Queen Mary University of London
Incomplete, Original Response Refusal
-- Original Response (17 Nov 2014)
From: JJ Hermes
Sent: 20 October 2014 12:20
To: foi-enquiries@qmul.ac.uk
Subject: FOI request
To whom it may concern,
I respectfully request the following information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act:
1. The names and titles of all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. These individuals are considered "higher-paid staff" by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
2. Please identify the number of individuals identified in the first request who are (a) tenured faculty, (b) clinical staff, or (c) serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff.
3. The total emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff identified in the first request.
There is wide precedent across publicly funded entities in the UK of regularly disclosing this type of information. The Accounts and Audit (Amendment no 2) Regulations of 2009 require local authorities to publish the actual salaries, allowances, bonuses, compensation and employer's pension contributions paid to each employee who earned over £50,000, and in addition to publish the names of those staff who earned over £150,000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3322/made). It is not necessary to disclose the exact salary of the employees earning more than £150,000, but rather to quote that amount in bands of £10,000, as directed by the HEFCE.
The request holds significant public interest, given that the university is a publicly funded institution of higher education that derives a significant portion of funding from public taxation. In addition, openness is, in itself, something in the public interest in promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public money. As suggested by the Information Commissioner's Office, "It is reasonable to expect that a
public authority would disclose more information relating to senior employees than more junior ones. Senior employees should expect their posts to carry a greater level of accountability." Employees earning more than £150,000 annually can be considered senior employees, since this compensation is more than twice the highest grade on the human resources salary scale.
I look forward to hearing back from you regarding this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up questions. I would prefer all correspondence be sent digitally through this e-mail address, including the response to this request. Thank you for your time in addressing this query.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:33 PM, QM FOI Enquiries (foi-enquiries@qmul.ac.uk) wrote (RE: FOI request):
We acknowledge receipt of your request and will respond as soon as we can.
|
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:19 PM, QM FOI Enquiries (foi-enquiries@qmul.ac.uk) wrote (FOI Request 2014/F271):
Dear Dr. Hermes
Thank you for your email of 20th October.
Although we hold the information you have requested I am afraid that I cannot supply you with it. This is because this is information which we believe we are entitled to treat as exempt under s.40(2), s.43(2) and s.44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information you have requested amounts to personal data of individual members of staff, the disclosure of which in to the public domain would breach the first data protection principle. It is also information which could be useful to our competitors for setting salaries and poaching staff.
Section 40(2), by virtue of s.40(3)(a)(i), exempts from disclosure the personal data of third parties where that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. It would not be fair to disclose this information to the world at large since we do not have the individuals' consent and it would not be within their reasonable expectations that this would happen. The information relates to employees, which they would not expect to be made public. The Information Commissioner states, “if the disclosure would not be fair, then the information is exempt from disclosure”(1). This is an absolute exemption and so no public interest test is required.
Section 43(2) exempts information from disclosure if this would be likely to prejudice any party's commercial interests. The Information Tribunal has acknowledged that universities have commercial interests (see case EA/2009/0034). Disclosing the type of information requested would be likely to prejudice our commercial interests if released at this time because it may have a detrimental effect on recruitment and negotiations with senior staff.
This exemption is subject to the public interest test. We recognise that on the one hand there is always a public interest in the transparency of an authority and releasing such information may allow for a greater understanding of how money is spent and decisions are reached. This would be in favour of the public interest and releasing.
However, Queen Mary operates in a highly competitive market for staff both nationally and internationally. Disclosure of payments to senior staff to the world at large may reveal information which, apart from breaching privacy, would be useful to our competitors, for example by allowing staff to be poached by offering better pay or conditions. In financially tough times and while receiving less and less from the public purse, it is critical that Queen Mary does not imperil its competitive position in the way it is able to recruit, reward and retain staff, or its finances. Queen Mary needs to be able to attract and retain its staff to maintain its standards, reputation and sources of funding. The market in which it operates is not the same as certain other public authorities such as government. Moreover, if Queen Mary's negotiating position, whether with current or future staff, were to be impacted at all, this would not be in the public interest either. On balance we therefore believe that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
In addition this information could be considered strategically useful and its disclosure amount to an infringement of the Competition Act 1998. Section 44(1)(a) of FOIA exempts the disclosure of information where this is prohibited by an enactment. This is also an absolute exemption.
In accordance with s.17 FOIA, please accept this as a refusal notice.
The emoluments of the Principal can be seen in the Financial Statements at: http://www.finance.qmul.ac.uk/statements/index.html
If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask QMUL to conduct a review of this decision. To do this, please contact the College in writing (including by fax, letter or email), describe the original request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address for correspondence. You have 40 working days from receipt of this communication to submit a review request. When the review process has been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may ask the Information Commissioner to intervene. Please see www.ico.org.uk for details.
Yours sincerely
Paul Smallcombe
Records & Information Compliance Manager
(1) http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/personal-information-section-40-and-regulation-13-foia-and-eir-guidance.pdf
|
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:05 AM, JJ Hermes wrote (Re: FOI Request 2014/F271):
Dear Paul,
I write to respectfully dispute your response to my 20 Oct 2014 FOI request for information about senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. As a reminder, that request comprised three parts:
1. The names and titles of all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. These individuals are considered "higher-paid staff" by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE).
