It seems recognition of Help Me Investigate is spreading: last week the site was shortlisted for Multimedia Publisher of the Year at the NUJ Regional Press Awards.?

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published an important ruling relating to public bodies attempting to assert copyright on FOI responses. According to Martin Rosenbaum:

“The Commons told Mr Irving [of MySociety] that it could send him material directly by e-mail, but it would not respond through the whatdotheyknow system because the automatic web publication of its reply would breach Parliamentary copyright.”

The ICO have ruled that they must now comply, even though it means it will be published online.

Although this is a specific ruling (a similar one is due on Brent Council), it is a useful one to quote if you encounter similar objections from public bodies. Embedded above.

Hello there,

Birmingham City Council have published a report into the content management system that was investigated by Help Me Investigate users last year and generated a number of news reports.

How are you doing? Late night? Well, here's the latest from Help Me Investigate – see if you can make a difference…

Who funds the New Schools Network? That's the question being asked by Jack Cues, which will become more relevant as the new government looks into education policy:

"NSN is charity aiming to take advantage of proposed education policy to set up what are described as ?free? schools. Many companies such as http://www.edisonlearning.net/ http://www.gemseducation.com/ and http://www.schoolchains.org/en/school/cognita-schools-united-kingdom will have the opportunity to profit but who is financing the charity?"

This is a nice investigation to get your teeth into, as it mainly involves looking into the directors of the company. Join the investigation here.

Other new investigations:

• 'Environmental information' how strictly is it being defined?

• ?Which (and how many) MPs are currently being investigated by the Commissioner for Standards??

• How much money do the various donation websites take from charities?

• Can a taxi firm send me SMS adverts simply because they have my number?

• What are councils required to do, as a minimum, when responding to FOI requests and updating disclosure logs?

• Which MPs are writing identical letters to their constituents about the Digital Economy Bill?

Completed: Another investigation has been marked as complete since last month: Why my doctors have an 0845 number?

Useful: A great tool for checking which companies people hold directorships in. http://directors.mapofpower.com/

Remember you can invite anyone you know to Help Me Investigate – just click on 'Invite People' on the top right of any individual investigation.

People were understandably angry that they had to pay up to 40p to call their General Practitioner (GP) because of 0845 numbers, and so began the investigation, under the question ?Why my doctors have an 0845 number?.

The consultation period for use of 0845 numbers began 16th December 2008 and ended March 31st 2009, as stated by Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister of State for Health Services;

?We have been very pleased with the level of public response to this consultation, having received a much higher volume of responses than expected.

Whilst this is, of course, very positive news in itself in terms of demonstrating the strength of public feeling around this issue, it is important to ensure that in reaching an outcome, we fully take into account the breadth of responses received?.

A Which? report that helped in expanding upon and detailing the way in which 0845 numbers are used in GP practices; reportedly, one in six UK Gp?s used 0845 numbers to fund the use of ?Surgery Line, a telephone system promising more access and efficiency, with features like a queuing system and call routing.?

This meant GP?s recieved 2p from each call made to their practice, but this money was then invested straight back into the telephone systems. ?Director of sales George Neal said that surgeries using Surgery Line have increased patient access by 30%, and calls are cheaper overall because they are answered more quickly?.

The NHS were banned from using premium rate numbers throughout the course of the investigation anyway, but the petition against 08** numbers was now up and going strong.

People, as a result started taking notice and becoming more aware of their local GP?s practices; the petition was the spearhead, but individuals became more aware of their own local practice by checking saynoto0870. The investigation had gained momentum and it looked as though things were heading in the right direction.

By September, it was finally being reported that after 3000 people had responded (via the petition) to the consultation, 90% has responded in favour of banning 08** numbers in hospitals or GP surgeries, so calls would cost no more than a standard call from then on.

Despite the positive response by the government to the petition, there was still a fear that because a ?standard call? would still cost more in the evening and across various mobile phone packages, which would still mean people would be paying more than a standard call.

However, towards the end of the investigation, things became clearer with regards to the use of 08** numbers in general.

0845 numbers are not premium rate numbers, and only cost more if the company using them are not subsidising the charges. If a local alternative is being sought, saynoto0870 is still the best place to head. Each organisation will use 0845 numbers for different reasons, whether it be for capital gain or to ensure a local customer will pay locally, or simply for the call management services.

