As you know the whole reason for complaint 906363 was Mr Jorgensen choosing not to respond eg to complaint 902438 parts specific to him as committee chairman despite a reminder to him 23 February. The fact that he was not Chairman at time of complaint substance is not relevant as I was still entitled to a response no matter how fob off “before my time” inadequate. I fail to see how in Councillor code of conduct is it is ok to simply ignore complaints and not respond. Officers willingly responded to explain their position , a councillor at the political level did not or even” fob off” with a non substance reply to shame and discredit what an elected member is for.

1. You seem to have decided that a response to you but non response from a councillor to the public is satisfactory re code of conduct. I see no justification for secrecy re disclosure of response. Hence if you do not wish to tell me what Mr Jorgensen’s “response “ was to you in reaching your decision I ask for this “response” to be provided under FOI act.

The Council are applying exemptions S.40 (2) (Personal Information), S.41 (Information Provided in Confidence) and S30 (2) (investigations and proceedings).

When dealing with code of conduct complaints, the usual situation would be that the subject member is advised of the details/nature of the complaint and is given the opportunity to respond. Both parties will usually be advised that the matter should be kept confidential. If it goes forward, then the details of the complaint may be heard at a hearing which is open to the public and details of the findings may also be made public. However, at the initial stages of such a complaint, there is an aspect of confidentiality to the process. There is a reasonable expectation that information relating to complaints against individuals carries a strong general expectation of privacy due to the likelihood that disclosure could cause the data subjects' distress and could cause permanent damage to their future prospects and general reputation.

The Council have looked at other decision notices when considering our response, which have similar arguments and outcomes. While there are arguments for transparency as a public figure and organisation, there are also privacy rights in regards to this, and we do not view that the public interest test passes in favour of disclosure. Therefore, have applied the above three exemptions to this request.