‘Town Hall Big Brother’: call for rethink
Email interception outrage
Two Scarborough councillors have called for urgent changes after the borough authority admitted it had been intercepting their emails from members of the public.
Councillors Tony Randerson and Janet Jefferson claim they had no idea the council was filtering out messages from people who had been deemed to be “unreasonably persistent”.
Both have now said that they do not want their emails intercepted and have called for more transparency from Scarborough Council.
Cllr Randerson said: “I want to know who is reading these emails – and how they decide
who cannot send emails.”
The authority said councillors are made aware of the policy when they join the authority and it had been agreed by full council.
But Cllr Randerson added: “I raised the issue and was met with a sea of blank faces so I don’t think councillors are aware of it at all. “I can understand the need to protect council staff but councillors are not staff, as a councillor you expect angry emails. I know that I get plenty, but that’s what you sign up for.”
The policy was introduced by the council in 2009, before Cllr Randerson joined the authority.
Cllr Janet Jefferson said she too had “no idea” that the policy existed, although according to records of the September 2009 meeting she was present for the discussion and vote for its implementation.
She added: “I don’t want anyone deciding what emails I get.
“I don’t remember the meeting [where the policy was introduced] it was only when someone who lived in my ward contacted me that I became aware that this was happening.”
The story has now featured in Private Eye magazine’s Rotten Boroughs section, a critical look at local authority actions. The magazine pointed out that some of the intercepted emails might be “have reflected badly on senior officers”.
Both councillors were sent emails from a banned resident, sent to both their council email address and their personal emails. Only the messages cc’d to their personal email addresses arrived.
Cllr Randerson told The Scarborough News: “I looked at the policy and it says that councillors should be regularly updated on the banned list – which has certainly not happened. I don’t see why the council cannot just remove councillors from this system, fair enough for staff but we are not staff. They need to be more transparent.”
In a long statement, a Scarborough Council stated: “The council has in place a policy for dealing with ‘unreasonably persistent’ and ‘unreasonable’ complaint behaviour, which can be read on our website. Such behaviour is dealt with by a simple, overt, and reasonable practice, which is in operation throughout the public sector for the protection of not only staff and members (councillors), but also to protect limited resources. The policy states that ‘…the council does not expect its staff or members to tolerate unacceptable behaviour by complainants or any customer’. It sets out examples of complaint and communication behaviour that might be considered unreasonable.
“Where an individual or third party is acting in an unreasonable manner they are informed that this is the case, with an explanation as to why their behaviour is considered unacceptable.
“They are told that should they continue to act in an unreasonable manner, their access to officers and members will be restricted, and that this includes the re-direction to a central mailbox of any emails they send to officers or members. This is done in an open and transparent manner.
“Should the individual or third party fail to moderate their behaviour, the matter is referred to the council’s Director’s Team to consider whether the individual or third party should now be declared as unreasonable under the terms of the policy. If this occurs, then the measures set out and explained in the warning email are put in place. Of course there may be emails sent from such complainants that the council needs to address as part of its range of statutory duties. This is why they are re-directed to the unreasonable complainants’ mailbox rather than be deleted or rejected. Access to this mailbox is restricted to three senior council officers, so that any emails which need to be addressed are forwarded appropriately.
“The amount of people that are subject to email redirection at any one time is in single figures. At no point are these emails accessed via logging into a councillor’s or an officer’s email account. The entire process is carried out in an overt manner, with the complainant being advised of the measures and why they are being invoked.
“Failure to deal with unreasonable behaviour of this type would result in the council failing to comply with legal duties to protect officers and members. It would also impact upon the use of council resources and hinder the council’s ability to correspond with its customers and deliver its services.”