Council refuses to be open and transparent on temps and agency contracts

Rochdale Council

Following the revelation that the Council is spending millions on temps and agency staff whilst offloading permanent employees, acting on information received from a 'whistle-blower', Rochdale Online submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Council to ask on what terms two members of the Council communications team are engaged - the Council has refused to answer.

http://rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/92283/cashstrapped-rochdale-council-offloads-workforce-while-spending-millions-on-temps

The Council is citing Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act and Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act to justify its refusal. In essence, because the role of the individuals is not considered to be a 'senior' role - those in senior roles must expect even the amount of their remuneration to be published - the disclosure of personal information is exempt.

It is important to note the Council has not been asked to reveal how much the individuals are/have been paid, rather just how they are/have been engaged, seeking to clarify for local taxpayers on what basis the Council has engaged communications staff.

The questions asked:

1. Has she ever been paid via a limited company by the council?
2. Is she, and has she always been, paid as a member of staff (PAYE)?
3. Is she hired from an agency that Rochdale Council pays for her services?

Moreover, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has previously said: "The terms ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ are relative. It is not possible to set an absolute level across the public sector below which personal information will not be released; it is always necessary to consider the nature of the information and the responsibilities of the employees in question."

A First-tier Tribunal has also ruled: “The Tribunal does not accept that there is a blanket level at which all junior civil servants are shielded from disclosure of their personal data. This has to be decided on a case by case basis, through consideration of the role and responsibilities of the individual and the information itself.

"It may also be fair to release more information about employees who are not senior managers but who represent their authority to the outside world, as a spokesperson or at meetings with other bodies. This implies that the employee has some responsibility for explaining the policies or actions of their authority."

Both positions, Head of Communications and Media Relations Manager, clearly do have "responsibility for explaining the policies or actions of their authority".

It is also in the public interest to know how the Council is spending taxpayer's money, and Freedom of Information requests are subject to a public interest test.

Rochdale Online has appealed the Council's refusal. Under the Act, appeals are considered by the Council that has already made the refusal, should the decision to refuse disclosure be upheld by the Council, appeal can then be made to the Information Commissioners Office.