This is the second and final part of the investigation by ‘Retired Hack’ into why the Olympic Torch Reply didn’t come to the Isle of Wight, which has been labelled Torch-gate, following yesterday’s article. This section focuses on the flow of emails between the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) and the Isle of Wight council and the council’s lack of enthusiasm in attending a meeting which they were told, “directly relates to how your authority/organisation can specifically engage with the Torch Relay”.
So, fast forward to April 2011, to the “active discussion” Mr Metcalfe was telling us about.
At this stage the Torch’s overnight stops had been finalised but not announced (although the IW Council knew they’d not been chosen), and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) were canvassing councils for a meeting to be held on 1st June to discuss the en-route arrangements – precisely the area where the IW’s only hope of involvement now lay.
Emails expose details
The FOI request has produced a string of emails between the Council and LOCOG, and between Council officers (summarised below), which VB readers may feel tests to destruction the meaning of “active discussions with the organisers”.
IW Council Leader David Pugh and chief exec Steve Beynon were first invited by name to the June meeting on 31st March in letters addressed to them individually (embedded below), with a clear proviso that more junior-ranking nominees could be substituted.
On the 12th April they said they were “unable to attend,” “due to prior diary commitments”, ignoring the invitation for another council officer to go in their place.
Three requests from LOCOG
Between then and 10th May, the LOCOG representative gave three further proddings to “strongly encourage a representative to be present at the seminar” – to no response.
The suggestion that someone else be nominated to attend was, in all of the email that we’ve seen, ignored.
Enlightening email
Perhaps the most enlightening email is from the junior officer (AB) to IWC Chief Exec Steve Beynon which read:
“Shall I just explain that as we are not involved in the Torch Relay, there is no need for anyone from the island to attend (with slightly better wording of course!)”
Suddenly things change
Eight days later everything changed. All hell broke loose when the overnight list was published.
Within hours Metcalfe was trumpeting his “active discussions”, and MP Andrew Turner had jumped in.
Very quickly the Council decided that it would, after all, attend the 1st June meeting. A Community Development Manager was sent.
How do we know this? Our FOI specifically asked for all correspondence between IWC and LOCOG – both internal and external – up to the date it became public that the Olympic Torch would not be making an overnight stop on the Isle of Wight. Anything beyond that date is not included, making it clear that the arrangements for the Community Development Manager to attend the 1st June meeting happened after the story blew up.
Questions need to be answered
It is, after all, Mr Metcalfe who has gone on record as the responsible senior officer in this whole affair; and Mr Beynon whose has the final say, as is clear from the emails now unearthed.
So here are some questions for those senior officers, and also for David Pugh, who is supposed to make sure the Island is run how Islanders want it run.
- What on earth did the officers think they were doing submitting a bid so squirmingly amateurish and lackadaisical; and who at senior level is going to take responsibility for it? Mr Metcalfe (salary £86-91K)? Mr Beynon (salary £150k)?
- If the Council thinks involvement with the Torch Relay would mean spending money it can’t afford, why not state that view and see if it has popular support?
- How does Mr Metcalfe reconcile his use of the term “active discussion” with the file of correspondence current on the day he made his statement, and disclosed under FOI?
- And if he can’t answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, shouldn’t his very well-paid post be filled instead by someone who can?
We’ve just put these questions to the council and await their response.
Email exchange between IWC and LOCOG
The way the emails were received were confusing to say the least, as one person replied to another and those long email conversations were forwarded to others.
We’ve carefully gone through the emails, replicating the important parts, so it’s understood who sent which emails to who and when.
The names of those involved, besides the chief executive, have been replaced with double characters AB; YZ and TT.
Olympic Torch Relay IWC / LOCOG Email Exchange – REDACTED
Letters of invitation
Below are the two letter of invitation sent individually to Steve Beynon and David Pugh on 31 March. We’re redacted the name and contact details of the LOCOG staff member as well as the signatures.
