Letter: Good case of openness

Kettle calling the pot black? Cyril stills continues to denigrate Sheffield Council for its apparent lack of openness and transparency, especially from its dealing with Kate Joseph's 'Partygate leaving do' from the National Covid Taskforce and her failure to advise the council of her role in Partygate, during 2021, when the issue reared its head.

This issue of lack of openness and lack of transparency is more fixed in Mr Olsen’s head than in factual reality.

Mr Olsen’s letters to The Star, during the spring months of 2022, are based on the belief that the Cross Party councillors had met and by the end of that meeting had come to a decision on how to deal with the Kate Joseph situation.

He thus subsequently asked various councillors, and council employed staff, questions about the Committee's work and got very shirty when no-one would answer his questions and also including making highly questionable comments about the Leader of the Council, by name, and accused the council of lacking in openness and transparency.

Mr Olsen made two basic mistakes.

First he failed to check that the Cross Party Committee of Councillors had completed its deliberations. He assumed they had but never sought to check that assumption that it had finished its deliberations. In reality the Cross Party Committee continued to meet through to late June and advised the Full Council in early July of its deliberations and recommendations.

Mr Olsen did though ask the right questions but at the wrong time.

Let's look at a couple of Mr Olsen’s questions asked:

He asked staff in the finance department of the City Council, how much had (note past tense) the Cross Party Committee cost Sheffield City Council. None of the staff could answer Mr Olsen’s requests, as indicated above, the committee didn't complete its deliberations until late June/early July, etc. The team in Finance would not have been able to provide Mr Olsen with the final figure, until well into late July/early August.

Another question Mr Olsen asked was what information had the external investigator received from 10 Downing Street? The Prime Minister appointed Sue Gray, a seasoned and experienced senior Civil Servant, to carry out an Official Government Investigation into all the Partygate events, including Kate Joseph's Leaving Do from the National Covid Team. Sue Gray's Official Government Report was held up from publication, by the Metropolitan Police's Investigation into those who had broken the Covid Regulations (84 persons were fined for 126 offences). It was only after the Met had finished its work that Sue Gray could then publish her Official Government Report into the Partygate events, including the Kate Josephs event. This Report's information was immediately made available to the Cross Party of Councillors, and the information would have then been used, alongside whatever the external investigator had been able to acquire from any source, so that the committee could finally decide on the situation. (I have to assume that the details in the Official Government Report were not made available by Sue Gray, to our external investigator, for security reasons - the information, if provided, could have leaked before the Official Government Report was published),

Mistake no.2.

Mr Olsen became very mardy, throwing his toys out of his pram, when councillors on the Committee, and Sheffield council staff, failed to give answers to his questions. He expressed his dislike of being ignored, having very specific questions not answered, etc.. What Mr Olsen failed to identify was that there is within the local authority a ''protocol of silence'' when such committees meet behind closed doors (just as this Committee was). Councillors on the Committee and Council staff servicing/supporting the Cross Party Committee, all knew that they were not to talk to the media, or individuals (like Mr Olsen), whilst the Committee was still carrying out its activities. Also other Councillors and other City Council staff, also knew they couldn't make comments to the media or individuals, as their comments could be potentially seen as trying to influence the Committee's decision making.

Thus ''the canopy of silence'' was not directed at Mr Olsen, with his media presence on the Letters Pages of The Star, but related to all questions being asked, by any Sheffield ratepayer, while this Committee was still in action.

Thus Mr Olsen there was no attempt to hide information, etc, from you or the people of Sheffield. All the Council's 84 City Councillors know of the protocol, as do all the staff. Once the Committee had finished its deliberations and reported to the Full Council, public comments, questions, etc,. could be responded to.

In fact, after the Leader of the Council had publicly announced the result of the Full Council decision, a small Sheffield group of volunteers, called the Local Democracy Unit, were able to produce a two page report in the Sheffield Star, copied into the Sheffield Telegraph, that gave the people of Sheffield a mass of information, evidence, and facts about the Cross Parties deliberations and the recommendations to the Full Council. They had asked the right questions, at the right time, from the right people, to get this quality information. (Mr Olsen asked the right questions at the wrong time and based his Spring comments in The Star on a wrong assumption that he failed to check, and ultimately he failed to produce any new information).

Thus, in conclusion, there was, Mr Olsen, no attempt by Sheffield Council to not honour its commitment to openness and transparency.

At the right time the Local Democracy Unit showed that by asking the right questions, at the right time, to the right people so that the people of Sheffield were able to find out the details as hoped for. So here we see Openness and Transparency at work.

Phil Proctor

Sharrow Vale Road, S11