Strategic and informal meetings concerning the White Paper about Statute U revision

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

A recent notice from the University Council

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2008...

attempted to outline how the Council and General Board arrived at the current proposals issued in a White Paper about Statute U. However minutes or other details for many of the meetings referred to in that notice are not currently available on the University committee meeting
web site and thus it is difficult to understand how the strategic decisions were in fact made, and by which committee or sub-group. In particular at some point a strategic decision seems to have been made to separate academic and academic-related staff using "schedule J" and to downgrade the rights of academic-related staff with respect to academic staff. The effect of the change appears to be targeting academic-related staff for easier redundancy and dismissal proceedings.

Could the University please provide information on the following.

[1] Who was in attendance at the discussion of the Statute U proposals at the "strategic meeting in March 2008" and what do the minutes record of the discussion?

[2] Who was in attendance at the "joint informal meeting on 22nd October 2008" and what do the minutes record of the discussion?

[3] The notice also refers to "a working party". (a) What was the membership of the working party? (b) When were the meetings of that working party? (c) Who was in attendance at each meeting of the working party? (d) What do the minutes of those meetings record?

Yours faithfully,

David Goode

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Goode,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information Request. Your reference number is
FOI-2009-37.

We will respond on or before 24 April 2009.

Regards,
FOI Team

--------------------
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Goode,

Further to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, I enclose the
University's response.

Kind Regards,

FOI Team

--------------------
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your response. I have one supplementary question about the information provided:

You say, on p2 of your letter and in response to my question (d), that "There are no minutes of the meetings of the Working Group", a response in the present tense. Is that because:

a) No contemporaneous minutes were taken; or
b) Contemporaneous minutes were taken but no longer exist?

Yours sincerely,

David Goode

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Goode,
No contemporaneous minutes were taken.
Yours sincerely
Kirsty Allen

Kirsty Allen, MA PhD
Senior Assistant Registrary
Secretariat
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge, CB2 1TN

Email: [email address]
Telephone (direct dial): 01223 332323
Telephone (Secretary: Ms Molly Hughes): 01223 764142

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

David Goode

Dear FOI,

Having had time to look closely at what you sent me, I see that while in question 2 I requested the minutes and attendance list of the "joint informal meeting of Council on 22nd October 2008", what you sent me was the minutes of another meeting, one held on 24 November 2008.

Please send me the correct information.

Yours sincerely,

David Goode

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Goode,

Apologies for the error; please find enclosed the paper requested.

Kind regards,
FOI Team

--------------------
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for the document.

I have a further question:

You clarified the other day that there were no contemporaneous minutes taken at meetings of the Working Group. Were notes taken, even informal notes, at these meetings? And were documents and/or papers tabled at these meetings? If so, I should like to see copies, please.

Yours sincerely,

David Goode

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Goode,
I acknowledge receipt of your further queries and will get back to you as soon as possible.
With best wishes
Kirsty Allen

Kirsty Allen, MA PhD
Senior Assistant Registrary
Secretariat
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge, CB2 1TN

Email: [email address]
Telephone (direct dial): 01223 332323
Telephone (Secretary: Ms Molly Hughes): 01223 764142

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

David Goode

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Goode,

Please find enclosed a letter regarding your Freedom of Information request.

Kind regards,
FOI Team

--------------------
University of Cambridge
Secretariat, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN

T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
[email address]

Bruce Beckles left an annotation ()

The response says (in part): "Emerging documentation was considered by the members of the working party as part of a continuing process of iterative drafting. It is not possible to identify the circulation of these drafts by reference to a specific date or meeting."

Therefore the answer to the question "And were documents and/or papers tabled at these meetings?" would appear to be "yes". The fact that these documents apparently cannot be distinguished from earlier or later drafts does not mean that the documents do not exist or that the University does not hold them for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Therefore the University should supply the documents as requested ("If so, I should like to see copies, please") or else state the relevant exemption under the Act that they are using to justify withholding them. If the documents in question really cannot distinguished from other drafts of said documents, then I imagine the requester would be happy with a response which provided _all_ drafts of these documents.

I would therefore encourage the requester to ask the University to supply the documents as they have requested, possibly by asking for an internal review of the University's decision to withhold these documents but without citing an appropriate section of the Act which would allow them to do so. (Such behaviour is a breach of Section 17(1) of the Act.)