Sunday, April 1, 2012

3063.txt

date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:00:13 +0100
from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23]
to: "Tim Osborn" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" <K.BriffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Tim,
Thanks for all of this...
I would, in usual circumstances, send a formal letter requesting input on the release of
any information but given the responses you have received, I see no reason to do this. It
is clear that the correspondents regard this information as 'confidential' which is one of
the criteria by which we assess the confidentiality of information.

In regards the consideration of a FOIA s.12 'appropriate limit' "exemption", the
calculation of the limit is explained best in Dept. of Constitutional Affairs guidance:

2.3.2 The Regulations set out what may be taken into account when public authorities are
estimating whether the appropriate limit has been exceeded. The costs are limited to those
that an authority reasonably expects to incur in:
* determining whether it holds the information requested,
* locating the information or documents containing the information,
* retrieving such information or documents, and
* extracting the information from the document containing it (including editing or
redacting information [Endnote 4]).

......
Endnotes
4. This can include the first time an individual working in the authority reads information
to establish what is contained within a file or document, although any subsequent readings
(e.g. to consider exemptions), or if the information is passed to others to read, should
not be included.

(Guidance on the application of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (appropriate
limit and fees) regulations 2004
[1]http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/practitioner/feesguidance.htm#en4)

What we need to determine is whether the above activities, in total, will exceed the
appropriate limit of �450 at �25/hour of effort (i.e. 18 hours). Given the number of
potential documents that you have cited, I would think that merely a review of the
documentation would essentially exceed 3 days of effort at 6 hours/day - correct?

All of the above is based on the assumption that we will process this request under FOIA,
not EIR. I am prepared to write to the requester to agree with him that, upon reflection,
we should consider this request under FOIA. All in agreement with this approach?

Cheers, Dave

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Osborn [[2]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk]
>Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:32 PM
>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
>Subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter
>[FOI-08-23]
>
>Dave,
>
>I'm not sure if you will be using the requested emails to contact
>them or not, but if you do, would it be useful to cc us so that we
>can all stay abreast of what is happening?
>
>As Keith says, the attachment contains our email message to these
>colleagues and that lists the email addresses that we used. I've
>just recalled, however, that two of them bounced back unsent:
>
>derzhang@msn.com
>
>and
>
>jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr
>
>For the latter, I've now tried an alternative address which seems to
>have worked:
>
><jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr>
>
>Hope that helps,
>
>Tim
>
>At 15:10 12/05/2008, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>Thanks Dave
>>I think your request is answered in the attachment Tim just sent
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>At 14:56 12/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote:
>>>Keith,
>>>I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material
>released by them.
>>>They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I
>can do at the
>>>moment; I will report on their response asap.
>>>
>>>On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals
>>>contacted in regards their attitude towards the
>correspondence referred
>>>to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as
>>>used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would
>>>constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other
>>>person'
>>>
>>>I should note that this exemption only applies to
>information obtained
>>>by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information
>generated
>>>within UEA.
>>>
>>>Cheers, Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Keith Briffa [[3]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk]
>>> >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM
>>> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn
>>> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
>>> >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter
>>> >
>>> >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous
>>> >message attachments
>>> >
>>> >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil
>>> >
>>> >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland
>>> >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting
>>> >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing
>>> >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed
>>> >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our
>>> >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their
>>> >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence
>with regard to
>>> >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally
>>> >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim),
>>> >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to
>Holland's
>>> >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from
>>> >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but
>>> >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or
>other of the
>>> >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond
>>> >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though
>>> >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor
>>> >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would
>consider the
>>> >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not
>>> >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value
>>> >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which
>>> >letter - or indeed neither - from here on.
>>> >regards
>>> >Keith
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> >Climatic Research Unit
>>> >University of East Anglia
>>> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>> >
>>> >Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> >Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>> >
>>> >[4]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
>>
>>[5]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: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>sunclock: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment