Talk:Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Template:OTRS could refer to one of several templates related to the OTRS system. Instead of using this template, use one of the more specific templates listed below.

Commonly-used OTRS templates

• {{OTRS pending}}: Added when an email has been sent to OTRS
• {{OTRS permission}}: Permission received via OTRS
• {{OTRS ticket}}: Provides a link to an OTRS ticket
• {{OTRS talk}}: For article talk pages, where an issue is raised by OTRS
• {{OTRS received}}: OTRS received, but is not sufficient to confirm permission
• {{Verified account}}: Added to userpage when an account is verified

See also

• Category:OTRS templates, a more complete list of templates related to the OTRS process

Issues

I think there are problems with some of the material re-inserted into this article. Rather than revert, I would rather discuss and either add supporting evidence or reword/remove by consensus. I understand that some people have a negative view of the ombudsmen; it is good to have these criticisms reflected in the article. However, I am keen that we retain NPOV and give a balanced view, presenting only material that is relevant and actually supported by evidence. We are, after all, linking to Ombudsmanwatch, which provides plenty of supporting rhetoric for those who want it ;-)

• In my understanding, it is possible to complain about the actions of individual councillors or members of staff, as long as there is a claim those actions led to maladministration causing injustice. I think the present wording suggests that this is not possible, which is misleading in my eyes.
• I think the line about lack of duty to report is only justified if there is evidence that they have not done so when they should have done. And anyway, aren't the Ombudsmen under the same common-law duties to report crime as the rest of us? It skirts close to innuendo of criminal conspiracy as worded, which I think is dangerous and probably wrong.

• I'm happier with this one now - sorted, thanks. Tom Harris 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Local settlements can be and are often the result of agreement between the council and the complainant. The present wording, in my view, hides this and implies all "local settlements" are coercive. Can we find a better form of wording?

• Sorted this one too, thanks. Tom Harris 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Normally results in the Ombudsman reconsidering, then confirming" is only justified if we can show that has happened more than 50% of the time. I am particularly uneasy about the use of the Balchin case as evidence for this. A close reading of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's final report[1] suggests it was the Parliamentary Ombudsman, not the LGO, who was overturned twice at judicial review. The LGO's involvement seems to have been to refuse the case out of time in 1992 and to re-investigate in 2004. I don't doubt the whole saga supports a case that the ombudsmen system could do with reform, but I don't think it supports the point claimed here. Again, I'm happy to be convinced.

• The reference added to the article to "support" this point actually confirms that the Ombudsman hasn't lost a judicial review in three years, so the question of them "reconsidering, then confirming" does not apply. Also no explanation as to why Balchin is relevant here. I am reverting until a better case is made. Tom Harris 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think damning Mrs Seex by implication with a press story about Norwich City Council is justified. Firstly, legal responsibility for finance is not on the Chief Exec, it's on the statutory s151 officer (normally the chief accountant) and the members. Secondly, Norwich's financial position doesn't have any bearing on the Ombudsmen unless we can demonstrate financial issues there too and a link from the first to the second. To my knowledge such evidence doesn't exist, though I'd be happy to see it if provided. Most complaints about the Ombudsmen seem to be about the correctness of investigation process and outcome, not allegations of financial mismanagement. Absent evidence of this, the paragraph seems to be a smear, which is difficult to justify in an encyclopedia.

Tom Harris 10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On the question of Mrs Seex' tenure at Norwich City. She is now employed, as the final arbiter, to investigate mismanagement by Council officials. If the news story turns out to be correct then last year she was leading a council which was guilty of such mismanagement. This would make her position still less credible as is an important and material fact.

I say 'if' because as far as I know we haven't yet seen the report and are relying on a story in the local press. The article does say this but I'd be happy to see a more explicit health warning until such time as the report is published. Mucky Duck 11:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I agree a single local paper article is a weak source. I would be much happier with including it if something authoritative was published actually blaming her! Tom Harris 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've chased this one a bit more. The source is apparently the Audit Commission's annual audit letter to NCC, which is attached to one of their committee reports[2]. I've had a good look through; it's pretty critical, with most of the issues due to poor accountancy practices (pages 15-17 of the linked document). Mrs Seex is not directly criticised in the report and, as I mentioned above, the accounts aren't legally her responsibility anyway. I'm still uncomfortable with the paragraph as drafted. Perhaps somebody else could have a look at the report and give your thoughts? Thanks. Tom Harris 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Chipperfield cite, Mucky Duck. Hansard is a wonderful thing! :-) Tom Harris 10:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of staff Recruited from Local Government

