Friday, May 18, 2012

4424.txt

cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <A.OgdenatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.JonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <M.McgarvieatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:57:50 +0000
from: "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" <J.ColamatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request
to: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.PalmeratXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Dave,



I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal review, we
should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of our response to
Prof Jones. This should then become our standard approach for any further similar
requests.



Regards,

Jonathan


______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM
To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)
Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) -
Response
Importance: High

Folks,
This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries. Dr. Keiller's request was
for:

"1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from
CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and
June 25, 2009

2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to
Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25,
2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. "

Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to me).
We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting the response
to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach.

We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2) expedite the
process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information Commissioner. I have attached
letters for both approaches.

I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would be ok as
long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the reasons why. They
did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review that dealt with the
request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other words, we attach a copy of
JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr. Keiller.

Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point?

Cheers, Dave
______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Keiller, Donald [mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) -
Response
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal review of
the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested.



I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not receive a
complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working days, I will make
a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office.



Yours sincerely,



Dr. D. R. Keiller




______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 18 September 2009 16:17
To: 'David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk'
Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) -
Response
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the attached:

Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review of the
decisions that were stated in the attached response.
By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act

I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken.

In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states
"A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable
to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective applicants".

In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact dataset,
as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great public interest and
where the usual scientific convention is that authors must provide sufficient detail to
allow others to replicate their work. How can you possibly claim it is "manifestly
unreasonable" to send me the same data that you have sent elsewhere without any actionable
undertakings from that recipient?

I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and data,
which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as essential, would have
an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage relations with scientists &
institutions from other nations". This assertion requires evidence to support it, otherwise
it appears to be merely a convenient excuse.

Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are trying "to
seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the CRUTEM database in
2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact that you are unable to
show anything other than a couple of rather old and ineffectual documents to support your
claim that this is a significant problem.

Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you cannot
substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. D.R. Keiller,

Deputy Head of Life Sciences
______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16
To: Keiller, Donald
Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19) -
Response

Dr. Keiller



Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009. If you have
any questions don't hesitate to contact me.



Cheers, Dave Palmer



____________________________

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







[1]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service
EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our
submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'.
Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions &
Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies;
History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration.
Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information.
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may
be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor
must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error
and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system.
Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the
views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.
Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from
any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should
ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over
public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications

[2]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

No comments:

Post a Comment