RBH - disingenuous as well as obstructive?

RBH logo

On the 15 February Rochdale Online reported on the circumstances of a Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (RBH) Disciplinary Hearing. At the time we had sought clarification from RBH as to whether key witnesses had been invited to attend the hearing, however, RBH Communications Manager Jane Howard said: "I have been instructed that RBH will not be responding to questions from Rochdale Online".

Rochdale Online consequently submitted a Freedom of Information request for the information to RBH on 12 February and the FOI request was acknowledged by RBH Senior Policy amp; Performance Officer Chris Baldock the same day.

As RBH was clearly being deliberately obstructive, given the answer was a simple yes or no and could have been given in less time than it took the RBH Communications Officer to compile the email saying she had been instructed not to answer, Rochdale Online asked the same question of the relevant witnesses - Margaret Carney, Executive Director, Rochdale Council, who decided the original allegations were serious enough to warrant the recruitment process being cancelled, and Councillor Brian Davies, who made the original allegations.

Having received replies from Ms Carney and Councillor Davies, and six days later (Monday 18 February) no answer having been forthcoming from RBH despite the FOI request, we decided it was in the public interest to publish the replies of Ms Carney and Councillor Davies without further delay.

Within hours of publication RBH Senior Policy amp; Performance Officer Chris Baldock finally responded to the FOI request:

Thank you for your request for information about whether Margaret Carney and Councillor Brian Davies were invited to attend and give evidence at Gill Walch's Disciplinary Hearing. Your request was received on 12th February 2008 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Under section 21 of the Act, we are not required to provide information in response to a request if it is already reasonably accessible to you. The information you requested is readily available. The attached response gives full details of that availability and details of action to take if you have any queries with my findings.

The finding in the attached document stated:

I have found that your request is exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act, in that it is already accessible to you both through the RMBC Press Office email sent to you with a quote from Margaret Carney (extract attached) and subsequently from the Rochdale Online website where you state you have already asked them for, and received, this information.

It is clear that RBH having read the article on Rochdale Online reacted with what can only be described as a most disingenuous response - the information was not available elsewhere at the time of the request, and Rochdale Online had to seek it elsewhere due to RBH intransigence - and for RBH to respond as they did citing publication on Rochdale Online six days after the request is cynically calculating and the question needs to be asked is it acceptable for a public sector body to act in such a discreditable manner?

Moreover, can a disciplinary hearing without the key witnesses present be said to be fair and balanced, even if the procedure accords with the organisations proscribed procedure for such hearings?

Would it not have been prudent, from Ms Walch's viewpoint as well as that of RBH, to have invited her accusers to the hearing to be questioned?