Open main menu Close main menu

Request for information relating to expenditure of school money

Privacy
Legislation:
Official Information Act 1982
Section 9
Legislation display text:
Official Information Act 1982, s 9(2)(a)
Agency:
Board of Trustees
Ombudsman:
Sir John Robertson
Case number(s):
C225,
C228
Issue date:
Format:
HTML,
PDF,
Word
Language:
English

Request for minutes of, and reports to, a Board of Trustees’ meetings relating to expenditure of school monies—privacy interests of the Principal and Executive Officer­—accountability for spending public money

These cases arose when representatives of the media requested the minutes of, and reports presented to, a secondary school’s Board of Trustees’ meetings relating to the resignation of the Principal and the Executive Officer.

The background circumstances related to the teaching staff’s concern about spending and management in the school. The Board of Trustees began an internal investigation in December 1991. The Executive Officer was suspended on full pay during the investigation and the contract of the Principal was terminated on medical grounds.

In January 1992 the Board issued a statement saying that ‘it was satisfied the School had suffered no financial loss through misappropriation by an employee’. The Board’s investigation revealed the existence of a school account which had not been disclosed to the Board of Trustees or the remainder of the staff. This account, the consolidated account, held income from areas such as overseas student fees, hiring out of school facilities and stationery profits. The Board’s investigation had revealed that money had been spent from the account without the Board’s knowledge.

The information requested was withheld under several sections of the Act, but the privacy interests of the Principal and the Executive Officer were clearly most at issue if the information were released. The minutes of the Board’s meetings showed that the Principal had been required by the Board at the time of his resignation to reimburse a considerable sum of money to it and, because this reflected on his integrity, the Chief Ombudsman was satisfied that there was a privacy interest which fell within the ambit of section 9(2)(a) of the OIA.

In considering the application of section 9(1) of the OIA, the Chief Ombudsman was drawn back to the purposes of the Act set down in section 4(a)(ii) which relate to the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials. In this case, there had been no public disclosure by the Board that the expenditure had been for the Principal’s personal use and not for the school. The Chief Ombudsman took the view that there is a widely perceived public interest in officials having to account for the expenditure and guardianship of public monies. He also noted that section 76 of the Public Finance Act 1989 makes it an offence for a person without reasonable excuse to pay any public money.

Having established that there was a public interest to be served by the release of the information, the remaining question which the Chief Ombudsman was required to determine related to whether the public interest in release of the information outweighed the reasons for withholding it under section 9(2)(a). In respect of this matter it is clear that officials entrusted with the care of public funds have a duty not only to their employers in the first instance, but also to the wider community. There is much judicial weight to support the notion that officials must be above reproach in respect of the administration of public monies. In these circumstances, the Chief Ombudsman formed the view that the public interest to be served by the release of the information outweighed the privacy interest because if it did not, public officials, in circumstances where questionable behaviour remains hidden, may not be held accountable to the wider community for their actions. For these reasons the Chief Ombudsman recommended that the specific information in question should be released. The Board of Trustees acted in accordance with the recommendation.

Of the remaining information, namely the various reports relating to the resignation of the Executive Officer, the Chief Ombudsman formed the view that his privacy interest would be compromised if these were released. The Board had accepted the Officer’s explanations for the purchase of certain items of equipment, and under section 9(1) the Chief Ombudsman decided there was no public interest to be served by releasing the information.

This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.

Last updated: