Another Bad Idea

[asitis]

1 minute ago, Stu Peters said:

The concept of the FOI system is fine, in principle. Their very existence makes people accountable and think twice.

However, they are being used primarily by people who have worn out their net curtains. Malcontents who want to put it to 'the man'. Maybe 5% of them (from what I'm aware of) are reasonable. Given the manpower taken up by them I'd levy a fee of £250 each.

Things were simpler under Mr Churchill. Nowadays there'd be a slew of FOI requests to see which beaches, who would be doing the fighting and whether a consultation had been carried out beforehand, by whom at what cost and was the job put out to tender. So I think I agree with b4mbi.

I agree with some of this Stu, but clearly safeguarding public money and making sound business decisions are not helped by operating out of view !

[Non-Believer]

56 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

FOI requests will be dependent on whether the Steam Racket is deemed to be a public authority or is subject to FOI due to government ownership. So that is the first question that needs to be answered (by a Tynwald vote IMO). Yes - or no?

FOI laws have limitations and exemptions, particularly when it comes to commercially sensitive information, personal data, or information that could adversely affect the company's competitive position. And this is what the government (with the Racket's backing) will likely hide behind. There will likely be a blanket 'No' IMO, rather than do any work and list what could be asked. The Steam Racket itself would have also have the right to object to being open to generic FOI on commercial grounds (on the basis that some other company could obtain an operational commercial advantage).

If the Racket were deemed 'public' and open to FOI, then some aspects of their operations or information might be accessible. FOI requests often need to be in the public interest or relate to matters of public concern, relating to: General service policies and procedures; Reports or statistics on service quality; Complaint handling processes; Financial reports (if related to the service provision); and Compliance with regulations and standards set by regulatory bodies. Personally, I think the compromise should be the government producing an annual audit on behalf of the public at least covering these generic topics. As a shareholder they have a right to know it is being run properly, as do the public that paid for it.

The thoughts of what appears to be a knowledgeable contributor to the MR FB article...

 

[Albert Tatlock]

36 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

The concept of the FOI system is fine, in principle. Their very existence makes people accountable and think twice.

However, they are being used primarily by people who have worn out their net curtains. Malcontents who want to put it to 'the man'. Maybe 5% of them (from what I'm aware of) are reasonable. Given the manpower taken up by them I'd levy a fee of £250 each.

Things were simpler under Mr Churchill. Nowadays there'd be a slew of FOI requests to see which beaches, who would be doing the fighting and whether a consultation had been carried out beforehand, by whom at what cost and was the job put out to tender. So I think I agree with b4mbi.

Your 5% sounds very much like an opinion or a 'back of a fag packet' figure. The law's the law, people are entitled to ask legitimate questions - and the law is specific on what a legitimate question is.

So you as 'a man of the people' suggesting £250 a pop for a question, want to exclude poorer people from asking legitimate questions?

You need to think a lot more before you engage your mouth or keyboard Stu. It will be your undoing as an MHK.

[Two-lane]

53 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I'd levy a fee of £250 each.

Is parking still free?

[Non-Believer]

22 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Your 5% sounds very much like an opinion or a 'back of a fag packet' figure. The law's the law, people are entitled to ask legitimate questions - and the law is specific on what a legitimate question is.

So you as 'a man of the people' suggesting £250 a pop for a question, want to exclude poorer people from asking legitimate questions?

You need to think a lot more before you engage your mouth or keyboard Stu. It will be your undoing as an MHK.

One needs to remember that Stu has been in DOI for a while now and that Dept's attitude and record in respect of FOI legislation and compliance is well - documented.

[Beelzebub3]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

The concept of the FOI system is fine, in principle. Their very existence makes people accountable and think twice.

However, they are being used primarily by people who have worn out their net curtains. Malcontents who want to put it to 'the man'. Maybe 5% of them (from what I'm aware of) are reasonable. Given the manpower taken up by them I'd levy a fee of £250 each.

Things were simpler under Mr Churchill. Nowadays there'd be a slew of FOI requests to see which beaches, who would be doing the fighting and whether a consultation had been carried out beforehand, by whom at what cost and was the job put out to tender. So I think I agree with b4mbi.

Is that not how the IOM government do it? consultants and tenders for every exercise and without doubt accept the highest bidder!

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

You just know that the SPCo would be inundated with requests wanting to know the details behind every single delayed or cancelled sailing. 

