Details of post-dismissal compensation settlements

Dear University of Cambridge,

In response to a previous Freedom of Information request[1] you
have stated that, at least from the period December 2008 to 13
December 2009, "[post-dismissal compensation settlements] included
confidentiality clauses, in accordance with standard practice". I
take this to mean that these settlements have included some sort of
restriction on the individual dismissed.

Without revealing any personal data, please provide, for all
post-dismissal compensation settlements from December 2008 onward,
the following:

1. Details of each of the different types of restriction any of
these settlements placed on the individual dismissed (e.g.
forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them
from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note
that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but
merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek; and

2. For each restriction detailed in 1, the number of times that
restriction has been used in these settlements.

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

[1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ap...

Dear FOI,

You will no doubt be aware of the timetable given in the "Joint
Report of the Council and the General Board on disciplinary,
dismissal, and grievance procedures: Notice and announcement of
ballot" as printed on page 552 of the Reporter, No 6179:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009...

This gives 12 March 2010 as the deadline for the receipt by the
Registrary of fly-sheets to be circulated with the voting papers
for this ballot. As you are probably also aware, one of the issues
in the discussion of the proposed reforms that are the subject of
this ballot is the University's use of "confidentiality clauses" in
post-dismissal settlement agreements.

Consequently I would strongly encourage you to provide the
requested information sufficiently far in advance of 12 March 2010
that those contemplating writing fly-sheets have adequate time to
consider any information unearthed by this request. I would also
observe that the Information Commissioner is likely to view such a
delay as grounds for issuing a Decision Notice against the
University ("the effect of delay or other non-compliance served the
purposes of the public authority and requires censure in an adverse
Decision Notice (e.g. avoiding disclosure at a critical time)"):

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear University of Cambridge,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of University of
Cambridge's handling of my FOI request 'Details of post-dismissal
compensation settlements'.

In the University's refusal of my request, it has said the
information I require is exempt under Sections 40(2) and 40(3) of
the Freedom of Information Act (2000). However, in order for these
exemptions to be engaged the information in question must be (or
contain) "personal data" in the sense of Section 1(1) of the Data
Protection Act 1998, the relevant part of which reads:

"personal data" means data which relate to a living individual who
can be identified—
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the
possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the
data controller,

The only data I have about the individuals in question is that they
left the University at some point in the past and at some point
since their departure, reached a settlement with the University
that may have placed some sort of restriction on them. I have
deliberately asked for the University to provide the requested
information "[w]ithout revealing any personal data" and at a level
of detail:

"(e.g. forbidding them from entering University property,
forbidding them from communicating with current University
employees, etc.) - note that the examples I've given are not
intended to be exhaustive but merely to indicate the level of
detail which I seek"

which does not require any personally identifying information to be
revealed. I therefore cannot see how it would be possible for me to
associate the information I have requested with any identifiable
individuals. Consequently I do not believe that this information is
personal data (in the sense specified above) and so Section 40(2)
(and consequently Section 40(3)) of the Freedom of Information Act
(2000) are not engaged. Therefore the University should supply the
relevant information.

I also wish to complain that the University has failed to comply
with Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) as its
response has not been "prompt" (as is required by Section 10(1)).
The arguments used by the University as to why Sections 40(2) and
40(3) apply are reasonably general arguments that are concerned
with the general nature of the information requested rather than
the specific data that made up that information. Making those
arguments therefore should not have required the University to
actually retrieve that information. It is difficult, therefore, to
see why this refusal could not have been communicated to me much
sooner.

In addition, as was communicated to the University in my e-mail of
22 February 2010, there were particular circumstances which meant
that it was particularly important that the information requested
was received before 1pm on 12 March 2010. (Note that this deadline
was set by the University itself on 17 February 2010, which was
after I had made my original request.) In light of this, the
University's decision to communicate its refusal to provide the
requested information to me at about 2:30pm on 12 March 2010 could
be construed as an attempt to delay providing the requested
information (or reasons why that information could not be provided)
that served the purposes of the University authorities, namely to
prevent that information being used in fly-sheets for the upcoming
ballot on the proposed reforms to the University's Statute U:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009...

