Refusing to release report branded a 'disgrace'
DESPITE numerous attempts to see it, the council has refused to put a damaging document in the public domain.
The document in question is a report about the management of the authority and is understood to raise significant criticisms of its leadership and management culture.
In refusing a request under the Freedom of Information Act for correspondence about the report, a senior council officer said: "The information is highly sensitive and goes to the core of the management of the authority." Other requests have been turned down on the grounds it is not in the public interest for it to be handed over.
The council refused to make the draft report available to the Evening Post when we requested it in April last year, and the authority has repeatedly blocked attempts to obtain more information about it.
The document was produced in late 2006 and it examined the organisational culture of the council and relations between councillors and officers, including those with the leader, Coun Collins.
These issues have subsequently been identified by the Audit Commission as problems which limit the authority's progress.
The report was not provided to Audit Commission inspectors investigating these issues in 2007 and 2008.
The concerns raised by the Audit Commission are yet to be resolved. Last year, the watchdog said problems relating to relationships and culture within the city council were one of two major challenges facing the authority.
Work to resolve the relationship problems is included in the watchdog's Audit Plan for the city council this year.
A breakdown in the relationship between Coun Collins and former chief executive Michael Frater preceeded Mr Frater's departure from the authority last year, with a pay-off of £230,000. He was the third chief executive to go in six years. A record that has cost tax payers £500,000 in pay-offs.
Lib Dem councillor Tony Sutton said: "I believe this draft report will show what needs to change within the council for it to achieve the progress we all want to see.
"We should be allowed to see it. It has been paid for with public money. It deals with issues and problems that have been identified by the Audit Commission and which are still outstanding.
"Why shouldn't I be able to view the document itself, the brief given to the consultant, correspondence with him, and the legal advice obtained by the council, on this matter? It is a disgraceful situation."
The city council has paid for legal advice on how to respond to Coun Sutton's requests on two occasions. It has refused to divulge the advice it received or what it asked of the barrister.
The council's legal officer, Glen O'Connell, told Coun Sutton that based on the legal advice, he [Coun Sutton] had to provide an explanation as to why he thought the material within the document would assist him in his role as councillor, even though the politician has not been allowed to see or be briefed on the report.
Coun Sutton wrote to Mr O'Connell explaining that as an opposition spokesman on the Executive Board, a member of the Appointments and Conditions of Service committee, and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, and in light of sustained criticism of Nottingham City Council's performance, he has a right to know the contents of the report.
However, Mr O'Connell said that in consultation with the new chief executive, Jane Todd, he had decided to block Coun Sutton's request because in their view, he didn't need to know.
Mr O' Connell wrote: "It is considered that refusing access to the document will not impair your ability to perform your general or particular role as a councillor… it is not considered appropriate to allow access."
charles.walker@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
Comment on this story