So what did the Information Commissioner make of the University of Salford's deeply convoluted, poorly justified application of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act as an excuse to refuse to publish great swathes of information about their expense accounts and managerial activities?
Well, in short, he thought it was total rubbish, ruling that the University of Salford failed to demonstrate evidence of a coordinated campaign of requests designed to divert their resources (now there's a chuffing surprise!) and also that several of the requests had both a serious purpose and value.
The highlights:
"The University has not been able to demonstrate indisputable links between all the parties whose requests have been refused.
"The University's evidence, though considerable, is largely circumstantial.
"There is a distinction between annoyance caused by possible disclosure of controversial information, and annoyance caused by receipt of a deliberately vexatious request.
"The commissioner finds no conclusive evidence that the requests are designed to cause any such disruption or annoyance"
Needless to say, the Commissioner eventually ruled that the University had indeed broken the law with respect to the Freedom of Information Act (another surprise!) and had incorrectly applied their section 14(1) defence (exemption on the grounds of vexatiousness - discussed in previous posts).
Where do we go from here? That's a very good question. Perhaps Vice-Chancellor Professor Martin Hall will realise the damage he is doing to his own, and his University's reputation, in not putting a halt to this continued prevention of scrutiny of University expenditure.
Or, perhaps, a little more exposure in the national press might help to convince him.
Watch this space.
No comments:
Post a Comment