Topic: | Simon Lee and Me (sorry it's molto longo) | |
Posted by: | John Cameron | |
Date/Time: | 09/10/14 11:48:00 |
9 October 2014 Simon Lee CEO Wimbledon and Putney Common Conservators Wimbledon Common SW19 Dear Simon Putney Hospital Thank you for your email of yesterday, I thought it might be helpful to clarify the current position from my point of view. 1. BACKGROUND I have written to you on a number of occasions between August and late September in respect of information that the Conservators hold, which I require under the FOI regulations. As you are aware the Conservators accept that they are caught by the FOI regulations. You have provided two pieces of correspondence in respect of the Act. The first, from the Department for Constitutional Affairs (October 2005) is lengthy and the writer is evidently familiar with the Conservators as an organisation. The relevant extract from the letter says; “I turn now to the Conservators' duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). By s. 4 of the FOI Act the Secretary of State may add to the list of organisations covered by the Act contained in Schedule 1 Pt VI of the Act if an organisation fulfils the following conditions: (i) that the body or office is established by Her Majesty's prerogative, legislation, a Minister of the Crown, a government department or the National Assembly for Wales; and that (ii) in the case of a body, it is wholly or partly constituted by appointment made by the Crown, by a Minister or government department or the National Assembly for Wales As you are aware the Wimbledon & Putney Commons Conservators were established by s. 8 of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871. Currently the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Defence each appoint a Conservator. Therefore the Conservators meet both conditions.” The writer confirms that the DCA’s decision is that the “Board of Conservators” are to be covered by the Act, which the Conservators clearly accepted as they drafted the required Publication Scheme, submitting it for approval. The second is a short email (May 2006) from the Information Commissioners office, in reply to the Conservators submission of the draft Publication Scheme. The email in reply states that the Conservators do not fall under FOI, (relying on a telephone conversation with the DCA), but giving no reason. The email goes on to say that the DCA is responsible for designating which organisations are caught and refers the Conservators back to the DCA to query if they are caught. This email is at best, ambiguous. Given that the DCA stated (without condition) that the Conservators were caught and intended to include them in the October 2005 s. 4 order, did the Conservators not follow the ambiguous email up? Is this the full extent of the correspondence, if so, it confirms that Conservators took a casual approach to administration of the regulations. Your contention that the Conservators are not caught by the Act is (ambiguously) supported by an FOI officer, but completely contradicted by a senior official at the DCA. The Department of Justice say the Conservators are caught. Your refusal to accept that the regulations apply is also opposite lock to the Conservators’ stated position. The Conservators placed the FOI publication scheme on their website and have stated publically that, as a public body, they consider themselves caught by the Act. The Conservators have deliberately obstructed my FOI request from the outset and continue to do so. Levy payers will be extremely concerned that the Conservators’ claim to act transparently is contradicted by their actions. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Conservators either do not hold the information, or are refusing access to it in an attempt to protect their reputation from further damage. It is my view that the Conservators have substantially breached their legal duties to the Charity, and are deliberately frustrating access to the information. I require you to formally bring my concerns, on behalf of levy payers, to the attention of the Trustees of the charity at the monthly board meeting next week. 2. PUTNEY HOSPITAL - BOARD REPORT / BOARD AUTHORISATIONS As part of my initial FOI request I asked for the board papers authorising the sale of the access at Putney Hospital. You did not provide the papers, but stated in your letter (15 September) that the board papers authorising the sale would be published on the Conservators website. Some three weeks have passed and the Conservators have failed to publish the papers. This failure to provide the board reports / board minutes authorising the charity to enter into the Putney Hospital agreements is now of great concern. It seems extraordinary that board papers / minutes from the very recent past cannot be produced immediately, and placed in the public domain. The Putney Hospital transaction, by any measure, was high risk. The Conservators claim to have adequate risk controls in place, but can provide no evidence of the required risk assessment. Their decision to cede control of Common land, to instruct Wandsworth / property developers to construct private roads on Putney Common (in return for a total payment of £350,000) was in effect a sale of the land. It is self evident there will be supporting evidence that the Conservators acted in