that the procurement of legal services, or allegations of bullying or abuse against their own Strategic Leadership Team, lack any serious purpose of value seems to defy conventional wisdom.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is 'Universally of Salford'?

The openness of any social structure can be validated by how it treats criticism. A democracy would never be described as open or liberal if it failed to encourage a climate in which criticism and opposition to the ideas of an executive body can flourish. A University is no different.

During our experiences with the University of Salford, there has never been an effective outlet for the sort of objections to executive policies and decisions raised in this blog. Almost every attempt we have ever made to investigate any controversial decisions, activities, spending or events has been met with threats, derision and concealment.

The Students' Union – the obvious forum in which to raise these issues – remains silent owing to virtually the entirety of its funding being conditional upon donations from the University.

It is our opinion that the University of Salford can never improve if it, as an institution, cannot distinguish between good and bad decision making. Achieving this is conditional upon both the student and staff bodies being kept informed about both the good and bad within the University.

Since the University have a monopoly over their internal publications (including, we would argue, the Student Newspaper), and since this 'monopolised' publicity is almost without exception propagandist, it is our opinion that a purely critical alternative ought be available to staff and students to balance out this inequity and assist in keeping both parties informed.