Climate Audit

JohnH

Acton’s opinion on FOI,

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/FOIopinion

and the commitment the UEA were forced to sign in Dec

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/pressreleases/2010/uea_foi_undertaking_20101222.ashx

But still no change !!!!

Robert

Cause Holland is acting in good faith right?

• TerryS
  Posted Feb 27, 2011 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

  Robert, if you think Holland is acting in bad faith then please specify why.

  You could also indicate which of the requests in this FOIA are being made in “bad faith”.

Pat Frank

There’s a lot of careful wording in David Palmer’s reply. For example, Mr. Palmer refused to reveal the legal advice the UEA received on the Russell Review, because doing so may “adversely affect the course of justice.”

But, Mr. Palmer’s “the course of justice” really means ‘our legal standing.’

“Justice” means the relevant facts of the matter are brought to light and fairly adjudicated. If Mr. Palmer were truly interested in justice, he’d not be cautious about all facts, even facts adverse to the UEA, coming to light. That process would only facilitate “justice.”

‘Legal standing,’ in contrast, refers to the lawyers’ dance before the court. Mr. Palmer’s reticence implies that the UEA must consider themselves to be vulnerable to further litigation over the Russell Review, and so are keeping their legal cards hidden behind Mr. Palmer’s rather pious prose about “justice.” Studious hypocrisy, that.

In item 3) David Holland is asking David Palmer about what he (Palmer) had with him during a critical meeting on 18 December 2009. Mr. Palmer’s response is a classic evasion: “The minutes do not record what information was present at the meeting nor is there any other record of what material I had with me at that meeting.” Mr. Palmer neglected to mention his memory of what he, himself, had at that meeting.

This sort of evasion recurs several times in the Response. For example, David Holland:”4) Please supply a copy of the notes Lisa Williams took.
David Palmer: [Information not held – Reg. 12(4)(a), Environmental Information Regulations]
[Response]”The handwritten notes of the meeting were not retained.”

And did Lisa Williams possess or prepare typed or transcribed notes of the meeting? Mr. Palmer’s precise formalisms look, to me, like a strategy of dressing ‘secrete’ in the clothes of ‘reveal.’

Likewise, Mr. Palmer’s Response to items 13) through 18) each and all begin with “There is no recorded information…” However, David Holland is asking for testimonial evidence: “did anyone notice and report…,” “did anyone tell…,” “did anyone question…” and so forth.

Each of David Holland’s questions are worded so as to merely require a few phone calls to the principals to obtain a verbal answer. However, Mr. Palmer replied in terms of pre-existent hard copy or electronic reports.

This is an evasion. David Palmer should also have responded to the obvious meaning of David Holland’s questions, replying at least that he did not question the individuals, perhaps because active interrogation does not fall under FOIA. But instead he couched his reply to encourage an inference that the questions themselves led to informational dead ends, as though there is no productive lead to be gained from David Holland’s questions.

Mr. Palmer has come across as a charming and patient fellow through all these exchanges, including with you, Steve, but it seems to me (my opinion only) that he is being as devious as he can be, behind a studiedly disingenuous screen of friendly accommodation. That is, he is apparently and cryptically a UEA advocate rather than an FOIA professional.

• Nick Stokes
  Posted Feb 27, 2011 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

  Re: Pat Frank (Feb 27 15:04),
  The wording is merely correct. People seem to want to coerce the FOI into an instrument for general interrogation. It isn’t. It is a right to ask for recorded information held by public bodies. The first sentence of the Act sets it out:
  “provides for the general right of access to recorded information held by public authorities and specifies the conditions which need to be fulfilled before an authority is obliged to comply with a request;”

  If it isn’t recorded, it doesn’t come under FOI.

  • Pat Frank
    Posted Feb 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM | Permalink

    Nick, “If it isn’t recorded, it doesn’t come under FOI.”

    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.

  • MrPete
    Posted Feb 28, 2011 at 6:17 AM | Permalink

    Re: Nick Stokes (Feb 27 22:48),
    I agree almost completely with Nick, but not quite.

    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.

    • Pat Frank
      Posted Feb 28, 2011 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

      Pete, David Holland was asking for meeting notes, not handwritten notes.

      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.

RBerteig

It is interesting that every single one of Palmer’s emails includes the phrase “Please accept my apologies for the delay…”.

It certainly makes it appear that part of their strategy is to run out the clock everywhere possible. They’ve been rewarded for that once already, after all.

Responding to even one request well ahead of their deadlines might go a long way to repairing the damage to their reputation. Responding with substance instead of evasion, mind you. I’m not holding my breath…..

Geoff Sherrington

On a quick reading, re lawyers and professional privilege, there is a difference between an FOI seeking the dates and subjects of letters to/from lawyers, whic should not be covered by privilege, and the content of the advice, which usually can be covered by privilege. The first is a visible act by a public authority. The second involves another Party, the lawyer doing his work, and is different. The two seem to be confused in the UEA response.

Pat Frank, well said. As Steve often says, more peas and thimbles.

I have asked of Inquirers past why talk stopped short at the point where a caution re criminality might be needed to be given. Nobody wants to talk about it. Looks like we have a group who, in the derisive words of LBJ (and possibly others before him) “can’t chew gum and fart at the same time”.

Finally, though Steve points to problems with invoking copyright, UEA invoke it here. I think it a bit rich, because there is prima facie evidence of UEA breaking copyright extensively through use of data from one or more countries. I have such potential evidence in writing from both CRU and one country holding quite restrictive copyright – and both admit that there was no exclusion agreement. Of course, there might be other factors unknown to me, in which case I would withdraw and apologise if they were valid and relevant.

JCM

I notice several references from Mr Palmer as to ‘the police took the server’.
He never mentions if the server has been returned, which begs the questions ‘Is the Norfolk Police investigation into what Palmer describes as a ‘hack’ still in progress ? Also, is the NDET assistance with the investigation ongoing or has it ceased ? “

David Holland

The first two letters I received from David Palmer gave us a good clue as to what was going on, particularly after the months of obfuscation from the Met Office. On 6 May 2008 he wrote:

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.