38 week lets

Dear Mr. Matter

Freedom of Information Request

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 23 December 2011 requesting information from Durham University.

Please be advised that the University will respond as soon as possible and in any event by 31 January 2012.

Yours sincerely

S. Philipson
Information and Data Protection Manager
Durham University

show quoted sections

 

Dear Mr Matter

 

Freedom of Information request – extension of time

 

I am writing to advise you that the time limit for responding to your
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which
we received on 23^rd December 2011, needs to be extended.

 

The Act allows us a 20 working day time limit for issuing a response from
the date of receipt of a request. However, it is occasionally necessary to
extend the time limit for issuing a response. In this case, I regret that
we must extend the time limit because the information requested must be
considered under one of the FOI Act’s exemptions to which the public
interest test applies. This means that we will need to assess whether the
public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public
interest in withholding it, and some extra time will be needed to
determine this. The particular exemption we are considering in relation to
your request is Section 43 (Commercial Interests).

 

I will contact you again in 10 days time to advise of progress.

 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[1][Durham University request email]

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

Chris Gray

DP/FOI Officer (Temporary)

Governance Support Unit

Durham University

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Please note that due to limitations on attachment size, three copies of
the same cover email are being sent with different attachments.

 

 

Greg Matter

E-mail: [1][FOI #97838 email]

 

19^th April  2012

 

 

 

Dear Mr Matter

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

 

Please find attached the University's response to your request for
information. I apologise for the delay.

 

Please note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents because it is not relevant to your request. The University has
also applied the Freedom of Information Act’s section 36(2) exemption to
some information within UEC paper UEC/10/54 and has redacted the
associated information accordingly. The release of this information to
the public is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the
University’s affairs. In relation to section 36 of the Freedom of
Information Act, the University’s qualified person is the Vice-Chancellor
and he has formed the reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable
for the reasons outlined below.

 

Paper UEC/10/54 was an advice and opinion paper drafted by the previous
Deputy Warden to update UEC on the options available for changing
arrangements for college accommodation and charges. The disclosure of the
information in the paper would undermine the quality of decision making in
the University by prejudicing the ability of the new Deputy Warden, staff
and members of committees to provide views openly and explore all options.
They need safe space and time to provide opinions openly in order to make
sure right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff and committee members understood that
there was a likelihood of release under FOI prior to a decision being
made. The inhibitory effect may also cause delay to the provision of a
complete and honest complement of advice and views. Deliberations on
complex issues and hard choices may be avoided because they are, for some,
viewed as unpopular, which would ultimately prejudice the quality of
administrative decisions at the University.

 

The prejudicial effect is compounded by the fact that changes to college
accommodation and charges are still being discussed. Although some of the
advice and opinions within the requested paper are no longer current or
being actively considered, releasing this paper in its entirety may serve
to prejudice the current consultation with the student community by
requiring the University to spend significant resources and time managing
responses from students about issues that are no longer relevant or have
moved on considerably since November 2010.

 

If you have any questions about the information provided please do not
hesitate to contact me at [2][Durham University request email].

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

Chris Gray

DP/FOI Officer (Temporary)

Durham University

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

    

    

     Could you please provide the minutes or briefing documents of any

     meetings in which the change of accommodation to 38 week lets were

     discussed. This includes University Senate, meetings with the DSU

     as well as University board meetings.

    

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #97838 email]
2. mailto:[Durham University request email]

Please note that due to limitations on attachment size, three copies of
the same cover email are being sent with different attachments.

 

 

Greg Matter

E-mail: [1][FOI #97838 email]

 

19^th April  2012

 

 

 

Dear Mr Matter

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

 

Please find attached the University's response to your request for
information. I apologise for the delay.

 

Please note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents because it is not relevant to your request. The University has
also applied the Freedom of Information Act’s section 36(2) exemption to
some information within UEC paper UEC/10/54 and has redacted the
associated information accordingly. The release of this information to
the public is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the
University’s affairs. In relation to section 36 of the Freedom of
Information Act, the University’s qualified person is the Vice-Chancellor
and he has formed the reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable
for the reasons outlined below.

