Several Freedom of Information Act requests have been lodged with the Isle of Wight Council following the local authority’s refusal to tell Islanders the details of its settlement on Floating Bridge 6.
Questions have been asked of the Council, including how much the Council made, whether the Council signed a non-disclosure agreement over the settlement (and if so, why?); and how much the Council paid in legal fees during the action. The Isle of Wight Council refused to answer referring back to its original standpoint that no further statement would be made.
A Freedom of Information request has now been submitted by the Isle of Wight Local Democracy Reporter, as well as multiple Island residents, asking the same questions. The request could take up to 20 working days to answer.
There are fears that the requests could be rejected on the grounds of commercial sensitivity, however, the local authority must apply the public interest test to each request – with no doubt from the media that the matter is well and truly in the public interest.
Late last week, it was announced the legal mediation process between the designers and builders of the £3.2million troubled chain ferry — Burness Corlett Three Quays and Mainstay Marine Solutions — and the Isle of Wight Council had ended. It was said to have started in March this year but the legal action was first mentioned by the previous Conservative administration almost 2 years ago.
While the settlement was welcomed, the Isle of Wight Council has refused to disclose how much it was for.
The authority says it was agreed between parties the terms of the settlement should remain confidential and no party would make any further statement relating to the terms of the settlement agreement.
East Cowes’s Councillor Karl Love said he did not agree confidentiality was necessary and after years of turmoil in the town, they were entitled to know the details.
Councillor Joe Robertson, Conservative leader at County Hall, called the secrecy ‘completely unacceptable’, as previously reported by Island Echo.
Councillor Cameron Palin, East Cowes town councillor, said residents were being kept in the dark and it made him question the Alliance Administration’s post-election pledges to be open and transparent, instead making them look closed and deceptive.
Members of the public have also been questioning how the settlement can be kept quiet when it has been taxpayers’ money funding the troubled vessel.
There are no doubt some who sit within the walls of county hall, who know the full truth behind the story, and are possibly quite relieved about the veil of secrecy that surrounds this waste of IOW Taxpayers money, as while they continue to hide in the shadows, there names will remain untarnished !
Bob Dylan had a line in one of his songs ‘ The executioners face is always well hidden’ seems appropriate for this deceptive council
I agree with your thinking VC, but I don’t think that their names will remain untarnished. IWC “elected members” (who claim to be representing IOW citizens) fail to act in the public interest by ensuring openness, transparency and accountability, then they irretrievably tarnished by their apparent failure to do anything effective towards disclosure.
It’s utterly scandalous.
Never heard of the Nolan Principles, IWC councillors and officers?
you can view the freedom of information request here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/value_of_settlement_in_relation and here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cowes_floating_bridge_settlement#incoming-2151679
Even if we do get any information a lot of it will be redacted, especially the bits we all want to know. This council is corrupt to the core. Where does our sausage of an MP stand on this then, notice how quiet he is.
Nothing like a socialist council for transparency, this lot are worse than Biden’s clown show..
Nothing like a swivel-eyed alt-right loon to see commies under every bed.
lol..havent you noticed how this county is being run mr swivel eyes, its a socialist agenda..
New world order
Makes you wonder what else they are keeping secret from us tax payers
I am just waiting for the council tax next year !!!!
They will obviously need to cut services due to a shortfall , ,,,,,,,,,
Well we the cash cow’s know exactly why …..
Council overspending on this heap of junk – electric cars- air con ( we are defo being conned )-computer system the pension pot – oh not forgetting the new heating and lighting they require !!!!!
All the mediation cost’s to name but a few !!!!!
Councillors alliance….there is no alliance, all they do is argue and con us , honesty is obviously not their policy….
As said before honesty transparency, they don’t know the meaning of it !!!
They know the meaning of honesty and transparency, but that does not mean they will apply it to their dealings with OUR money
We at one time would only expect this sort of thing in Communist or third world countries.
Remember this at voting time.
That is because you voted to be a 3rd world country.
Get over it.
1 2 3 4 5 yea I can’t count , using my LOAF or FANCY MEATING u here
1 2 Bob is poo 3 4 should be poor 5 6 Seeley is sick 7 8 he’s not my mate 9 10 ill do this again
IWC will try to withold the information but an FOI request doesn’t just stop when IWC refuse it; applicants can challenge the response. If IWC refuses again upon challenge, you can refer to the Information Commissioner explaining why the public interest in favour of disclosure outweighs the blushes of IWC and the third parties – and the public interest here is really weighty given the level of inconvenience, cost and time involved.
The ICO will investigate and may oblige them to comply. Even if our so called MP and elected members won’t press for the information to be made public, we should get on and do that ourselves. Don’t leave it to others to ask the questions for you, get an FOI request in today.
The truth is out there!
In any financial fight there are obviously winners & losers. The winners are those jumping up & down, shouting of their fantastic result. Quite obvious what IOWC are!! Their silence speaks volumes!! They are clearly trying to protect the jobs of those who have failed us. The very person who signed off this useless vessel fit for purpose would have been sacked in the private sector. A person who’s roll is to look after car parking should not be overseeing the design of a vessel, FACT. These IOWC officers are useless & need vetting by another successful coastal council. After all they’re not all failing in their rolls to serve their communities. Just ours!!!
The council obviously has something it wants to hide.
Amazing how the majority of people commenting on here also appear to be keeping their real names quiet on here too
Would you believe them if they told you? Very doubtful!!
I have just created a partition in the hope we can get these answers
here it is https://www.change.org/p/our-floating-bridge-taxpayers-money-we-need-answers/share_for_starters?just_created=true
What if the IoW’s taxpaying citizens initiate legal action to claim compensation for the inconvenience they have had to endure? Would this be likely to compel disclosure (in the courts) by the cosy little clique?
Wasted our money (Clouncil tax) so at least we should be told!
If not excuse for future rises.
Complete shambles!