To put it simply, if on a mobile phone package that makes you unsure as to whether you will have to pay extra, find a local alternative through a website like saynoto0870, and otherwise, the calls will be at a standard rate.

The full list of updates, in chronological order (although messy) is here, which makes it easy to see the investigation as it progressed without categorisation.

Here's one investigation which you can help with by simply looking at your local council website:

Glyn Mottershead wants you to help him find out which councils are putting information about Environmental Information Regulations on their websites. By law they should take reasonable steps to make this information public – but are they, and how? (tips here)

Other investigations new to the site since last month include:

• Who funds the New Schools Network?

• How much will the new civic offices in Telford cost & what's the impact?

• Which is the "greenest" University in Birmingham?

• Can a councillor be allowed to represent his community when he does not attend resident associations in his ward ?

• Which Midlands councils have the best recycling facilities and policies?

• How much support is there in schools for children suffering from Selective Eating Disorder?

• How have the cuts to junior doctor's hours affected NHS Obs&Gynae units?

• Why did City Car Club leave Liverpool?

Also in the last month: one completed investigation into the Brumcan charity.

If you're already using the site, remember that you can invite anyone you know to help with investigations by using the 'Invite people' button to the right of every investigation page. If you think anyone could help with your investigation or the investigations above, send them one!

Sometimes an investigation involves searching for something on a particular council website. Quite often the search facility on a council website is not very effective – so here's how to search a council website using Google:

On Google, click on Advanced Search (to the right of the search button)

1. Type in your search query, e.g. 'Environmental Information Regulations' in the first box
2. In the last box – 'Search within a site or domain' type the web address of the site you're searching, e.g. bolton.gov.uk (if you want to search all council websites you can just put .gov.uk)
3. Click the 'Advanced Search' button to conduct the search.

A quicker way to do the same search without going into Advanced search is to just type Environmental Information Regulations site:bolton.gov.uk

If you liked this how-to, why not use it to help with the current investigation into what information councils are putting on their sites related to Environmental Information Regulations!

The investigation into payments of bonuses at Birmingham City Council has revealed that the council saved ?5.5million in bonus payments between 2008 and 2009 – while a handful of employees were still being awarded annual bonuses of over ?20,000

A Freedom of Information request to the council found:

• The council paid out almost ?9.4million in bonuses in 2007/08 – but ?3.8m in 2008/09 – a reduction of almost 60%
• The top 5 bonuses paid in each year are relatively unchanged. In 07/08 they ranged from ?22,000-?26,000 – the following year the range was ?20,000-?26,000
• Over 1,000 council employees received bonuses – although this dropped by around 9%, from 1,106 to 1,008
• The average bonus received dropped from ?8,485 to ?3,772

Following an internal review, the council have decided not to say which employees received the highest bonuses, as "its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 and various Health and Safety Acts as this would infringe on the private lives of individuals"

Notably, the same decision indicates that the top bonuses were not paid to "senior officers/directors".

The council say of the current financial year:

"Following the implementation of the new contracts of employment and the pay and grading review, Birmingham City Council have now removed all bonus schemes from the current financial year. Accordingly, whilst bonuses were paid for the previous years, there are now no bonus schemes in place and thus, no requirement for measures to be implemented to regulated bonuses."

Meanwhile, Dudley have refused to release any information following a similar FOI request, claiming:

• "The totals relating to bonus payments made to employees will be published in the public domain in the very near future"
• "Information requested, at this time, constitutes substantive information fundamental to the progress and final outcome of the Equal Pay Claim cases that the Council is currently engaged with. The information is a key part of the discussion and that its disclosure at this stage of the proceedings would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.
• "During the course of legal proceedings, the qualified person believes that, the release of any information relating to this matter at this stage would prejudice the ability of officers and others (including the court) to provide/obtain advice and to openly discuss the Equal Pay Claims. This is particularly relevant as litigation is ongoing."
• "Disclosure of the information at this stage of proceedings may lead to more time having to be used to defend or re-examine cases that are already before the court.
• "The Council maintains that at this time, disclosure of the requested information would undermine the lawyer-client relationship in addition to prejudicing its legal position regarding the subject of bonus payments and Equal Pay Claims."

The legal objection appears counter-intuitive. Any advice on this front most welcome.