You make it sound like an eternal mystery. Of course this number is "known". The LGO keeps staff records; and if there was any commitment to openness and transparency this number would be published. Mucky Duck 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we might be talking about different things. Of course they could work it out by trawling their records. We (the public) certainly don't know, though, and it's quite possible nobody at the LGO does off-hand, either - they may well never have bothered to check, as there's no reason to unless you're going to release it to the public. I'm happier with the new wording than the old, anyway, so thanks for the edit. Tom Harris 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mrs Seex at Norwich City

I don't think that an explanation as to why a report on her record at Norwich is relevant is NPOV - without it the citation might appear, as you suggested before, like a smear. Nor do I think what I wrote was "opinion", however, I'll try different wording, how about this:

In March 2006 the Audit Commission published a highly critical audit letter for Norwich City Council during Mrs Seex' last year as Chief Executive [3]. leading to further questions about her credibility as an independent and final arbiter on matters of maladministration in local government.

Mucky Duck 09:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It was the assertion that it "further undermined her credibility" that was POV, as it depends on the observer's opinion. I can certainly see that it would undermine it in the eyes of some people, but we have no business asserting it does for everyone.

I like your revision, though. Can I offer the following? It's identical to yours with the removal of the word "further" and the change of a full stop. I would cite who the questions were from, too, but I can only find the Ombudsmanwatch front page and it is unlikely to stay on the front page for long. If you can find a more permanent link to a group specifically linking the audit letter to her credibility as Ombudsman, that would make it better still.

In March 2006 the Audit Commission published a highly critical audit letter for Norwich City Council during Mrs Seex' last year as Chief Executive [4], leading to questions about her credibility as an independent and final arbiter on matters of maladministration in local government.

Tom Harris 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's strange, my edit from yesterday has gone missing. To recap, I don't have any real problem with your version and have copied it in. Having said that, it doesn't matter much but I don't know why you wanted to remove the "further" since the questions that they are further to are referred above and so I think it reads better with it there. Mucky Duck 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Balchin

The new paragraph is better, but Balchin still seems difficult to link to judicial review of the LGO. As explained over two paragraphs in the "issues" section above, the official report suggests that the LGO was never the subject of judicial review over Balchin, only the Parliamentary Ombudsman (twice). I may well be missing something (in which case please point it out). I'm sure the Balchin case could usefully be included somewhere else as an example of when the overall ombudsmen system gets it wrong, if you're keen to have it in.

If it's not verifiable we'll have to take it out. Thanks. Tom Harris 10:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Balchin

Fact: The LGO refused to investigate the Balchin's initial complaint in 1991. If the LGO had taken the prudent step of validating evidence provided by the council before refusing to investigate the Balchin's complaint the subsequent fiasco could have been avoided altogether.

In essence, anything post 1991 is a direct result of the LGO's willingness to accept evidence from a council without validation.

Fact: A Deputy Ombudsman is on record stating that they see nothing wrong in doing that. Fact: They did the same with my complaint during 2002. Fact: That is why the Balchins suffered for over 14 years. Fact: The LGO do not like to admit when they get it wrong. (Their words not mine. Read the latest qualitative survey) That is why subsequent investigations only went back to 1992.

Edit away Tom. The truth is out there whether you like it or not.

Trevor R Nunn

I have absolutely no issue with any of that. The case seems like a sorry tale which reflects badly on all the official bodies involved. As mentioned above, if you want to include it in the article (given proper references, which should be easy given there's a Parliamentary Ombudsman report on it) I'd be happy to help you write it.

However (and it is a big however), the article currently uses the case to reinforce an assertion that the LGO normally fails to properly reconsider cases it loses at judicial review. This doesn't seem to be true for LGO in the Balchin case (and neither of us can actually find a case at judicial review that the LGO has lost). That's why I have a problem with the statement - not because Balchin didn't happen, or because I want to hide it (why on earth would I?), simply that I want the facts in the article to be verifiable. That is, after all, the policy of Wikipedia.

Perhaps if we drafted a paragraph somewhere else in the article covering Balchin that would give a reasonable way forward? Tom Harris 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The LGO also produced a report on the Balchins case. Fact: The Wiki article states that the Ombudsmen investigate in response to allegations of maladministration causing injustice to the person who has complained. Fact: They don't, the majority of complaints are dismissed without any investigation, which is ironic when you take into account the original purpose of the LGO (1974 LG Act refers.)Their statutory purpose is more important than what they (or you) now consider their role to be?

An article drafted by committee would just produce another wiki camel. An interesting but irrelevant read.

