The Public Services Commission (PSC) has today, Friday 24 June 2016, issued the following statement:
A complaint made by Mr Rae Hamilton has been upheld against officers of the Department of Infrastructure that it prepared a less than even handed Advice Note after an independent investigation found it was a flawed document.
Mr John Shimmin MHK and Chairman of the PSC has taken the decision to allow certain extracts from the investigating officer’s report to be made public, in recognition of the wrongdoing suffered by the complainant Mr Hamilton.
The complaint to the PSC related to the Department’s handling of correspondence with Mr Hamilton after his original complaint to the DoI and its review of the award of a lease by Onchan District Commissioners (ODC) regarding the tender process and closure of the squash courts in Onchan Park.
The extracts of the report are as follows:
It is the overriding conclusion of this Report that the public sector did not behave properly in this instance. The publication of the Advice Note made a difficult situation worse. Had it provided a complete summary of all events, its publication would have provided a fair and balanced view on the actions of all parties and any independent audience could have reached its own conclusions.
Throughout this Investigation, one clear message has been communicated by all the personnel who have been interviewed or whose legal opinions are recorded on the significant number of documents reviewed. This message is that the Complainant Mr Hamilton has suffered as a consequence of some form of wrongdoing.
The Department officers who are the subject of complaints by the Complainant agreed that the Complainant had suffered as a result of the behaviour of the Onchan Commissioners. Despite these views, not once has the Complainant had the validity of his opinions acknowledged. As a result, the tone and content of his communications has become more frustrated.
It is clear that all the officers who are currently the subject of complaints were acting in what they believed were in the best interests of the Department, regardless of any personal opinions they may have held, at least initially. The options for the Department were clear: either publicly acknowledge the extent of the shortcomings at ODC, a situation that they had no legal powers to remedy and could have resulted in a prolonged and potentially damaging process; or advise the Complainant that as they had no powers to correct a wrongdoing, it could not be investigated due to the cost and manpower involved.
The choice of the latter created issues that the Department ultimately sought to remedy by the preparation of the Advice Note. This was a flawed document that, by the admission of its authors, did not seek to present a balanced and full review of the issues in question. Instead, due to pressures of work and other priorities, it gave a synoptic view of certain elements of the situation that, it was thought, the Minister had not been previously aware of.
It is clear that the Advice Note was simply that. It was advice for the Minister that would be read in conjunction with files of other documents whose contents were already on record. It was never intended to be published or to give an impression that the Advice Note would represent a stand-alone document that purported to provide a balanced and complete summary.
When reviewed by the Complainant it appeared as if many of his concerns had been ignored and contrary arguments included, a finding confirmed by his legal advisor. As explained by the authors, the Advice Note assumed a level of existing knowledge by the reader that was not contained within the document itself. This led to an incomplete document that while still critical of ODC in some respects, did not deal fully with their shortcomings.
The interview with the Complainant took place on the morning of on the 18 November 2015, when the Examiner’s page 5 headline dated the previous day was – “Revealed: DoI’s apology for advice note wording”. This very public apology was of course made to ODC for errors in the Advice Note relating to the planning process. To Mr Hamilton the flaws in the document that he had been drawing attention to were more significant, but had not resulted in any action by the Department, even in the form of an acknowledgement that the Complainant’s concerns were justified.
While it was appreciated that the political sensitivities of maintaining cordial relationships with local authorities require occasional compromise, it seems unfortunate that this approach has not been afforded to a member of the public.
To conclude, the Complainant Mr Hamilton was, by common consent, an injured party following some questionable behaviour by ODC. The vast majority of citizens would not have pursued the matter with the same determination as the Complainant, who has incurred much expense in progressing his case.
The Department has repeatedly sought to justify its stance that it did not want to get involved because, ultimately, it had no powers of redress and therefore an investigation was a waste of scarce resources. However, it was prepared to involve the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Information Commissioner in supporting its stance. As such, the argument that it was a questionable use of public funds to progress the Complainant’s request is, in itself, questionable.
Mr Shimmin apologised to Mr Hamilton for the handling of the situation and the time it has taken to be concluded.
