A TRIBUNAL has found that Kirklees Council leader Clr Mehboob Khan did not interfere with the public’s right to access information under the Freedom of Information Act.

But it remains unclear as to why proposed FOI responses were put to him before they were sent back to the person who had posed the question.

Kirklees Council accepts that at the time there was a lack of clarity as to who should be ultimately responsible for sending back FOI responses.

They also accept there was a lack of training for councillors regarding FOI responses.

A tribunal has been investigating a complaint made by a Kirklees resident after Clr Khan was alleged to have amended FOI requests sent out by the council.

The tribunal ruled Clr Khan “did step on the line” but didn’t cross it in relation to his treatment of a junior officer in the council’s FOI team.

The tribunal found:

In relation to seven FOI requests he did not breach paragraph 4(b) of the Code of Conduct (You must not prevent another person from gaining access to information to which that person is entitled by law).

In relation to nine FOI requests he did not breach paragraph 3.2 of the Code of Conduct (You must not do anything which compromises or is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, on in behalf of, your authority). Nor was he in breach of paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct (You must not attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage of disadvantage).

He never asked for work on FOI cases to be suspended or discontinued, but the council had a practice of sometimes doing so.

The tribunal failed to establish how it came about that proposed responses were put to the council leader and how it came about that he was asked to approve them. The tribunal ruled it was unfair to criticise Clr Khan for that.

The tribunal noted some of the messages from Clr Khan were “tersely worded” and a side effect of them being written on a mobile phone in the course of a busy day.

The report adds: “It would take some courage for an officer outside the senior ranks to stand up to a leader of the council when he queried whether the officer should have commented to him as she had.”

The tribunal found the junior officer was not well supported by senior staff but the report adds a more “wide-ranging enquiry than that available to the tribunal would be needed to establish whether this incident was symptomatic of a bullying style of political leadership rather than simply that of someone prepared to enter into robust discussion.”

The tribunal ruled he was not guilty of bullying behaviour and adds: “As in other areas, the line between what is and what is not acceptable behaviour is not precise. The tribunal’s finding is that the respondent did not cross that line. But, in the tribunal’s view he did step on it.”

The tribunal found Clr Khan’s conduct did not reach the ‘disrepute’ threshold.

THE EXAMINER: On October 25, 2010 an Examiner reporter asked the council how much money was owed in council tax.

Two clarifications were made with the Examiner’s reporter and the finance department prepared a response with money owed dating back to 1993.

Clr Khan sent an email asking: “This is not going out, who prepared the response?”

The tribunal’s report shows that Clr Khan was not prepared to sign off on the prepared draft. A manager offered to liaise with the finance staff to provide a revised version. That was approved by a head of service and sent to Clr Khan. It dealt only with the current financial year, not previous years as requested.

More on page two including Clr Khan and Kirklees Council's responses - plus a link to the report so you can read the document in full

The Examiner reporter asked the council’s press office why they failed to produce the total amount owed in council tax.

The report added: “He (Clr Khan) indicated he was not happy about providing information about historic years and suggested that information should be provided “for now” about the current year but that they should have a look at previous years and that the journalist might be told that it would take a few days to produce a fuller response.”

The information was released after a complaint was made.

Clr Khan told the tribunal’s investigating officer: “... part of the problem with politicians is we think we know more than what we actually know. So (you) get there, in a role right, and you suddenly think you are the world’s expert on planning. Or you know the FOI rules. When actually all this shows is that we know very little about all of this.”

CLR KHAN’S response: The council leader said last night that he was relieved that the tribunal found in his favour.

Clr Khan said: “This has been a difficult couple of years, but I was confident that I had acted in the best interests of Kirklees.

“At the time, we received more than 700 FOI requests a year – we receive more than that now – but this complaint and tribunal came down to just two of them.

“I am pleased that Judge Laverick said my actions did not bring the council into disrepute and he acknowledged that in some cases the response was improved following my input which was my intention.

“As during the past two years, my focus remains on the key challenges facing our area and communities.

“The judge’s report did not find I had treated officers with disrespect. I have always sought to uphold the highest standards and tried to work within them. If something disrespectful has happened, it was unintentional and I apologise for that.”

KIRKLEES COUNCIL: Kirklees Council’s chief executive Adrian Lythgo said criticisms of the council and the way responses to FOI requests were completed had been recognised and changed by the early part of 2011.

He said: “The judge points to a lack of training for members, no discernible protocol or framework being in place and the tribunal’s view that there was no policy covering sign off or clarity about who ultimately had responsibility.

“That has changed, and in the last two years we have developed a much tighter framework.

“No FOI requests are now sent to Cabinet members or the leader that anyone could consider were for “sign off” and where information is passed on, it is clearly for information only.

Click here to open a copy of the report in full

He added: “It is important to stress that the tribunal has not found breach against Clr Khan, but we acknowledge the failings at the time and would assure people that these have now been addressed.”