Finally, I would remind you that the Information Commissioner's
Office has already had occasion to communicate with the University
regarding its failure to carry out internal reviews of FOI requests
in a reasonable time period (ICO Case Reference Number FS50246295).
I would hope, therefore, that this request for an internal review
would be handled in accordance with the Information Commissioner's
guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal
reviews:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

I would also hope that, taking into account that voting in the
aforementioned ballot is expected to commence around 23 April 2010,
the review will be held (and its results communicated to me)
promptly.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de...

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

On 30 June 2010, the Information Commissioner's Office informed me
that you have supplied them with the information requested in my
original request of 12 February 2010. They also said that you have
stated that you have no objection to the information being provided
to myself and that, furthermore, "no exemption in respect of this
information is, or has ever been, claimed".

I am therefore asking you to supply me with the information
requested, namely:

"Without revealing any personal data, please provide, for all
post-dismissal compensation settlements from December 2008 onward,
the following:

1. Details of each of the different types of restriction any of
these settlements placed on the individual dismissed (e.g.
forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them
from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note
that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but
merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek; and

2. For each restriction detailed in 1, the number of times that
restriction has been used in these settlements."

as soon as possible since, if "no exemption in respect of this
information is, or has ever been, claimed" then you should have
supplied this information to me by 12 March 2010 and it is now 2
July 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear Dr Allen,

I am somewhat surprised that you appear to have judged it to be
less trouble to yourself and the University to ask what information
the Information Commissioner's Office may have passed on to me
rather than to simply supply me with the requested information.
(Given that the University now claims not to claim any exemption in
relation to that information, why not simply supply it?)

I had been given to understand that the burden to the University of
handling Freedom of Information requests was significant and
increasing, and so I am surprised that you appear to have chosen to
deliberately make more work for yourself. It might be worth
considering that, by failing to release the information here, you
may be encouraging others who are also interested in this
information to make similar Freedom of Information requests of the
University. As I'm sure you are aware, the requested information is
of considerable interest to other members of the University.

I also find it hard to reconcile your handling of this with the
duty of public authorities under Section 16 of the Act.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

In response to the Freedom of Information request here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

you have made available a document containing the information I
requested on 12 February 2010 (pp. 14-15 of the PDF file "FOI 2010
130 Beckles scan.pdf"). For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce the
relevant information below, re-formatted to be more readable in
plain text:

Type of restriction: No of times

No disclosure by either party of terms and existence of settlement:
4
No derogatory statements: 3
No holding out as employee or having any connection: 1
No applying for re-engagement for specified period: 1

I continue to be perplexed as to why you could not have made this
information available to me, by 12 March 2010, in response to my
original request of 12 February 2010 (or, failing that, in reply to
my request of 2 July 2010). I am afraid that I can only conclude
that the University wished to withhold the information for as long
as possible and to restrict its distribution once it was forced to
disclose it. I hope that in future the University will do a better
job of fulfilling its obligations under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

The University's response to a subsequent Freedom of Information
request[1] reveals that, in the period 14 December 2009 to 8 July
2010, an additional post-dismissal compensation settlement has been
reached. This means that the information I requested on 12 February
2010 must have changed. Therefore, please supply, in electronic
form to this e-mail address, the following information again:-

Without revealing any personal data, please provide, for all
post-dismissal compensation settlements from December 2008 onward,
the following:

1. Details of each of the different types of restriction any of
these settlements placed on the individual dismissed (e.g.
forbidding them from entering University property, forbidding them
from communicating with current University employees, etc.) - note
that the examples I've given are not intended to be exhaustive but
merely to indicate the level of detail which I seek; and

2. For each restriction detailed in 1, the number of times that
restriction has been used in these settlements.

For the avoidance of doubt, please note that the phrase "from
December 2008 onward" means "from December 2008 to the date at
which you provide the information requested".

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

[1]
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fi...