Leicestershire County Council

Farewell, Paul

And so we bid farewell to County Hall spin doctor Paul Masterman.

The £7,500-a-month PR guru left Leicestershire County Council last month.

Paul has long been a hot topic on this blog. His employers Westco had teamed-up with Leicestershire County Council in 2010 to find a candidate to head-up the slimmed-down communications and press team at county hall. No-one was ever interviewed for the job, which attracted 40 applications, and Westco were signed up for further £10,000-a-month stints to run the council communications team.

Opposition councillors say upwards of £100,000 has been wasted on the whole process at a time when the authority is making cuts to services.

Despite only meeting Paul once, he certainly left an impression. He once blocked me on Twitter after I mentioned a BBC report.

The report said that he was suspended during a disciplinary investigation at a previous council after it was discovered he’d attempted to influence a BBC online poll regarding a council merger.

You can’t keep a good man down, though. He’s now appeared, in the same role, up the road at Staffordshire County Council.

In A Spin: Misled by county council over Westco FOI

I was misled by Leicestershire County Council when it effectively told me that no records existed anywhere on county council hard drives of an FOI request I lodged just a few weeks ago, I can now confirm.

I suspected that their initial response wasn’t accurate and appealed the decision.

In the meantime a source at the council confirmed that I was on the right track, and that the county may have misled me in its original response.

After hinting at this development on Twitter, I’ve now had a response from the county council. It has admitted that it did hold the information I’d ask for, and has now handed it over.

The council’s explanation for the original response is that my original request had been “misinterpretated” and on reviewing the decision “it was acknowledged immediately that a mistake had incurred”.

Perhaps the most interesting thing to jump out is Paul Masterman’s involvement in the original request.

Different council’s deal with FOI requests in different ways. But at the county council, whenever I’ve called them about responses to FOI request that I’ve seen on the public disclosure log, they’ve never been aware of individual FOIs prior to my phonecall.

It suggests that the press office usually takes a hands-off approach to FOI requests, which in my view is good practice.

So it came as a surprise to see Westco man Masterman getting involved in my request before a response had been signed off and sent to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The emails are just one line of inquiry. I’ve now been contacted by a handful of people who were involved in campaigns for the other LGA chairmanship hopefuls – who have all provided me with further information.

There’s still a lot to work on, and it’s heartening to see new Westco-related requests appearing on the council’s FOI disclosure log from those who are interested in this issue.

“I know nothing”

No records exist anywhere on county council hard drives, or council premises, of an FOI request I lodged just a few weeks ago.

This means that the request was either dealt with entirely verbally – rare for an FOI request in my experience – or that all emails have already been deleted, hard drives thoroughly wiped, and documents shredded. Now, I want to know why.

My request regarded PR at the county council. To quickly recap Westco, the commercial arm of a London council, got paid to find a new PR boss for Leicestershire County Council. The ad attracted 40 applicants, no-one ever got interviewed, and the firm got another six month £60,000 stint at the authority.

The first interim PR guru supplied to the council by Westco, Fergus Sheppard, was replaced for the second six month stint by Paul Masterman, but still worked for the county council, one day each week, until fairly recently. He was not based at County Hall, and was instead down in London. Private Eye later alleged that he was effectively council leader David Parsons’ personal PR man, but the council denied it.

Now, this summer I attempted to use Freedom of Information laws to examine emails between Fergus and David to establish the exact nature of Fergus’ role.

But effectively I was told there wasn’t any communication between the council leader and one of the authority’s most senior PR chiefs, or that there were no records at all and all emails had been deleted from council servers.

I was surprised at this, so I lodged a new Freedom of Information request last month, asking for all correspondence relating to the original request. I hoped that it would shed more light on how my original request was dealt with internally.

The response has now arrived. The council says it doesn’t hold the information. Again.

I’ve now asked for an internal review, to establish who was contacted as part of this request, what their responses were, and how any paperwork or email records may have been disposed of.

If I don’t get any satisfaction the next step will be to report the matter to the information commissioner. Due to a backlog, an investigation by the commissioner is likely to report back just before the county council elections in May 2013.

I’m not stopping until I’ve got to the bottom of this one, David.

The basic law of council reporting

The basic law of council reporting is this: the local newspaper’s specialist correspondent covers hundreds of meetings every year, deals with senior city politicians on a daily basis, and knows what’s going on at the authority like the back of his or her hand.

At every meeting, no matter how important, you’re unlikely to see a rival reporter. Broadcast media just don’t want to know.

Then, once a year at budget briefing time, a couple of telly reporters and a radio reporter turn up and act like they own the town hall.

TV reporters, mainly because they appear on the gogglebox most evenings and probably get recognised in Waitrose as a result, are usually the worst. “I’m on a deadline”, they tell press officers breathlessly, as if to distinguish themselves from the rest of the media pack who are also working to deadline.

Time always seems to be short for these hacks – despite usually only covering a single story in a day – so they don’t have time to do nitty-gritty.

The best and most recent example of this was at the county council’s budget briefing last week.

Myself and the radio reporter from BBC Leicester were going through the budget line-by-line, asking for clarification on each bit of information. The officers were patient, the press officer helpful, we ploughed through lines of incomprehensible council-speak and made sense of it. The dense document was becoming clear.

Then a local BBC TV reporter – who shall remain nameless – bounded in half an hour late. He sat down, quickly glanced at the report, then said:

“Right how many old folks homes are closing?”

“Er, none” the officer replied.

“Right how many youth clubs are closing?”

“Er, none. Actually we’re just covering all this now.”

“Right what’s closing then. Come on, something must be closing. What’s closing?”

“Nothing that hasn’t already been announced,” the press officer interjected.

“Right well what’s being cut back?”

It was straight out of the booklet on how not to conduct interviews. You’re supposed to start with big open questions then move on to nail down the specifics, not the other way round.

Perhaps it’s the symptom of rehashing stories nicked from the local press on a daily basis – there’s less time to do original news and you forget how to interview primary sources.

Most unsettling FOI ever

This request appears on Leicestershire County Council’s disclosure log:

Please supply the following information:

1: The number of gloryholes found in restrooms, specifically:

a: Restrooms operated as public conveniences by the authority

b: Restrooms within authority buildings, but not accessible to the general public

2: The number of investigations (either internal or criminal) made in relation to use of the gloryholes, or damage to authority property in creation of these facilities

3: The sum of expense caused by preventing (such as CCTV, or metal privacy wall reinforcement) and repairing damage caused by creation of gloryholes

The council does not have the figures.