Here we have two senior police officers moaning about the cost of being open and responding to FOI requests.
Yes, FOI costs money. But, it also increases transparency and accountability.
. @ukcrime @PoliceInspForum The irony is the more FOIA requests to be serviced within legislative guidelines the less officers we can afford
— Lynne Owens (@CCLynneOwens) February 8, 2015
@CCLynneOwens @IanHesky @DorsetRachel I can also provide details of a recent FOI which has then led to a lot of extra unnec work — Ian Wiggett (@ACCIanWiggett) February 8, 2015
@DorsetRachel @CCLynneOwens @IanHesky unnec for us, but of no public value.
— Ian Wiggett (@ACCIanWiggett) February 8, 2015
To brand a request as creating “unnecessary” work and “having no public value” is slightly troublesome as nobody knows what the response to the request may be used for.
And, in any case, one man’s definition of ‘no public value’ might be seen as another’s definition of ‘upmost public value’.
As has been suggested very recently (and many, many, times in the past) why don’t they move some of their press officers to the Freedom of Information teams. FOI is an obligation by law, managing a reputation is not.
.@newsbrooke making important point that press officers ‘giving out a corporate line’ outnumber FOI officers massively. #CityFOI10 — FOI Directory (@FOIdirectory) February 4, 2015