Meeting notes might exist, even if the original handwritten notes are discarded. David Palmer specifically replied there were no handwritten notes, while David Holland asked for meeting notes.

Mr. Palmer’s specification is a nonsequitur and looks evasive, to me.

The decent thing to do is move him to another post in University Administration. He is clearly a capable and concise handler of detail. What he needs is a post where he is less directly under the Scientists’ eye or thumb. On balance I am more in sympathy with the Eschenbach view, however.

The Information Commissioners should be considering a recommendation to UEA’s governing body (not just Acton, but all members)

A quick browse of the FOI act shows that Nick’s interpretation is slightly (and only slightly!) too black and white. The description for Section 51 reads [leaving out OT aspects]: “This section enables the Commissioner to obtain… information (including unrecorded information) he requires…to reach a determination on whether an authority has complied or is complying with Part I of the Act…”

I read this as saying unrecorded information is a valid aspect of the official “internal” discharge of FOI functions, but I see no evidence that unrecorded information be disclosed to the inquirer.

With respect to “item 4″ discussed by Pat: this refers to a request for handwritten meeting notes. Unless there was a requirement that such notes be retained, this is a tough situation. Clearly the act does cover such “loose papers” if they exist. But if they were not retained, and if nobody expected them to be retained, that’s the end of the story. It is quite common for handwritten notes to be trashed, once the formal meeting report is written.

For completeness: on several of the boards I’ve served, there are two records. The formal meeting minutes are intended to be published as needed. But there’s also a second document of meeting “notes” recorded and shared among the board members to jog their own memory. I don’t know how common that is, nor do I believe such recorded notes are maintained for all normal business meetings. We certainly don’t do that in the software industry.

Your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) has been considered but as the information requested is ‘environmental information’ within the meaning of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, we [underlined] must consider your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), rather than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Then on 19 May 2008 he wrote:

Further to my letter of 6 May, your email of 9 May and subsequent conversations with relevant persons within the University, I am now persuaded that my initial classification of the material requested as ‘environmental information’ as defined by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), was, in fact, incorrect.

The Information Commissioner, in Decision Notice FER0238017, says David Palmer was right first time. Documents released to me under the Data Protection Act show that his boss, Jonatham Colham, as he called himself at the time, was consulted at every stage and then, contrary to the DCA Code of Practice, adjudicated the supposedly independent review of the decision to refuse disclosure.

One reason that I pointed you to this is that this internal review is signed off by one of the two pro-vice chancellors. This is a significant change and it may only take one or two Decision Notices to make him realise UEA have no choice but to obey the law.

Though it has been a stony road we collectively – and I acknowledge Willis’ and Steve’s leading role – we have changed the game. I also believe the new Commissioner, following the success of his predecessor over MP’s expenses, is putting up with much less obfuscation from public authorities. Though this may be a matter for another thread I will mention here that, after more than two years, Ofcom have now released, entirely without redaction, the last and possibly the most important of Dave Rado’s works of fiction which secured Ofcom’s ruling against the Great Global Warming Swindle. It was released very quickly after I appealed to the ICO (for the second time).

Returning to UEA and their refusal to disclose all the Russell Review internal correspondence (which of course I will appeal) the “taxi” deal they have released shows the amateurish way the whitewash was set up. I think its going to hurt them some more.

Officer: I will talk to Dr. Peterson about getting you the documents.
Me: err, you might not want to mention my name.
Officer: It doesnt matter who you are, if you have a right to the documents, you’ll get them
Peterson has no say in this.

So I got the documents.

Palmer as David notes is a cordial fellow. Pit bull protecting the public’s right to know?? err not so much.

- response to snipped comment snipped –

WRT Nick’s points. Palmer has asked questions of the staff for me. FWIW

But that’s not the point, is it.

Item 3 is clearly an evasion. In item 4, Mr. Palmer has crafted himself an exception to FOI by consigning to memory a record of information that he clearly should have kept in written form, namely critical information brought to an important meeting. Items 13 through 18 contain wording that speciously invites a negative inference.

Your defense amounts to a tactical recapitulation of Mr. Palmer’s.