Source: Alamy

Got a minute? London Met believes a 12-month delay is reasonable

London Metropolitan University has continued with its policy of withholding governing council minutes from the public for a year after meetings are held despite a warning from the Information Commissioner¡¯s Office that this is likely to be in breach of its guidelines.

After an 11-month battle by Times Higher Education to obtain council minutes under the Freedom of Information Act, the commissioner wrote in December that London Met¡¯s policy of withholding the minutes for 12 months after each meeting was ¡°unlikely¡± to be in line with the ICO¡¯s guidance.

Minutes should be published ¡°reasonably soon after the meeting has been held¡±, the commissioner¡¯s letter noted.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°The commissioner considers it unlikely that publishing minutes 12 months after the date of a meeting could be deemed reasonably soon,¡± it added.

It urged the university to consider whether the delay could be reduced ¡°to reflect the spirit of the legislation and the commissioner¡¯s guidance¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

After this decision, THE made another FoI request for the university¡¯s unreleased minutes.

But the university has again refused this request, citing an exemption to the act if an institution has a ¡°settled intention¡± to publish them at a date in the future.

In its response, it acknowledges the commissioner¡¯s letter but argues that it constitutes a ¡°comment¡± rather than a ¡°judgement¡­on the part of the ICO that 12 months from meeting to publication of minutes would definitely be considered an unreasonably lengthy period of time¡±.

It said that while there was a ¡°general public interest in transparency, good governance and the actions of public bodies¡±, this was ¡°already served¡± by the minutes being published 12 months after each meeting. ¡°Further, there is no public interest in information being released prematurely into the public domain which may have an adverse effect on the university, its key stakeholders, staff and students,¡± it argues.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

However, it did say that the university¡¯s governance committee was considering whether to reduce the 12-month delay period.

THE has requested an internal review of the decision. If the outcome of this review is considered unsatisfactory, the case can be taken to the ICO for a judgement.

david.matthews@tsleducation.com