cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Colam-French Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" <J.ColamatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:32:00 +0100
from: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Dear Dave (cc others),
the case you've put together seems spot on to me.
Some extra input from me, if it isn't too late:
(1) On 24/07/2009 you wrote "Mr. Holland does not limit the request
to the named persons but requests all correspondence relation to work
of the two (2) named individuals in relation to their work as IPCC
lead authors. Would we have correspondence relating to your work as
lead authors that is with someone NOT named within the request?" I
didn't answer and I don't think anyone else did. The answer, purely
from memory, is "probably yes" and thus would add to the burden of
searching, collating and redacting the information.
(2) You also asked for more information relating to the burden
involved and hence evidence to support the "manifestly unreasonable"
exemption. This is for section 4 of your document E.
(a) The time period covered is around 4 years. The drafting and
reviewing process ran from 2004 through to publication in 2007. Some
minor tasks (e.g. relating to data archival) arose after publication in 2008.
(b) During a time period of 4 years, I expect that Keith and I would
each have retained several thousand emails on a range of
subjects. Some would be organised into folders and others would
not. Given the request pertains to correspondence with un-named as
well as named individuals, it isn't as simple as searching for
particular names in the email headers. Also, we would likely have
printed hard copies of some correspondence prior to deleting it. The
request presumably covers any such hard copies, but again I don't
think that they would be filed in a single "IPCC" file, so searching
amongst hundreds of other documents would be onerous.
(c) The impact on us (Keith and Tim) of carrying out such a search
and collation would undoubtedly fall on our research output, probably
writing papers for publication. This is a key metric by which
university research is assessed (via RAE and forthcoming REF) and
ultimately influences university funding from HEFCE. We have certain
duties (teaching, assessment, advising, supervising research
students, supervising research assistants, writing contract reports
and proposals to funding agencies) that have strict deadlines that
cannot simply be ignored when other demands (such as this FOIA/EIR
request) arise. The time that we can actually spend on doing -- and
particularly writing up -- research is a relatively small fraction of
our time, and the time spent dealing with this FOIA/EIR request would
consequently be a relatively large fraction of that time, and hence
reduce our published output.
(3) Section 4 of your document E asks whether we are weakening the
argument that it is manifestly unreasonable if we indicate that we've
already done the search and determined that we don't hold some of the
information. Two comments here:
(a) In the list shown in document C1, I have listed "we don't hold
any correspondence with this person" against a few people. I should
point out that this is on the basis of my recollection, from talking
to Keith, and the fact that those people did not contribute to the
section of chapter 6 that Keith and I worked on. Sorry, I should
have been clearer before that we did not actually make a search to
determine this. You might, therefore, wish to add that it is
"likely" that we don't hold any correspondence with those people?
(b) Given that the ICO have requested all the information that is the
subject of the FOIA/EIR request, and that your letter indicates that
we will eventually assemble it all rather than just the sample that
we're currently sending, it would seem unfair if the ICO then ruled
that we should now release it simply because they've forced us to do
the work anyway!
At 13:52 24/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:
>I promised this to Jonathan by the end of this week and here it
>is! This is a multi-part document due to the nature of the request
>for information by the ICO. The covering letter sets out what we
>are providing the following documents follow (I hope) the
>pattern/index set within that letter.
>There are some personal comments and questions within some of the
>documents that I would ask for input on, and there are 'missing'
>bits where I have not included a .pdf document for example but I
>have added them to this email. I have also added the original
>request to remind us of what we are responding to!
>Phil - Could you please vet in particular my references to the IPCC
>process within the EIR exception document for accuracy?
>Tim - I need electronic copies of the emails from Jean Jouzel of
>12/05/08, Olga Salomina of 13/05/08 and Caspar Ammann of 30/05/08 -
>I think we can add this to cumulative .pdf document you prepared at that time.
>I expect that there will be changes of content and emphasis on this
>but would hope that this is a successful first draft of our
>submission. The Schedule, in particular, needs some work but I
>thought it best to get the 'meat' of the submission to you as soon as possible.
><<Investigation_response_cover_draft.doc>> <<FOIA vs
>A_Info_Schedule.xls>> <<FOI David Holland colleagues
>Information Policy & Compliance Manager
>University of East Anglia
>Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523
>Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784