Department of Fun publishes expenses database, massive implications for FOI

[odie1kanobe]

Despite my biting odi's ankle over his stupid remark, I actually believe that it is probably not necessary to name individual PS and still preserve the accuracy and transparency requirements of this effort.

Lets see we have a person in court for a traffic offence who is a civil servant and an idiot journalist decides well we know who this person is and the live in the x thousands Euro house and are a X in Dept X and they claimed X from the state in expenses so we can pull it all into a story and this is acceptable ?

People have a right to Privacy as laid down by the constitution and the publication of individual expenses by people not elected for any office but going about their lawful occupation I think pretty much screws this one up.

What is pretty evident is the sheer desire to name and target individuals and highlight their expenses as if there is something wrong in what they are claiming. In highlighting the amount and stating nothing else but leaving the suggestion to the reader that somehow the person claiming is scamming the system.

[gavinsblog]

I disagree, obviously.

Firstly, the precedent was set by the High Court when it agreed with a decision of the OIC:

High Court Judgments Sorted by Name, Office of the Information Commissioner, Ireland

It relates to what constitutes personal information. It would also be worth taking the time to read my appeal to the OIC, which is on the blog post. I stated:

"I believe that the Department's claim that the information I sought was exempt under Section 28 was without foundation. I pointed out that in the Health Services Executive vs The Information Commissioner [2008] IEHC 298, Mr Justice Bryan McMahon found that "record number 25" containing "names and job titles of employees of a national school within the State education sector", "are not personal information of third parties for purposes of the FOI Act and, consequently, are not protected by the exemption of section 28(1)."

I argued that as a result of this decision, the names (and/or job titles) of employees of the Department, as they are held in the Oracle iExpense database, are likewise not protected by the exemption of Section 28(1).

I also pointed to the decision in Britain of Durrant v Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746 where it was found that personal data must relate to the individual and must affect the individual’s privacy. In no way could the information being sought relate to or affect in any way an individual's privacy.

The system in question records the expenditure of public monies and contains the names and job titles of employees of a Government Department. There is also precedent for the Department releasing information related directly both to expenses, and to the system in question, to the Sunday Tribune in 2009. This information contained elements of the database I am seeking. No Section 28 exemption was applied by the Department in this case, nor I believe, does it apply in this case.

An exemption under Section 28, it is respectfully submitted, could not possibly apply to my request."

It is worth also noting that all civil servants are employed by the State. Expenses claimed during the course of their duties is public money.

Transparency keeps the system honest. If civil servants *know* their expenses claims will be published, by name, they are going to be extra careful around claiming expenses that may not be justified. Publishing all claims keeps the system transparent, it informs the public and I said in my appeal:

"[It] would ensure the resources of the taxpayer are used efficiently and effectively; it would enable the public to assess the merits and shortcomings of practices within the department; it could potentially disclose where Government bodies may have failed to act in an accountable way and it would be an effective mechanism to maintain public confidence in Government bodies by access to information on their performance of function."

This ultimately is public money, and the public has the right to scrutinise how it is spent, and by whom.

[Barnacle]

This ultimately is public money, and the public has the right to scrutinise how it is spent, and by whom.

I completely agree with you.

It seems one rule for them and another rule for everyone else. In relation to mileage, are they required to produce mileage records for their cars to ensure that they actually did the mileage. A revenue auditor can request this in the private sector and it is a requirement to keep annual clocked mileage. I have heard many stories of in the public sector, five people travelling in the same car and all claiming mileage.

[odie1kanobe]

This ultimately is public money, and the public has the right to scrutinise how it is spent, and by whom.

In which case as its Public money then I assume that you while highlight everything that you receive from the state with respect to Public money including child allowances, mortgage relief etc as you happy to do it for others.

[ibis]

Transparency keeps the system honest. If civil servants *know* their expenses claims will be published, by name, they are going to be extra careful around claiming expenses that may not be justified. Publishing all claims keeps the system transparent, it informs the public and I said in my appeal:

That is an argument I would accept as having force - and if it is legally accepted that personal names are not exempt from FOI requests, then I would also accept that civil servants accept such scrutiny as part of their conditions of employment. Whether they are commonly aware of it then becomes irrelevant, since their conditions of employment should form part of their expectations of privacy.

My objection is therefore withdrawn, and it remains only to congratulate you on obtaining the data in the first place, and asking whether you'd mind me databasing it online for easier search and summary?

[gavinsblog]

In which case as its Public money then I assume that you while highlight everything that you receive from the state with respect to Public money including child allowances, mortgage relief etc as you happy to do it for others.

You must be confused. Where was published the child allowance claims of civil servants? Where was published mortgage reliefs?

The data relates to expenditure of public monies by public servants in the administration of a public body.

If you believe that we should not see how public money is spent, then we will never agree. It really is as simple as that.

[gavinsblog]

That is an argument I would accept as having force - and if it is legally accepted that personal names are not exempt from FOI requests, then I would also accept that civil servants accept such scrutiny as part of their conditions of employment. Whether they are commonly aware of it then becomes irrelevant, since their conditions of employment should form part of their expectations of privacy.

My objection is therefore withdrawn, and it remains only to congratulate you on obtaining the data in the first place, and asking whether you'd mind me databasing it online for easier search and summary?

The data is freely available for use by anyone. It was obtained in the public interest.

[odie1kanobe]

You must be confused. Where was published the child allowance claims of civil servants? Where was published mortgage reliefs?

The data relates to expenditure of public monies by public servants in the administration of a public body.

If you believe that we should not see how public money is spent, then we will never agree. It really is as simple as that.

You are stating the Civil Servants are using Public money in their job and freely willing to publish their names so I am calling on you to publish same details of what you receive for yourself and family as that is Public money is it not ?

or does your "Moral" viewpoint only apply to someone else's use of public money.

[Barnacle]

In which case as its Public money then I assume that you while highlight everything that you receive from the state with respect to Public money including child allowances, mortgage relief etc as you happy to do it for others.

Child allowance, mortgage relief, etc have nothing to do with how public money is being spent by public servants.

[spidermom]

Public servants using public money in the genuine pursuit of public business have nothing to fear.....


We know that transport and subsistence is afforded to many.....don't see any issue...


e.g. A Public Health Nurse is quite within her rights to claim for every penny she uses in her daily work...


Now Obi may be afeared of the public anxt that persists at the mo for heads on plates brigade...and I can completely understand his fears...but its called full accountability...which should not be feared!!!!


(plus I do not believe that Gavin holds an agenda here....nice work!!)