Created: October 29, 2024 07:57

Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez (file photo)

The police commissioner was right to refuse to share records relating to a promotion process with a participating officer, it was found.

Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez wrote in a recent ruling that Darrin Simons was justified in withholding the documents for several reasons, including that disclosure could have a “significant adverse effect on the exercise” by Bermuda Police of its management functions.

The officer filed a Freedom of Information request regarding the records in February, after seeking a promotion within the department.

They asked what “ranking order” had been assigned to them by members of a selection board as well as any comments made about them by board members.

They also requested the minutes of senior management meetings where a new promotion policy implemented by the Police Commissioner was discussed and accepted, as well as the promotion policy implemented.

The requester told the Information Commissioner’s Office that his request was essential to his future career development.

The BPS denied the request for classification and comment on the basis that the documents concerned were exempt because they contained information that could affect management functions if disclosed, as well as personal information and information obtained in confidence.

The rest of the request was refused on the basis that the records did not exist.

Mr Simons was asked to review the decision and he confirmed it in May, after which the officer asked the ICO for an independent review.

Ms. Gutierrez accepted the BPS’s argument that the new promotion policy was in draft form but not yet formally implemented and that there was no written record of it.

“The Commissioner of Police, as the most senior person within the BPS and responsible for implementing the new promotion policy, confirmed that there were no records of meetings between senior management related to the new promotion policy,” she wrote.

“Discussions were verbal and then put into practice by describing the process in standing instructions for specific promotion processes, as in this case. »

The Information Commissioner added that she found “no reason to dispute the argument of the Commissioner of Police, being the most senior official in the Bermuda Police Service, regarding the thoroughness of the search carried out …”

Ms. Gutierrez also acknowledged that it was right not to disclose the files containing the rankings and the selection board’s comments.

She wrote that the information was not intended to be shared with the candidates and that the BPS had “reason to believe that its disclosure could have undermined the integrity, objectivity, fairness and confidentiality of the promotion process, in which the members of the jury had expressly participated.” it is expected that their rankings and comments will not be disclosed to candidates – whether after the promotion process is complete or through other means.

Ms. Gutierrez added: “The public interest in disclosure must be weighed against the public interest in maintaining the exemptions.

“In this case, there was a strong public interest in ensuring that the BPS remained able to conduct promotion processes with objectivity and integrity, as it was in the public interest that those promoted within the BPS were recommended for promotion in accordance with a fair and objective process and subject to a transparent evaluation by the members of the selection panel.

“It was also in the public interest to ensure the organizational harmony of the BPS and the maintenance of professional relationships, which would ensure that the BPS could fulfill its wider functions in society.”

The Information Commissioner said once the island’s Personal Information Protection Act is fully enacted from next year, people will have the right to request their personal information from public authorities and to certain private organizations and that these requests will not be subject to the Pati law.

She wrote: “Any disclosure of an applicant’s personal information under Pipa will be reserved to the individual applicant and, therefore, the criteria for disclosure will differ from those under the Pati Act, which is intended to be used to request disclosure of documents to the public. »

Two sources, who asked to remain anonymous, spoke of concerns In The Royal Gazette in December last year, the new promotions policy was a “popularity contest” as members of all levels of the department were asked to rank the entrants.

Mr Simons responded that the changed process would ensure more informed and fairer decisions and was introduced after a “truly unprecedented” level of internal consultation.

THE Gazette requested comment from the BPS.