Bishop Hill UEA and the Outside Organisation
Aug 3, 2011 Climate: CRU FOI When the links between UEA and some of the people involved in the phone hacking scandal became clear, I put an FOI request into the university asking for their relevant correspondence. Today I've had a response:
We are assembling the requested information and it is clear that it is possible that to provide the information if it is held will require an assessment of the public interest. We are currently undertaking this assessment.
It is therefore anticipated that this will require an additional 10 working days to process the request above and beyond the current deadline of 15 August 2011 giving a revised deadline of 30 August 2011. If this timescale needs to be revised you will be advised as to the reasons and provided with a revised timescale.
Here we go again...
Reader Comments (25)
An Outside Chance of August I'd say.
I would be surprised if this information was not deemed to be massively in the public interest.
My, my. That reads a lot like "Yeah, we've got it and it ani't gonna make us look good". My guess is that on August 30th they will decide that it is not in the public interest to release the materials requested.
I'm sure UEA believe they know what's in our interest, better than we do.
Thats strange if they do say they have to retain due to The Public Interest, considering the number of Inquiries setup by HMG into News International, but Climate Science does seem to work with different rules ;).
It will just make finding out what really went on more fun and more likely to interest the MSN.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_3_public_interest_test.pdf
Déjà vu, all over again.
I have a vision that before UEA responds with their decision about the public interest exemption to the FOI there is an intervention by the Norfolk Constabulary. We could see an announcement by the Norfolk Constabulary of investigation into the relationship between UEA and OO. Then UEA can respond to Bishop's FOI request saying that the records are subject to an ongoing police investigation so cannot be released until the police investigation is over.
Imagine the police investigation goes on for years with no detailed updates on their progress. Imagine, in the interim, Russell or Oxburgh are commissioned to do an investigation into it, and they find nothing because they don't really investigate.
Yogi Bera was right.
John
Mr Hill it really doesn't matter anymore it seems there finito anyway...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research
Send more shredders.........
Perhaps their legal advisors take August off?
At least they cannot now deny that the material exists!
Maybe they are taking advice from Outside Organisation as how to handle the situation?
"Dear Mr. Hill,
Our advisor on these matters is currently in jail. We anticipate that he will make bail in the coming days at which point he can advise us on how to respond to your request. It is therefore anticipated that we will require an additional 10 working days to process the request above and beyond the current deadline of 15 August 2011 giving a revised deadline of 30 August, 2011."
If it helps, I'm a member of the public, and I'm very interested. Whom do I tell?
As I'm losing count, perhaps someone has a summary of the numbers of FOI responses and the manner/delay in responding which show clearly the pattern of UEA's handling?
john walker appears to have received a similar letter from UEA, with revised deadline of 26 August...
It is therefore anticipated that this will require an additional 10 working days to
process the request above and beyond the current deadline of 12 August 2011 giving
a revised deadline of 26 August 2011
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/80046/response/199045/attach/3/Public%20interest%20extension%20162%20110803.pdf
mmmm....is there really a need for this correspondence apart from general curiosity?
cameron...one of the enquiries said that you should not ask such questions in case it led to conclusions that UEA was breaking the law
It's not in UEA's interest, and they're a public organisation. So it can't be in the public interest. (paraphrase of Jim Hacker)
It's not the UEA that sets the deadline, it's Parliament - who set it to 20 days, and the Secretary of State has the power to vary it up to 60 days. There is no "10 extra days to consider public interest" clause in the legislation. I think you should inform the ICO.
Time to suggest some changes!
The proposed approach is fundamentally about creating a ‘pull’ (an enhanced right to data) and a ‘push’ (a presumption of publication). The consultation seeks the public’s views on:
how we might enhance a ‘right to data’, establishing stronger rights for individuals, businesses and other actors to obtain data from public service providers
how to set transparency standards that enforce this right to data
how public service providers might be held to account for delivering open data
how we might ensure collection and publication of the most useful data
how we might make the internal workings of government and the public sector more open
how far there is a role for government to stimulate enterprise and market making in the use of open data.
How to respond
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/making-open-data-real-public-consultation
5) Exploring whether the Information Commissioner has sufficient powers to enforce the legislation. The Information Commissioner has a number of enforcement powers in relation to FoIA and EIRs. These include the ability to issue Decision Notices requiring the release of information, Enforcement Notices requiring a public service provider to take specific steps, and Information Notices, requiring that the public service provider provide the Commissioner with specific information. The Commissioner also has powers of entry and inspection in specified circumstances. It is an offence under FoIA and DPA to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy, or conceal information with the intention of preventing its disclosure. This offence can apply to any individual. Are these powers sufficient to enforce an enhanced right to data?
6) Legislating to provide statutory time limits for internal reviews. At present there is no statutory time limit for the completion of internal reviews by a public service provider under the FoIA and this can lead to delays in the provision of information. The ICO recommends that internal reviews should be completed within 20 working days, or 40 working days in exceptional circumstances. The EIRs require that an internal review must be completed as soon as possible and within 40 working days.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Open-Data-Consultation.pdf
Page 24
"Delay is the deadliest form of denial" - C Northcote Parkinson
@ sleepalot
I think UEA are using section 17 of the FOIA. If anyone can explain in layman's terms what s.17 is about, please do. I have read it twice but it still looks like gobbledegook to me.
However, I would argue that UEA should be treating all Climategate related requests under the EIR. The only reason anyone is asking for anything is to try to understand why so much effort is going into covering up wrongdoing in what is part of the the most important environmental decision-making process ever. The public need this sort of info to exercise its Aarhus rights to justice. Under the EIR. there is, in regulation 7, a 20 working day extension available for extensive or complex requests, but the presumption of disclosure makes it harder to refuse.
@ Lord Beaverbrook
Well spotted!
Some suggestions that I will be making:
Get rid of "journalism, art or literature" from FOIA and replace it with "manifestly unreasonable".
Remove loophole from EIR that exempts BBC and Channel 4
Six month time limit from when evidence of offence comes to light.
Ban on pre-emptive deletion and requirement to archive all emails for, 10 years.
Enforcement of the publication schemes requirement.
Greater disclosure from large commercial organisations
Define all publicly funded ad hoc enquiries like Russell's as public authorities
Extension of "privilege" to enquiries like Russell's to remove excuses for non disclosure.
The headpost talks of "some of the people involved in the phone hacking scandal" , that means plural. Ive heard of Neil Wallis, who else is involved with both Hackgate and UEA ?