 

Paper UEC/10/54 was an advice and opinion paper drafted by the previous
Deputy Warden to update UEC on the options available for changing
arrangements for college accommodation and charges. The disclosure of the
information in the paper would undermine the quality of decision making in
the University by prejudicing the ability of the new Deputy Warden, staff
and members of committees to provide views openly and explore all options.
They need safe space and time to provide opinions openly in order to make
sure right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff and committee members understood that
there was a likelihood of release under FOI prior to a decision being
made. The inhibitory effect may also cause delay to the provision of a
complete and honest complement of advice and views. Deliberations on
complex issues and hard choices may be avoided because they are, for some,
viewed as unpopular, which would ultimately prejudice the quality of
administrative decisions at the University.

 

The prejudicial effect is compounded by the fact that changes to college
accommodation and charges are still being discussed. Although some of the
advice and opinions within the requested paper are no longer current or
being actively considered, releasing this paper in its entirety may serve
to prejudice the current consultation with the student community by
requiring the University to spend significant resources and time managing
responses from students about issues that are no longer relevant or have
moved on considerably since November 2010.

 

If you have any questions about the information provided please do not
hesitate to contact me at [2][Durham University request email].

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

Chris Gray

DP/FOI Officer (Temporary)

Durham University

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

    

    

     Could you please provide the minutes or briefing documents of any

     meetings in which the change of accommodation to 38 week lets were

     discussed. This includes University Senate, meetings with the DSU

     as well as University board meetings.

    

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #97838 email]
2. mailto:[Durham University request email]

Please note that due to limitations on attachment size, three copies of
the same cover email are being sent with different attachments.

 

 

Greg Matter

E-mail: [1][FOI #97838 email]

 

19^th April  2012

 

 

 

Dear Mr Matter

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

 

Please find attached the University's response to your request for
information. I apologise for the delay.

 

Please note that some information has been redacted from the attached
documents because it is not relevant to your request. The University has
also applied the Freedom of Information Act’s section 36(2) exemption to
some information within UEC paper UEC/10/54 and has redacted the
associated information accordingly. The release of this information to
the public is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the
University’s affairs. In relation to section 36 of the Freedom of
Information Act, the University’s qualified person is the Vice-Chancellor
and he has formed the reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable
for the reasons outlined below.

 

Paper UEC/10/54 was an advice and opinion paper drafted by the previous
Deputy Warden to update UEC on the options available for changing
arrangements for college accommodation and charges. The disclosure of the
information in the paper would undermine the quality of decision making in
the University by prejudicing the ability of the new Deputy Warden, staff
and members of committees to provide views openly and explore all options.
They need safe space and time to provide opinions openly in order to make
sure right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff and committee members understood that
there was a likelihood of release under FOI prior to a decision being
made. The inhibitory effect may also cause delay to the provision of a
complete and honest complement of advice and views. Deliberations on
complex issues and hard choices may be avoided because they are, for some,
viewed as unpopular, which would ultimately prejudice the quality of
administrative decisions at the University.

 

The prejudicial effect is compounded by the fact that changes to college
accommodation and charges are still being discussed. Although some of the
advice and opinions within the requested paper are no longer current or
being actively considered, releasing this paper in its entirety may serve
to prejudice the current consultation with the student community by
requiring the University to spend significant resources and time managing
responses from students about issues that are no longer relevant or have
moved on considerably since November 2010.

 

If you have any questions about the information provided please do not
hesitate to contact me at [2][Durham University request email].

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

Chris Gray

DP/FOI Officer (Temporary)

Durham University

 

 

-----------------------

 

 

    

    

     Could you please provide the minutes or briefing documents of any

     meetings in which the change of accommodation to 38 week lets were

     discussed. This includes University Senate, meetings with the DSU

     as well as University board meetings.

    

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #97838 email]
2. mailto:[Durham University request email]