cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" <M.Mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk>
date: Thu Oct 29 14:20:25 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request
to: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <A.Ogden@uea.ac.uk>, "Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)" <J.Colam@uea.ac.uk>, "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>

   Annie, Dave,
       Thanks for the thoughts. Still undecided but I probably won't. Aware of academic
   freedom and aware that I might not get such a reply as I got from Hull. It will likely just
   inflame matters more, but I do feel strongly about academics moving outside their area of
   expertise.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 12:46 29/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote:

     Dear Phil,
     Do you know the heads of department at Oxford and Anglia Ruskin? Are you sure that they
     would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? I know how
     frustrating you must find all of this so can understand why you feel you want to do
     something. But if you do decide to write, I would be cautious about how such a message
     is phrased - along lines of written more in sorrow than in anger...  We want to avoid
     any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you.
     Best, Annie
     -------------------------------
     Annie Ogden, Head of Communications,
     University of East Anglia,
     Norwich, NR4 7TJ.
     Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764
     [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm
     ............................................
         _______________________________________________________________________________

          From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
          Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:26 PM
          To: Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
          Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
          Subject: RE: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128;
          EIR_09-19) - Response
           Dave,
             I am also happy with this response. There is a mistake in your Oct 29 letter in
          the Code of Practice link. The ! should be a /
             As an aside, this same person (Keiller) has emailed Keith Briffa since he put a
          web page up this Wednesday on the Yamal chronology.
            [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
           Annie is aware of all this.
           The email to Keith is requesting responses to an earlier email and is slightly
          threatening.  In it Keiller states that he finds Keith's responses lack scientific
          rigour!  So instead he accepts the word of Stephen McIntyre who has hardly any
          academic publications and has never produced any tree-ring chronologies in his life!
             I have had a thought about Keiller and the Oxford Professor. I may have mentioned
          to you a malicious email  that was sent somewhere in the UK pointing to all these
          awful right wing web sites. The email was passed on to me and it came from an
          Emeritus Reader at Hull (first name Sonja). I was incensed by this and sent a
          response to the head of department of Geography at Hull. I did this on Wednesday
          after Keith's web page went up. I have had a couple of exchanges with the Head Of
          Geography. I just got this back
           I know, I feel for you being in that position. If its any consolation we've had it
          here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars and elsewhere,
          always coming back to the same theme. Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to
          push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed
          misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce
          of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto
          voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to
          her...!'
            The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia
          Ruskin and Oxford?
           I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week.
           Cheers
           Phil

          At 10:57 29/10/2009, Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD) wrote:

          Dave,

          I am happy that we progress this via the expedient route and bypass the internal
          review, we should follow the advice of the ICO and include an anonymised version of
          our response to Prof Jones.  This should then become our standard approach for any
          further similar requests.

          Regards,
          Jonathan
            _______________________________________________________________________________

          From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
          Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21 AM
          To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Colam-French Jonathan Mr
          (ISD)
          Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
          Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128;
          EIR_09-19) - Response
          Importance: High
          Folks,
          This is the first test of our 'new' approach to such queries.  Dr. Keiller's request
          was for:

          "1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent
          from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1,
          2007 and June 25, 2009

          2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data
          to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and
          June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure. "

          Question 2 we answer in our original response (attached to Dr. Keiller's response to
          me).  We are overtime on our response to Dr. Keiller but this is a result of sorting
          the response to Dr. Jones at Cambridge and agreeing our new approach.

          We have 2 options: (1) Proceed as in past with a referral to Jonathan, or (2)
          expedite the process by sending Dr. Keiller directly to the Information
          Commissioner.  I have attached letters for both approaches.

          I have been in touch with the ICO on this and they stated that this approach would
          be ok as long as we made it clear that we are by-passing internal review and the
          reasons why.  They did also suggest that we send a copy of the prior internal review
          that dealt with the request to this new requester (minus names of course) - in other
          words, we attach a copy of JCF's letter to Prof. Jones to the letter we send to Dr.
          Keiller.

          Are we happy to go directly to the ICO at this point?

          Cheers, Dave
            _______________________________________________________________________________

          From: Keiller, Donald [ [4]mailto:Don.Keiller@anglia.ac.uk]
          Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:48 PM
          To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
          Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128;
          EIR_09-19) - Response
          Importance: High
          Dear Mr. Palmer, I am still awaiting your response for my request for an internal
          review of the reasons for non-disclosure of the information I requested.

          I believe that I have allowed sufficient time for such a review and if I do not
          receive a complete response describing the outcome of this review within 7 working
          days, I will make a direct complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office.

          Yours sincerely,

          Dr. D. R. Keiller

            _______________________________________________________________________________

          From: Keiller, Donald
          Sent: 18 September 2009 16:17
          To: 'David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk'
          Subject: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128;
          EIR_09-19) - Response
          Importance: High
          Dear Mr. Palmer having had some more time to digest exactly what is said in the
          attached:

          Firstly I note that you have not stated that I have the right to an Internal Review
          of the decisions that were stated in the attached response.
          By not explicitly stating this, you are in technical breach of the Act

          I now wish that an internal review of the decision to withhold data is undertaken.

          In this connection I note that Regulation 9(1) states
          "A public authority shall provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be
          reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to applicants and prospective
          applicants".
          In particular I want to know why you think it is unreasonable to ask for the exact
          dataset, as described in a peer- reviewed published paper, on a subject of great
          public interest and where the usual scientific convention is that authors must
          provide sufficient detail to allow others to replicate their work. How can you
          possibly claim it is "manifestly unreasonable" to send me the same data that you
          have sent elsewhere without any actionable undertakings from that recipient?
          I also require UEA to justify its assertion that disclosure of said information and
          data, which virtually all Academies of Science and most journals regard as
          essential, would have an "adverse effect on international relations and would damage
          relations with scientists & institutions from other nations". This assertion
          requires evidence to support it, otherwise it appears to be merely a convenient
          excuse.
          Finally I note that there is an obvious contradiction in your claim that you are
          trying "to seek permission from data suppliers in advance of the next update of the
          CRUTEM database in 2010 in order to provide public access to this data" and the fact
          that you are  unable to show anything other than a couple of rather old and
          ineffectual documents to support your claim that this is a significant problem.
          Accordingly I ask that you immediately publish or send me the data for which you
          cannot substantiate that an actionable restrictive contract exists.
          Yours sincerely,
          Dr. D.R. Keiller,
          Deputy Head of Life Sciences
            _______________________________________________________________________________

          From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) [ [5]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk]
          Sent: 11 September 2009 13:16
          To: Keiller, Donald
          Subject: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_09-128; EIR_09-19)
          - Response
          Dr. Keiller

          Attached please find a response to your request received on 14 August 2009.  If you
          have any questions don't hesitate to contact me.

          Cheers, Dave Palmer

          ____________________________
          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



          [6]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management
          service
          EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30%
          of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'.
          Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health
          Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography &
          Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy &
          Administration.
          Visit [7]www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information.
          This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only
          and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action
          based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone: please reply to this e-mail
          to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system.
          Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
          represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University.
          Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
          free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the
          recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message
          has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications
          [8]Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management
          service
          Prof. Phil Jones
          Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
          School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
          University of East Anglia
          Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
          NR4 7TJ
          UK
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Prof. Phil Jones
     Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
     School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
     University of East Anglia
     Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
     NR4 7TJ
     UK
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