2. Please identify the number of individuals identified in the first request who are (a) tenured faculty, (b) clinical staff, or (c) serve in a non-classroom capacity, such as administrative staff.
3. The total emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff identified in the first request.
I understand from your 17 Nov 2014 response that the University reserves the right to withhold public disclosure of individual staff and their salaries as refusal Notice 3, which was part (1) of this request. However, the University has completely ignored parts (2) and (3) of this request. Thus, I request the University respond to this original request in full:
Please identify all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. Please categorize them as one of the following, as per part (2) of this request: (a) academic staff, (b) clinical staff, or (c) senior management. Then, please provide the annual emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff making more than £150,000 in total emoluments identified in the first part of this request. Please identify by name and title all members of the University's senior administrative team and management (e.g., staff in the Vice-Chancellor's Office such as pro-vice-chancellors, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, directors of institutes, etc.).
I have submitted this identical request to each of the 24 members of the Russell Group of universities, and a response from the University of Exeter (attached) exemplifies what I consider a complete fulfillment of my request. Note that it protects the personal data of all senior staff with the exception of the senior management team, and provides salary information in bands of £10,000 annually for the past five years. This information is not accessible from the University by any other means than a FOI request, so your Refusal Notices 1 and 2 are not relevant to my request.
Moreover, a First-Tier Tribunal has ruled in a very similar case that universities must disclose the names/titles and salaries of all members of the PSS (Professional Services staff; ie, the senior management team) making more than £100,000 in total emoluments. The Information Commissioner's Office found in case FS50513117 dated 17 Feb 2014 that King's College London must release the names/titles and salaries of *all* staff making more than £100,000 in total emoluments (http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fs_50513117.pdf). However, the First-Tier Tribunal ruled on 2 Oct 2014 in Case No. EA/2014/0054, an appeal from King's College, that only the names and salaries of members of the PSS (Professional Services staff; ie, the senior management team) making more than £100,000 in total emoluments are subject to disclosure (http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1390/Kings%20College%20London%20EA.2014.0054%20(30.09.14).pdf).
I appreciate your response in full to this request under the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. I look forward to hearing back from you regarding this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up questions. I would prefer all correspondence be sent digitally through this e-mail address, including the response to this request. Thank you for your time in addressing this query.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM, QM FOI Enquiries (foi-enquiries@qmul.ac.uk) wrote (RE: FOI Request 2014/F271):
Dear Dr. Hermes
Queen Mary has carried out its internal review. The result is that the refusal has been upheld. For clarification and to confirm, our initial refusal notice was intended to refer to the whole and each part of your request even though it did not refer to each part specifically; we did not ignore parts 2 and 3. Parts 1 and 3 are clearly linked so that it should be obvious why the information was not provided with reference to the exemptions used. For part 2, we believe that the number of individuals in each category would be small enough to enable other parties (whether yourself or others given that an FOI response is a release to the world) to be able to identify individuals and so this would also disclose personal data about those concerned. This is the reason that this information was also withheld.
Again, if you consult the Financial Statements, you can at least see the number of individuals with remuneration over £150,000 per annum in £10k bands and that this number is relatively small.
If you remain dissatisfied you can complain to the Information Commissioner. See www.ico.org.uk for details.
Yours sincerely
Paul Smallcombe
Records & Information Compliance Manager
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, JJ Hermes wrote (Re: FOI Request 2014/F271):
Dear Mr Smallcombe,
With all due respect, I find your 13 Jan 2015 response to my FOI request both flippant and insulting. I have made this identical request to all 24 members of the Russell Group, and not one has denied my request as flatly as your institution. This will be especially noted when I begin publication of these responses.
Do you really believe that disclosing whether someone is classified as "Clinical" or "Academic" or "Non-Academic" would enable some to "be able to identify individuals"? Can I assume that there is universal agreement within senior management and staff at Queen Mary University of London that the number of individuals with remuneration over £150,000 per annum -- now totaling 33, up from 23 just three years prior -- is "relatively small"?
I request that you respond to my original request in full:
Please identify all senior staff members making more than £150,000 in total emoluments for the year ended 31 July 2014. Please categorize them as one of the following, as per part (2) of this request: (a) academic staff, (b) clinical staff, or (c) senior management. Then, please provide the annual emoluments for the past five (5) years for each of the senior staff making more than £150,000 in total emoluments identified in the first part of this request. Please identify by name and title all members of the University's senior administrative team and management (e.g., staff in the Vice-Chancellor's Office such as pro-vice-chancellors, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, directors of institutes, etc.).
I look forward to hearing back from you, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any follow-up questions.
Sincerely,
JJ Hermes
|
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:12 PM, QM FOI Enquiries (foi-enquiries@qmul.ac.uk) wrote (RE: FOI Request 2014/F271):
Dear Dr. Hermes
We have concluded our internal procedures. If you remain dissatisfied you have the right to escalate it to the Information Commissioner.
Yours sincerely
Queen Mary University of London
|
|