http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/june/11/07.htm
THE chief executive of Hertsmere Borough Council was suspended three years ago from Enfield Council.
Donald Graham was suspended from the Enfield authority in July 2006, shortly before he was made redundant.
Enfield refused to reveal why the former director of housing was suspended, saying it was bound by confidentiality agreements.
Mr Graham also said he is unable to explain the details because he is still bound by the agreement but called it a non-issue.
Mr Graham, previously a corporate director with Newport City Council, was chosen by the borough council in the autumn last year after a vigorous selection process.
Last week Enfield Council was found by a Government watchdog to have breached four sections of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by not responding to a resident who asked why Mr Graham had been suspended.
Rajesh Katkoria, from Edmonton, complained to the commissioner on October 13, 2006, after failing to get an answer to his request.
Nearly three years later, Gerald Tracey, the assistant commissioner, finally ruled that the council used the law correctly, but he criticised the authority for not responding to Mr Katkorias original request.
Mr Tracey decided no further steps would be taken to safeguard the rights and interests of Mr Graham.
2 comments:
Sorry, OT for this post, but are you concerned about the current consultation on home education? The plan is to legally require access to the home and children (alone if necessary) for all home educators for annual (at least)routine 'safe and well' checks by LEA inspectors. Will this be the first time that officials will have an automatic right to enter a private home without probable cause or a warrant for a large group of people (up to 80,000) in the UK?
Do you know of any research into false positive rates or how effective an annual routine safe and well check is likely to be for detecting abuse and neglect? My concern is that more harm will be caused to families by false accusations of abuse (errors will be made, nobody is perfect) than will be helped by recognition of problems (how likely are children to disclose to a stranger they meet for a couple of hours a year).
Have I had my head in the sand or is this a potentially massive change in the balance of power between the state and the individual, to the extent that the state becomes parent of first resort?
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1643&external=no&menu=1
Sorry, OT for this post, but are you concerned about the current consultation on home education? The plan is to legally require access to the home and children (alone if necessary) for all home educators for annual (at least)routine 'safe and well' checks by LEA inspectors. Will this be the first time that officials will have an automatic right to enter a private home without probable cause or a warrant for a large group of people (up to 80,000) in the UK?
Do you know of any research into false positive rates or how effective an annual routine safe and well check is likely to be for detecting abuse and neglect? My concern is that more harm will be caused to families by false accusations of abuse (errors will be made, nobody is perfect) than will be helped by recognition of problems (how likely are children to disclose to a stranger they meet for a couple of hours a year).
Have I had my head in the sand or is this a potentially massive change in the balance of power between the state and the individual, to the extent that the state becomes parent of first resort?
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1643&external=no&menu=1
Post a Comment