³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

An update on my value-for-money question about the £9,356.91 training course apparently needed to appraise the performance of Cornwall Council chief executive Kevin Lavery. Here is the council's reply, which I have to say is a text-book example of how not to answer a question:

"The Council arranged for an appraisal of the Chief Executive's performance to be carried out by an organisation that could provide an obviously objective approach in both the design of the process and in its execution, which Caret Ltd undertook in consultation with the Leader.

"The company representatives interviewed senior officers, members, and representatives from outside organisations (Government Office South West and the Regional Development Agency) - those interviews were carried out with an expectation of confidence being attributed to the remarks.

"The purpose of the appraisal process for the Chief Executive is no different than that for the appraisals undertaken with all the council's staff i.e. to have a valuable discussion with their employer in order to gauge their performance to date and to explore areas for further development. The only difference is the method of execution due to the position of Chief Executive, there being no 'line manager' in the conventional sense.

"A report prepared by the company following the interviews, which was then presented to a panel of councillors (chosen by the Leader) in a confidential meeting. The content of the report and the discussions that followed in the meeting are confidential in the same way that all staff appraisals are confidential.

"Applying the FOI Act to this, as suggested in your email, it is the council's position that the report is personal data under section 40(2) of the Act. The Chief Executive's views have been sought and he has confirmed that his understanding of the appraisal process is that it was confidential and that the report prepared is also confidential.

"The comments given in the discussions with third parties, members and officers were given with an expectation that they would be treated in confidence. Whilst, of course , the Chief Executive is accountable for decisions he takes, it is not unreasonable for discussions with his employer concerning his performance in his role to remain confidential to those concerned. The Information Commissioner has acknowledged this approach in recent cases."