Wednesday, March 28, 2012

2914.txt

cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" <T.OsbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" <J.ColamatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:10:42 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: FW: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23)
to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Gents,
Didn't make it through to you the first time....

Cheers, Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:03 AM
To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
Cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof \"
<p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" <m.mcgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>,
"Colam Jonathan Mr \" <j.colamatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23)

Phil,
Thanks for any work you can put in on this - much appreciated &
apologies for not getting all this to you sooner.

Just to add - some indication of the burden searching would put on
you/Tim/Keith, and, the effect it would have on your other work would
help our 'manifestly unreasonable' argument under EIR.

I understand the importance of all of this to you and colleagues so I'm
trying to construct the best case possible....

Enjoy Denver & the mountains - I'm envious!

Cheers, Dave

>-----Original Message-----
>From: P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:26 PM
>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>Cc: "Osborn Timothy Dr \" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip
>Prof \" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \"
><m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk>, "Colam Jonathan Mr \" <j.colamatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: ICO Investigation - Holland request (FOI_089-23)
>Importance: High
>
> Dave,
> I've just landed in Minneapolis en route to Denver/Boulder.
> Tim should be on his way on Thursday.
> We'll try and answer asap.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>> Tim/Phil,
>> One of the tasks I have is making a case under FOIA for our
>claim that
>> the section 12 'appropriate limit' of 16 person hours to collect and
>> review initially the requested information would be exceeded.
>>
>> It would be helpful if you could confirm some things that
>discussed in
>> this connection; namely, the date range of the information requested
>> (i.e.. the length of involvement in the IPCC process), and
>some idea of
>> the volume of communications. Our sample set of 17
>documents covers Nov
>> 2004 to July 2006 with 11 documents coming from Jan 2005 alone.
>>
>> This information may also prove useful to a claim under EIR that the
>> request is 'manifestly unreasonable' where the DEFRA
>guidance notes that
>> such request '...could include requests for information that place a
>> substantial and unreasonable burden on the resources of a public
>> authority." It could cover cases in which extensive searching of
>> databases or file is necessary or extensive redaction is required.
>> Indeed one of the factors explicitly mentioned is
>"...whether the work
>> involved would require an unreasonable diversion of resource the
>> provision of the public services for witch the publish authority is
>> mandated".. Additionally, the availability of other
>publicly available
>> information is a factor where the request is for the same
>information in
>> a different format
>>
>> Sorry - didn't mean to get into my EIR argument there - however,
>> information on effect of locating this information and the
>extent of the
>> information would be useful.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Cheers, Dave
>>
>>
>> ____________________________
>> David Palmer
>> Information Policy & Compliance Manager
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich, England
>> NR4 7TJ
>>
>> Information Services
>> Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
>> Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment