cc: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:34:37 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response to: "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" Tim, Many thanks for your thoughtful & useful input. A printed version of the entire submission is now with JCF for review and signature based on both my timetable and that agreed with the ICO. I might suggest that if JCF wishes to augment our Section 12 FOIA argument (Document D) or our Reg. 12(4)(b), manifestly unreasonable argument, some of what you stated below could be inserted prior to signatue and transmission. I have been in touch with Pam Clements of the ICO and can inform you that no case officer has been assigned to this matter as yet. Mr. Holland has 3 other matters with the ICO under consideration at the moment and the same fellow that is handling them will get our case (lucky fellow). He has at least 3 new cases in front of him at the moment, so I would not expect to hear further from the ICO for a few weeks at a minimum. Indeed, the IPCC may well have considered this at their Bali meeting in October by the time that this gets picked up. Thank you all for your work and patience on this - much appreciated. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:32 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); >Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) >Subject: Re: Holland FOI/EIR case - ICO investigation - Draft response > >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! > >Best wishes > >Tim > >At 13:52 24/07/2009, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, >>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. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >><> <>EIR_explanation.doc>> <> >><> >><> <>A_Info_Schedule.xls>> <>responses.pdf>> <> >><> >> >>____________________________ >>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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail: t.osborn@uea.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 > > >