Monday
Apr182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Was Russell a public appointment?
Apr 18, 2011 Climate: Russell FOI We know that UEA have claimed that their agreement to take on the services of Sir Muir Russell was by way of a public appointment rather than a contract. We also know that Edinburgh University signed a contract with a body called the "Muir Russell Review Group". Under this contract they provided the services of Professor Peter Clarke for the duration of the review.
Putting these two facts together means that the Muir Russell Review Group (MRRG) should be a public body for the purposes of FOI legislation.
David Holland writes to say that he has sent an FOI request direct to Sir Muir Russell as head of MRRG. Should be interesting...
Reader Comments (18)
Be prepared for another round of spin, obfuscation and double speak.
What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.
Is there any evidence that either UEA or Edinburgh followed their own tendering processes for such appointments?
However they choose to respond, be prepared for lots of sloppiness. It will be poorly thought out (assuming one can describe it as thinking). The overriding characteristic will be incompetence.
Isn't there a six month limitation? Presumably he can just ignore it!
From the Muir Russell report.
'On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance.'
...and...
'Compliance with FoIA/EIR is the responsibility of UEA faculty leadership and ultimately the Vice-Chancellor. Where there is an organisation and documented system in place to handle information requests, this needs to be owned, supported and reinforced by University leadership.'
It couldn't possibly be that the report was just a whitewash, could it?
AFAIK there was no 6 month statute of limitations concerning breaking the law by deleting information subject to FOI requests. All smoke and mirrors by the UEA establishment - and they got away with it too!
The main porblem as I see it is that the FOIA has no teeth for non-compliance - other than trying to embarrass the non-compliant organisation. Or am I wrong? And as we know only too well, the likes of Acton, Muir and Oxburgh has a very high embarrassment threshold.
I don't suppose the assurance that Acton gave to Parliament carries any greater penalty for non-compliance does it?
Ref:ENF0280278
pdf file
These Climategate "investigators" should be publicly castigated for their crimes against Gaia! It is a known fact that making whitewash adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Shame! They are responsible for ever-increasing global warming with their non-stop whitewash-incestigations. (Not to mention UHI effects from their pants being on fire.)
Bish - I'm experiencing big problems with teh site right now. I've tried different browsers - Safari and Firefox - but same issue. All display is in a small corner of the the window. I cannot therefore read what I have typed, mostly, so apologies. This is the only bit of the site I can use to contact you.gies for errors.
Many thanks for the PDF. Looks like Acton's only option is to resign in disgrace.
Miraculously, it has fixed itself by sending the message. Sorry for the bother. Bit strange tho.
There's a fundamental problem with all of these reviews, investigations and the like, when academia is involved. It applies also to the original research data which 'Climategate' exposed so spectacularly.
The fact is - and I speak as a long-time citizen of Cambridge with regular but arms-length dealings with the university and the individual colleges - that academics in general - NOT ALL - seem to think that they are altogether too lofty to have to worry about the minutae of contracts; legal agreements and the like.
As we've seen from the parliamentary expenses scandal, the same mindset applies to politicians. Put the two together - and the results speak for themselves...
Anoneumouse: The link you gave is not working.
"Is there any evidence that either UEA or Edinburgh followed their own tendering processes for such appointments?"
My thoughts exactly.
When I watched the video of the parliamentary enquiry last year, I formed an opinion of Vice-Chancellor Acton as a shifty and insincere little nincompoop brimming with arrogance and a sense of his own importance. His comment about 'well played' to Prof Jones when the prof very shakily sat down beside him after very mild questioning from the politicos was nothing short of jaw-dropping in it's sheer silliness. One would have thought Jones had had a good innings for the University in an important game of minor-league cricket. No events since then have changed my opinion of Acton.
I really admire David Holland's perseverance, politeness and attention to detail and I hope it all pays off in the end.
David - if you read this - I am sure there are many who would love to see the text of your FOI request to Sir Muir Russell. Any chance of posting this?
@matthu- try this.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/Muir%20Russell