Trevor R Nunn

Tom is quite right here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - Ombudsmanwatch et al fulfill that function - and the facts need to be verifiable, relevant and NPOV. The anger is understandable but the facts of LGO bias and unaccountability stand up perfectly well on their own - they don't need embelishing. And they suffer from that process. A dispassionate summary of the Balchin case would be much more informative, and reach more people, than side swipes and bluster. Mucky Duck 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought a fact was (by definition)verifiable and NPOV. Having said that I agree with your suggestion that a dispassionate summary of the Balchin case may be more appropriate for wiki 'editors'. I for one have never asserted otherwise.

Trevor R Nunn

Just keep it calm. Believe me I understand the anger and frustration that the inbuilt bias and unaccountability of the Ombudsman instils but hectoring is not helpful, and inserting "Fact:" before a statement does not make it any more true. He is basically right, if I understand the facts correctly, that the Balchin case does not have anything to say about how the Ombudsman treats the results of Judicial Review since neither reviews were into his conduct or involvement (much as they should have been, perhaps). The case is damning, but not in the way the article suggests, and this devalues the citation. Mucky Duck 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Balchin is relevant as example of reconsideration, risks of judicial review, and as Parliamentary Ombudsman and LGO have said, as evidence of them working together. Truthfairy1400 27 April 06

External links

A number of problems with the external links:

• there are too many. Four anti-LGO links is far too much. One might be suitable.
• they are highly biased. Although three of them are titled with the neutral-sounding word "Watch", the opening sentence of one reveals its true purpose: "The objective of Local Government Ombudsman Watch is to motivate others into campaigning for the abolition of the LGO...". The fourth, the blogspot site, is horrendously one-sided and not worthy of inclusion at all.
• none of them are remotely representative. There is no significant minority view that the LGO is the spawn of the devil, or whatever it is that these sites are trying to imply.

In short, they are in breach of part of our guideline on external links, and also part of that on undue weight. Although we should make an attempt to include all points of view, these are so minority-based and extreme that they simply are not worthy of inclusion at all, and I suggest they are removed. ninety:one 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the ombudsmanwatch website and it make no such claim as "the LGO is the spawn of the devil" and to suggest it does is highly disingenuous. It also makes clear that it is a campaigning website - there is no attempt to hide that - but it also presents significant amounts of evidence about the LGO. I agree that it is unnecessary, counter-productive even, to provide all of these links but neither should we be suppressing criticism or disparaging the critics. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed all of those links after they were re-added. We do not achieve neutrality by having links from opposing sides; rather, if there are verifiable criticisms found in reliable sources, those belong in the actual text. It is explicitly not allowed to link to highly partisan sides (except, say, to the official web page of a highly partisan subject). For example, we provide the link to the Westboro Baptist Church homepage on Westboro Baptist Church, but not on pages about homosexuality, funerals, etc. Those EL cannot be in this article. The two in the article are acceptable as they are official government links--one the link to the main ombudsman homepage, and another to a report on them. If Bagunceiro disagrees, I recommend asking at the External Links noticeboard for input. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel the need to personalise this. Bagunceiro (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean anything bad. I just meant that "any editor who wants to add the links" should try WP:ELN; since you're the only editor I see trying to add them, that's why I referred to you by name. But I didn't mean anything bad by it; rather, I was giving advice for how to proceed if you think that Ninetyone and I are wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should add that I am not "the only editor trying to add them" - I am not trying to do anything of the sort, I was restoring them after they were removed without adequate explanation. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(I was unsurprisingly not actually stating that any of the websites imply that the LGO is the spawn of the devil; rather it is disingenuous for you to suggest that I was so stating because I was clearly using it as a metaphorical device. Anyway, enough of that and apologies if it was confusing.) The links were removed with the explanation "rm wholly inappropriate links", which is adequate enough given how they are in flagrant breach of our guidelines - I have no objection to giving a further explanation as to why they were removed, but to say I first did so "without adequate explanation" is I think a little unfair. Bu anyway, yes, I agree with what Qwyrxian said. ninety:one 13:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and reliable sources

Pursuant to Ticket:2011022110005743, some of the information in this article has been updated and some blogs that do not clear WP:IRS and WP:BLP have been removed. Accusations regarding the behaviors of living people must be scrupulously sourced. While it is an important function of articles to note what criticism has been documented in reliable sources (as long as they are clearly attributed and not presented as fact), we have to make sure that the content strictly adheres to WP:V and WP:NPOV. While specific complaints have been evaluated, it looks as though the rest of the article could do with a good cleaning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)