accordance with their duties as Trustees and with the necessary authority, before entering into the transaction. By entering into the transaction without any public consultation, the Conservators breached their responsibility to prevent encroachment of the Common. The stated objective of the Charity is “to preserve the Commons as open spaces for purposes of exercise and recreation and other purposes”. Building roads to a school and block of luxury flats, and then handing the responsibility for the roads and the surrounding land to the school / flats is neither preserving the Commons nor what was envisaged by “other purposes”. Please provide by return the board paper/s prepared for the Trustees consideration and provide the minutes of all board meeting where the transaction was discussed and eventually approved. Please also provide evidence that the Conservators were authorised by the Trustees to enter into all the legal agreements. For the avoidance of doubt I require evidence for both the WPCT agreements as well as all the WBC agreements. If the papers do not exist, please explain on what basis the Conservators took the decision to enter into all the Putney Hospital agreements. If it is the case that the papers do not exist, (or are inadequate) I require you to immediately inform the Charity Commission of the failings (in terms of administration and good governance) by the Trustees. The Charity Commission guidance requires Trustees to; “Trustees must comply with the legal duties of charity trustees in the administration of a charity. Trustees have a general duty to take reasonable steps to assess and manage risks to their charity’s activities, beneficiaries, property, work or reputation”. And in respect of “serious incidents” the Charity Commission guidance says; “As a matter of good practice, any serious incident that has resulted or could result in a significant loss of funds or a significant risk to a charity’s property, work, beneficiaries or reputation should be reported to the Charity Commission immediately” 3. PUTNEY HOSPITAL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES You stated in your letter (15 September) that the Putney Hospital subcommittee minutes would be provided on the website. Notes of various meetings have been provided, but there are some obvious gaps; you have subsequently confirmed that minutes of three meetings (2 September 2013, 15 January 2014, 29 April 2014) are being withheld at the request of Wandsworth Borough Council. You make no mention of this on your website, thereby giving a false impression of “transparency”. If the Conservators are being selective in what you publish, it gives the impression that the Conservators are in damage control mode. You state in yesterdays email that you hope to publish further minutes on the website. How can levy payers be confident that that “new” minutes won’t exclude minutes which you choose not to publish? Why is it acceptable that Wandsworth dictate what you may / may not provide? What are the Conservators and Wandsworth Council hiding in these minutes? To ensure transparency the Conservators must publish all the minutes of the Putney Hospital subcommittee, in totality, without further delay and confirm, for the avoidance of any doubt, that no other minutes are being withheld. 4. ROYAL WIMBLEDON GOLF CLUB AGREEMENTS In respect of the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club car park, (which the Conservators claim is a “temporary arrangement”), you have not provided any information whatsoever. If the arrangement is “temporary”, why can't the Conservators provide the agreements to prove it? I assume the agreements for the “temporary” arrangement exist. If they do not exist it appears that the Trustees have handed a substantial area of land to the RWGC on the basis of no agreement. This would be a rather fundamental breach by the Trustees, particularly in terms of resisting encroachment and the 1871 Act that protects the Commons. You state that you are considering the request and that you will revert to me in a further 10 days or so. Again this looks suspiciously like the Conservators simply buying time, rather than taking responsibility for their actions. Everyone is fully aware that the RWGC car park is not Common; it is the car park of the RWGC. To describe it as Common and to claim that the arrangement is temporary is a deceit. The Conservators claim that the car park is still common is equally preposterous. 5. UNDERSALE OF THE ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL The Conservators lack of cooperation in publishing the valuation of the access is now beginning to look like a cover up. As you will be aware selling access land at a substantive undervalue - in this case an access fee for a major development of just £1 - would be to the financial detriment of the Charity as well as a serious breach of fiduciary duty. I require you to send me the valuation in it’s entirely and to publish it on the website. 6. FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING HANDLING OF FOI REQUEST In my letter of 10 September I made a formal complaint to the Conservators in respect of the handling of my FOI requests, which you have not acknowledged. Please update me on how my formal complaint is being dealt with. I look forward to an early response. Regards John Cameron |