> This enquiry has alerted us to the possible need to inform the 75 odd
> Council members that their attendance record may be disclosed to College
> members in the future, as well as to the Trustees, and to seek their
> consent. This is a policy matter we will need to
consider.
is it really a policy decision? do you really need consent?
if individuals are acting on behalf of a faculty and making
decisions on behalf of that faculty (or if they aren't,
because they aren't turning up) surely the faculty has a
right to know? they aren't acting in a private capacity, so
why should it be an issue? it's not as if you're disclosing
sickness records or something.
>
> There are two individuals involved here! Who do we satisfy or protect?
sounds like someone is hoping to use you in an argument
with someone else!
> After all we do not know the purpose underlying the enquiry. Am I missing
> a point here?
>
>
> Gil Richardson
> Senior Information Manager
> RCGP
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.rcgp.org.uk
> Tel: 0171 581 3232 ext 231
> Fax: 0171 225 3047
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maurice Frankel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 07 August 2000 2:38 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Attendance at Council Meetings
>
>
> Apologies if I'm doing anyone an injustice, but the wording of this
> inquiry seem to suggest that someone doesn't want to disclose the
> requested information, for whatever reason, but is citing the DPA as
> a 'cover story'.
>
> Any actual DP concern could be overcome by asking the presumably
> small number of people involved for consent. Refusing access without
> asking, implies that the organisation doesn't want to release the
> information.
>
> If there's a good policy reason for refusing access, why not say so?
>
> If the reason is that the requester displays insufficient respect for
> his betters, don't hide behind the DPA. This will eventually
> discredit the legislation. (Sorry to be blunt!)
>
> The Data Protection Commissioner's recent annual report talks about
> bodies which "grasp the Act and wave it as though it were some hybrid
> garlic which might ward off information hungry vampires. Nowhere
> does the Act place blanket bars on the disclosure of information."
>
> Maurice Frankel
> Campaign for Freedom of Information
>
>
>
> At 10:24 am +0100 7/8/00, Gil Richardson wrote:
> >Council, the Trustees of the College, meets 5 times a year. Members of
> >Council represent the Faculties of the College. A member of the
> >College/Faculty has requested (more of a demand really) the attendance
> >record of the Council member representing the requesting member's Faculty
> be
> >disclosed to him.
> >
> >We have declined on the grounds of DP provisions on disclosure - consent
> >etc.
> >
> >Attendance records of Council Members (5 out of 5; 4 out of 5; say) are
> >reported to the Trustees of the College via the Annual Report. We believe
> >this to be the extent of the College requirement to disclose attendance
> >records.
> >
> >I would be grateful for any comments/thoughts on this.
> >
> >
> >Gil Richardson
> >Senior Information Manager
> >RCGP
> >
> >email: [log in to unmask]
> >Website: www.rcgp.org.uk
> >Tel: 0171 581 3232 ext 231
> >Fax: 0171 225 3047
>
----------------------
Clare Coyne
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|