There would also be plenty requesting details on pricing structures.

It would absolutely swamp the SPCo 

If the Steam Packet aren't already letting people know why sailings have been cancelled or delayed, then they're simply failing in their duty to their passengers.  It's a simple matter of politeness and basic customer service and that would be true if they were still privately owned.  Of course if the underlying reason is that they've gone and specified a boat that can only travel on alternate Thursdays with a 'Q' in the month, they're not going to admit that in an FoI either.

Similarly the pricing structure, which is actually regulated by the User Agreement should be clearer as well.  In actual fact it always used to be, back in the days of paper timetables, so it's hard to see why they can't online.

36 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

FOI requests will be dependent on whether the Steam Racket is deemed to be a public authority or is subject to FOI due to government ownership. So that is the first question that needs to be answered (by a Tynwald vote IMO). Yes - or no?

Actually, as Chris Thomas pointed out in Tynwald recently, it's a legal issue and it's pretty clear that the Steam Packet should be subject to FoI according to the words in the Act.  The only way that Tynwald could affect that would be by passing legislation to exempt it.  The only other thing for Tynwald to consider is when FoI should be brought in for the Steam Packet.  Because liable organisations were given a period of time to get ready to deal with requests and clearly some would like that to be infinity in this case.

(Not disagreeing with your other points)

[manxman1980]

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

If the Steam Packet aren't already letting people know why sailings have been cancelled or delayed, then they're simply failing in their duty to their passengers.  It's a simple matter of politeness and basic customer service and that would be true if they were still privately owned.  Of course if the underlying reason is that they've gone and specified a boat that can only travel on alternate Thursdays with a 'Q' in the month, they're not going to admit that in an FoI either.

They already give an explanation for delays and cancellations but you know that there will be people who would want to know the exact details of why a leaking lubrication system caused a failure (for instance) and even if they are told the reason would disbelieve it.  We have a lot of arm chair experts on the Island who would love nothing more than submitting FOI requests in the hope of getting some juicy gossip or trying to prove that they knew better. 

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Similarly the pricing structure, which is actually regulated by the User Agreement should be clearer as well.  In actual fact it always used to be, back in the days of paper timetables, so it's hard to see why they can't online.

The pricing structure will be deemed commercially sensitive and therefore not available by FOI.

[Two-lane]

4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The pricing structure will be deemed commercially sensitive and therefore not available by FOI.

Pricing structure is commercially sensitive usually to hide a company's policy from its competitors.

In this case it would be to hide the policy from the company's owners (i.e. me).

[manxman1980]

18 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Pricing structure is commercially sensitive usually to hide a company's policy from its competitors.

In this case it would be to hide the policy from the company's owners (i.e. me).

Good luck with establishing that you are the owner.  

[Roger Mexico]

27 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

They already give an explanation for delays and cancellations but you know that there will be people who would want to know the exact details of why a leaking lubrication system caused a failure (for instance) and even if they are told the reason would disbelieve it.  We have a lot of arm chair experts on the Island who would love nothing more than submitting FOI requests in the hope of getting some juicy gossip or trying to prove that they knew better. 

The pricing structure will be deemed commercially sensitive and therefore not available by FOI.

If they've already given a public explanation, then it's exempt from FoI and it's five minutes for someone to point this out to the requester.

I was referring to the standard pricing structure which is what is covered by the user agreement.  This clearly isn't 'commercially sensitive', even if such a phrase is meaningful in a monopoly situation.

[b4mbi]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The thoughts of what appears to be a knowledgeable contributor to the MR FB article...

 

Treasury is not a public authority. 

Praise Jesus the Lord, a MIRACLE!!

[Non-Believer]

2 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Treasury is not a public authority. 

Praise Jesus the Lord, a MIRACLE!!

It may not be in name but it's as public as it gets, it operates with public money and is even supposed to be responsible with it, ostensibly.

85,000 people have a stake in the SPCo, whether they like it or not, the least they can expect is some transparency as and when it is requested.

Roger M above has qualified FOI criteria above. Unless of course there's something to hide.....?

[english zloty]

20 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Treasury is not a public authority. 

Praise Jesus the Lord, a MIRACLE!!

It is in this context of the law

[b4mbi]

4 minutes ago, english zloty said:

It is in this context of the law

lawyers would argue!!

TBF I have no clue & happy to take your word for it.