cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" <M.Mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>
date: Wed May 14 14:50:15 2008
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23]
to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>, "Keith Briffa" <K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk>

   Keith, Dave (cc Phil, Michael),
   many thanks for your guidance through this potential minefield, Dave!  I've just had a good
   half hour to look through your concerns and Keith's response etc.
   My view is that the fuller response might need to be modified (Q1 and Q2: see below), but
   it is probably preferable to do this and then send that rather than the short version.
   1. Policy and Susan Solomon: I think Keith's answers to Q1 and Q2 may fall into the
   unwanted elaboration that Susan requests we avoid; they cover more than just Keith.
   Perhaps Keith's final sentence in answer to Q1 is sufficient on its own to answer Q1 and Q2
   jointly, since that deals specifically with just Keith.  Q3 is focussed on Keith's own
   work, so is fine.  Q4-Q10 do not represent any further elaboration, so are fine too.
   2. Confidentiality: given that very little information is actually provided in Keith's
   answers, providing them doesn't seem to compromise our claim for confidentiality.
   3. Target for further correspondence: the final paragraph attempts to curtail the
   interaction at this point, so again I think it is ok.
   So, I suggest modified answers to Q1 and Q2 that essentially avoid answering those
   questions at all (since Keith should avoid elaborating about other people's actions, and
   these questions deal with other people's actions) and then using the letter as a "middle
   way" that won't compromise our working relationship with colleagues.
   Hope this helps!
   Tim
   At 17:52 13/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote:

     Keith,
     Apologies - have been tied up with project management & FOI matters
     yesterday and today.
     Several points:
     The fuller response certainly has the advantage of being 'responsive'
     and shows our willingness to cooperate.  It also may go way to removing
     the need for the FOIA request in the requester's eyes (and may pull some
     of the 'sting' from requester's approach).  However, there are several
     concerns with it:
     1. Policy - Susan Solomon seems to have concerns regarding the
     transmission:
     "Further explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the
     comments or the author responses, would not be appropriate. All of the
     comments, and all of the authors' responses, have been made available.
     These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what
     comments were made and how the authors dealt with them, and it would be
     inappropriate to provide more information beyond the reference to the
     web pages where this can be found." (Solomon email to Mitchell, quoted
     in Solomon email of 09/05/08)
     Would your letter contravene the wishes of Susan (and other IPCC
     authors/collaborators), and, if so, what would be the effect upon UEA
     and it's role within IPCC?
     2. FOIA issue - I am obviously not aware of the substantive scientific
     issues under discussion here but I should note that other IPCC
     contributors have explicitly stated that they consider their
     correspondence 'confidential'.  Is there anything in your letter that
     would compromise that confidentiality?  One of the 'tests' for common
     law confidentiality (which is the test for s.41 of FOIA) is that we
     treat information in a confidential manner consistently and over a
     period of time.  Were we to 'reveal' something that would be in any of
     the 'confidential' correspondence, this would obviously lessen our
     ability to credibly claim confidentiality.
     3. General - How big a 'target' are you making yourself with this
     letter?  There is a danger of being sucked into a spiral of
     correspondence that will, ultimately, not satisfy Mr. Holland and take
     our time.
     I think  My starting point is to share information (ergo, I make a lousy
     bureaucrat!) but I am concerned that we need to remember our priorities
     here - if maintenance of the good working relationship within the IPCC
     community is paramount, then let's ensure the answer meets that
     requirement first and then handles the other purposes of the answer.....
     Being a lawyer once, I wonder if there is a 'middle way' in which you
     could meet the above concerns but yet provide something other than a
     blanket 'no' (unless, of course, this letter is that 'middle way').
     The information that the requester wants is in his letter of 31 March -
     it's clear that the FOIA request has been made in expectation that he
     will not get an answer, or an answer that is satisfactory.
     One other option - point out that you are bound by your commitments to
     the collegiality of the IPCC process and bounce your letter to Susan
     Solomon to answer on behalf of IPCC.... Doubt it would make you popular
     with her however....
     Hope this helps...
     Cheers, Dave
     PS. Note your letterhead lacks the 'new' UEA logo - copies are available
     on the web... I use 'em on my FOI correspondence...
     >-----Original Message-----
     >From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk]
     >Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:12 PM
     >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn
     >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
     >Subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter
     >[FOI-08-23]
     >
     >Could  just prompt again for a response from Phil and David in
     >particular , for an opinion on which response I should send to
     >Holland - of the two alternatives I showed you. Thanks
     >Keith
     >
     >At 15:10 12/05/2008, Keith Briffa wrote:
     >>Thanks Dave
     >>I think your request is answered in the attachment Tim just sent
     >>
     >>Keith
     >>
     >>At 14:56 12/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote:
     >>>Keith,
     >>>I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material
     >released by them.
     >>>They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I
     >can do at the
     >>>moment; I will report on their response asap.
     >>>
     >>>On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals
     >>>contacted in regards their attitude towards the
     >correspondence referred
     >>>to in the request.  This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as
     >>>used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would
     >>>constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other
     >>>person'
     >>>
     >>>I should note that this exemption only applies to
     >information obtained
     >>>by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information
     >generated
     >>>within UEA.
     >>>
     >>>Cheers, Dave
     >>>
     >>>
     >>> >-----Original Message-----
     >>> >From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk]
     >>> >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM
     >>> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn
     >>> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
     >>> >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter
     >>> >
     >>> >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous
     >>> >message attachments
     >>> >
     >>> >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil
     >>> >
     >>> >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland
     >>> >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting
     >>> >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing
     >>> >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed
     >>> >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our
     >>> >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their
     >>> >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence
     >with regard to
     >>> >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally
     >>> >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim),
     >>> >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to
     >Holland's
     >>> >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from
     >>> >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but
     >>> >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or
     >other of the
     >>> >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond
     >>> >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though
     >>> >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell  - a review editor
     >>> >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would
     >consider the
     >>> >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not
     >>> >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value
     >>> >your opinion as to the best course of action to take  ,i.e. which
     >>> >letter - or indeed neither - from here on.
     >>> >regards
     >>> >Keith
     >>> >
     >>> >
     >>> >
     >>> >--
     >>> >Professor Keith Briffa,
     >>> >Climatic Research Unit
     >>> >University of East Anglia
     >>> >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
     >>> >
     >>> >Phone: +44-1603-593909
     >>> >Fax: +44-1603-507784
     >>> >
     >>> >[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
     >>> >
     >>
     >>--
     >>Professor Keith Briffa,
     >>Climatic Research Unit
     >>University of East Anglia
     >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
     >>
     >>Phone: +44-1603-593909
     >>Fax: +44-1603-507784
     >>
     >>[4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
     >
     >--
     >Professor Keith Briffa,
     >Climatic Research Unit
     >University of East Anglia
     >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
     >
     >Phone: +44-1603-593909
     >Fax: +44-1603-507784
     >
     >[5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
     >
     >

