Thursday, March 15, 2012

2535.txt

date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:10:44 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23)
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" <K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
Dear Dave,

I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith
and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with
specific reference to the public interest section.

Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As
Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we
haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in
confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request,
and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann?

Best regards

Tim

At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:
>Gents,
>An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the 'appropriate
>limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In particular, your
>input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence
>received by the University in this matter would be appreciated.
>
>This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about right of appeal
>are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice.
>
>Cheers, Dave
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM
> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn
> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23)
> >
> >Hi Dave
> >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my letter over
> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send
> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I
> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is unreasonable -
> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter 6 authors
> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is
> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into
> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely
> >compliance with further , less demanding requests.
> >cheers
> >Keirth
> >
> >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:
> >>Gents,
> >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June)
> >>
> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland?
> >>
> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr.
> >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was going to make
> >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something
> >along the lines
> >>of ....
> >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your
> >letter of 31
> >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request
> >under this
> >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?"
> >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the requester is not
> >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the
> >question... Your
> >>opinions?
> >>
> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly
> >>
> >>Cheers, Dave
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk]
> >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM
> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn
> >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
> >> >Subject:
> >> >
> >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil
> >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful
> >comments and on
> >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to
> >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you , I intend
> >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to Holland tomorrow
> >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments
> >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By
> >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that
> >I did not
> >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not believe that this
> >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process in any
> >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be
> >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree.
> >> >thanks again
> >> >Keith
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Professor Keith Briffa,
> >> >Climatic Research Unit
> >> >University of East Anglia
> >> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> >> >
> >> >Phone: +44-1603-593909
> >> >Fax: +44-1603-507784
> >> >
> >> >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
> >> >
> >
> >--
> >Professor Keith Briffa,
> >Climatic Research Unit
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> >
> >Phone: +44-1603-593909
> >Fax: +44-1603-507784
> >
> >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
> >
> >
>

Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm


</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment