An open letter to the Chair of the Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Representative Body; Lynne Brosnan.
Dear Lynne,
As Chair of the RBH Representative Body you have apparently decided that, after an initial investigation, @andrewroche has “a case to answer to.”
I am involved in this issue; I've been mentioned in the email sent to Andrew, so I am contacting you about this matter.
Please see photos for a copy of the email Andrew received; red numbers denote order.
Since there are no contact details available for you as Chair of the RBH Rep Body, I am contacting you here.
I am very concerned about the way Andrew is being treated.
RBH’s email says you are responsible for the way Andrew is being treated, however, I note this contradicts RBH’s own documentation: it is RBH’s Secretary who is responsible for this decision “in consultation with the Chair of the Representative Body and the Chief Executive”.
If you treat Andrew unfairly because of his disability, or something arising from his disability, then that will be disability discrimination.
Unfair treatment does not have to be deliberate and intentional. It is entirely possible for disability discrimination to be unintentional but it is still disability discrimination; for example, occurring as the result of Policies or Procedures that are automatically implemented.
I also note that only point/allegation 1 in the email Andrew received is a serious breach of the Code of Conduct; points/allegations 2, 3 and 4, again according to RBH’s own documentation, are not considered to be serious breaches.
I wonder why all 4 points/allegations are being treated as serious breaches by you and would welcome an explanation for this. Please DM me with this information if you do not wish to answer publicly on Twitter.
Point 1 in the email Andrew received.
On 14 October 2011 Andrew provided RBH with written evidence of his formal diagnosis from the specialist in autism who made the diagnosis; Andrew should not need to provide this information again unless RBH has lost it.
It is well known that autism has an impact upon social interactions and communication, so it is very clear that Andrew’s disability is a valid reason for his absence from Rep Body meetings.
Prior to this allegation being pursued, Andrew’s disability should have been considered, and it should have been found to be a valid reason for his absences.
It is clear that Andrew’s disability has not been considered, at all, by either you, RBH’s Secretary, or RBH’s Chief Executive, during the initial investigation into this allegation.
Failure to give consideration to Andrew’s disability during the initial investigation of this allegation has resulted in Andrew being treated unfairly by you.
ie. you are treating Andrew as though he does not have a valid reason for absence; in fact, he does have a valid reason.
You have started the formal disciplinary procedure rather than opting to dismiss this allegation since Andrew has a valid reason for absence.
You are treating Andrew in a way that is different, and worse, to how he should be treated, because you have failed to consider his disability.
This is disability discrimination.
Point 2 in the email Andrew received.
This allegation states that, over 4 months ago, Andrew was featured in an article published on Rochdale Online on 14 November 2018.
Andrew is not featured in any articles published on Rochdale Online on 14 November 2018.
You can see, and read, all the articles published on Rochdale Online on 14 November 2018.
Why are you pursuing an allegation that is false? Why are you pursuing an allegation that relates to something that is over 4 months old? Why are you pursuing this allegation as a serious breach when it is not? Does this seem like fair treatment of Andrew to you?
Point 3 in the email Andrew received.
On 23 January 2019 Andrew featured in an article on Rochdale Online by @NickStathamLDR.
Andrew is not the only RBH Rep Body member featured in this article. @AndyLittlewood2 is featured first, and the article clearly states that Mr. Littlewood is a Rep Body member.
The article goes on to say that Andrew is also a member of the Rep Body, like Mr. Littlewood, but that Andrew “takes a different view [of the regeneration] to Mr. Littlewood.”
The article literally states that “Andrew ... takes a different view to Mr. Littlewood.”
It is quite obvious that these are differing personal views and that neither Mr. Littlewood nor Andrew is representing RBH/the RBH Rep Body. The content and context of the article make this very clear.
I don’t know why the initial investigation into this allegation did not flag this up. There is nothing for Andrew to answer to here.
Andrew provided views that were expressed in a personal capacity and were legitimate valid criticisms of the regeneration. Andrew’s views may not have had the positive-vibe-press-release-spin-style that RBH prefer, but that does not make them ‘derogatory’.
RBH Rep Body members are allowed to be critical of RBH.
Why is this allegation being pursued by you? Why are you pursuing this allegation as a serious breach when it is not?
If, however, you insist that Andrew does have ‘a case to answer to’ here, then surely you are now compelled to make a complaint about Mr. Littlewood because he too;
- a) expressed views in this article;
- b) is a Rep Body member;
- c) did not make it clear in the article that he was not expressing the views of RBH/the RBH Rep Body;
- d) referred to some RBH homes as “monstrosities” which is unquestionably derogatory to RBH;
- e) referred to other RBH homes as being “in a horrendous state”; not “fit to live in”; that people are living “in squalor”, “because of the conditions”. These things are RBH’s responsibility, so all of this is also derogatory to RBH.
It is clear that you should not treat Andrew more harshly for the content of this article than you treat Mr. Littlewood.
Point 4 in the email Andrew received.
My username is misspelled in the email sent to Andrew. I am the person that has been lied to. I was lied to about the Policies RBH is using during the regeneration, and I was lied to about the ‘Town Centre Area’ map.
I have written evidence of this; some of it was part of a complaint I took to the Housing Ombudsman Service and was awarded £200 compensation for.
Please DM me your email address so that I can provide copies of this evidence, or if you prefer, I will add things here.
It is not untrue or abusive to say that someone has lied when they have indeed lied. It is not derogatory to state a fact as a fact.
Why are you pursuing this allegation?
The email Andrew received also goes on to talk about “any medical information that you [Andrew] wish to rely upon”. It then assures Andrew that any medical information “will only be disclosed to a Disciplinary Panel if appointed”.
What do you think you are doing? Seriously. Andrew is a volunteer. He is not employed by RBH and he is not paid by RBH. He is an elected representative and he is a volunteer.
Why should Andrew agree to have his sensitive personal medical data shared with anyone?
Is Andrew expected to prove his disability to you?
Do you humiliate everyone on the Representative Body who has a disability by expecting them to prove their disability before it can be deemed a ‘valid reason’ for absence from meetings?
Or is it just Andrew who has been invited “to raise any issues of disability together with any medical evidence” ‘he wishes to rely upon’?
Andrew isn’t on trial, and he certainly isn’t guilty of anything. Andrew is a volunteer.
Attendance of Rep Body meetings is not compulsory; if it were, that would be a job, not a voluntary position. RBH cannot legally treat its volunteers like employees.
It is also not Andrew’s responsibility “to raise any issues of disability”; it is RBH’s legal duty to give consideration to Andrew’s disability when deciding how to treat him.
Andrew is autistic and RBH have known for years about his autism. Expecting him to prove his autism to you so that you can deem it a ‘valid reason’ for absence from Rep Body meetings genuinely disgusts me.
How dare you subject anyone with any disability to such humiliation.
Instead of finding ways for Andrew to be treated equally and ways for him to be included in the Rep Body process if he is unable to attend meetings in person, you have instead opted to threaten him with removal from the Rep Body because of his absences.
Equality, inclusivity, reasonable adjustments - do these things mean nothing to you?
Or do you perhaps believe that all autistic people should be excluded from being members of the RBH Rep Body because they may be unable to attend 80% of Rep Body meetings?
It is very clear that RBH’s priority here is not supporting Andrew so that he can be included, but that RBH wish to actively exclude him, and that RBH is using Andrew’s autism against him to try and do this.
If you have any doubts, I can assure you; this absolutely meets the definition of disability discrimination.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Vicky Haigh.
