Outstanding Questions Regarding Climategate

David Holland made this Freedom of Information request to University of East Anglia

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Mr David Palmer,
Information Policy Officer
University of East Anglia

Dear Mr Palmer,

Outstanding Questions Regarding Climategate

With the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology holding further hearings into Climategate, there are a number of loose ends that I would like to tie up. I am therefore asking a number of questions which you may have to treat as FoIA requests. However, it is in the public interest and I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer quickly those questions that UEA is willing to.

The FOI_08-31 Issue

My request to UEA for information of 27 May 2008, specifically included emails between Professors Keith Briffa and Dr Caspar Ammann in connection with AR4. It was given the reference FOI_08-31. Leaked UEA email 1212009215.txt shows that you forwarded my letter within the hour to numerous individuals at UEA including Professors Jones, Briffa, Dr Osborn, and Mr Michael Mcgarvie. It was followed almost immediately by email discussion between Osborn and Ammann. The existence of the this very specific request was accordingly widely known within UEA.

Two days later in an email exchange Professor Jones asked Professor Mann if he could delete any emails he might have had with Keith Briffa “re AR4” and stated “Keith will do likewise. .. .. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise”. This is reported on page 92 of the Report of Sir Muir Russell’s Review on the leaked UEA emails matter.

However, despite the substantial public debate and discussion of my request and Professor Jones’ apparent reaction to it, no mention is made of FOI_08-31 in the Russell Report which concluded “ There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.”

On 13 July 2008, six days after the Russell Report was published, it was pointed out to you that FOI_08-31 was not included in Russell’s Evidence Item 116 in which UEA listed “all FOI and EIR requests received relating to the Climatic Research Unit since 2005.” You indicated on the same day, “We have now corrected the error on the master log and sent a revised version of the list to Sir Muir Russell”.

As of today, Evidence Item 116 has still not been updated. Its ‘document properties’ indicate that it was created by Will[iam Hardie] from a Word document on 30 May 2010 and was last modified on 7 July 2010 at 11:49:40, shortly before the Russell Report was released. Only two FoIA requests to the Climatic Research Unit are shown for 2008, FOI_08-23, from me and FOI_08-50 from Mr McIntyre.

The Russell Review has published “notes” of the meeting on 18 December 2009 between Sir Muir, Jonathan Colam-French, Brian Summers and yourself. In its first note you are reported as stating, “DP - 198 FOI requests this year, 105 FOI on CRU this year. Last year 2 on CRU Previous high was 77 requests.”

A further unattributed note states, “CRU had had prior correspondence with requesters of CRU information under FOI. David Holland is a name that has submitted FOI requests, and has also contacted MR to give evidence.”

Information Requests:
1. When did you first send a list of FOI and EIR requests received relating to the Climatic Research Unit to the Russell Review and in what format?
2. Has Sir Muir acknowledged receipt of the new list and if so when?
3. Please may I see all UEA email correspondence concerning FOI_08-31 or its subject matter, that was not addressed or copied to me, from 20 November 2009 to today.

Professor Briffa’s Response to Professor Boulton

In Evidence Item 120, published by the Russell Review, Professor Briffa and Dr Osborn respond to a letter sent to Briffa by Professor Boulton on 6 May 2010 and a supplementary one sent via Lisa Williams on 12 may 2010. These are shown as ‘Supporting Documents A’ and refer to an “annex” that was attached to the letter of 6 May 2010, but is not included in Evidence Item 120.

Included as ‘Supporting Documents C’ is a document entitled “Statements provided by IPCC AR5 WGI TSU, prepared in consultation with the former Co-Chair and TSU of WGI for the AR4.”

Included as ‘Supporting Documents F’ is part of the information specifically requested in FOI_08-31 and precisely what was requested in FOI_09-174. You may recall advising me via this website that it had been deleted from the CRU server.

Briffa and Osborn also attach an annex to their response, which on inspection can be seen to include a significant part of my submission to Sir Muir Russell, which his Report claims has not been published at the Review website. However it does not include much of my evidence including my paragraph 108 in which I reported the information request made to UEA on 27 May 2008 for information, which included some that Jones specifically sought to delete both in the UK and the USA.

Information Requests:
1. Please supply me with a copy of the “annex” sent to Briffa by Boulton, or confirm to me that it was my entire submission.
2. Please tell me the names and positions or job titles of all UEA employees that had access to a copy of my Russell submission or Boulton’s annex.
3. Please provide me copies of any emails sent from UEA to which my Russell submission or Boulton’s annex was attached.
4. Please supply me with the original email or other document from which “Statements provided by IPCC AR5 WGI TSU, prepared in consultation with the former Co-Chair and TSU of WGI for the AR4” was taken. If you intend to redact any names please indicate the status of the individuals who were copied or sent the document, e.g. Co-Chair AR4/5 WGI Head of AR4/5 WGI TSU.

18th December Meeting with IT Personnel 11.15-12.15pm

The Russell Review has published “notes” of a meeting on 18 December 2009 with IT Personnel. In it Mr Colam-French is quoted, “JCF – For example Keith Briffa took home emails that were subject to FOI to ensure their safekeeping.”

In March this year, shortly after requesting the information, later to be shown as ‘Supporting Documents F’ in Evidence Item 120, from Jonathan Overpeck, who was the sender of it, I was advised by the ICO that Professor Briffa had located a copy.

On 1 October 2010 MOD/Met Office released information which I had requested both from it and UEA on 27 May 2008. It is an email sent on 6 July 2006 by Jonathan Overpeck to wg1-ar4-ch06[at sign]joss.ucar.edu, that is all WGI Chapter 6 Authors, which included Briffa, and Review Editors.

The email begins, “Hi all – if you didn’t get this already, this is worth looking at. As we discussed in Bergen, however, we would prefer to keep the addition of new references to a minimum .. .. .”

Information Requests:
1. Please let me have a copy of the email as received by Briffa.
2. Please advise me how many other emails and documents were kept safe from deletion by Briffa.
3. Please provide me with copies of any that meet the terms of FOI_08-23 or –31.
4. Please provide me a copy of any email or other information received by Briffa that could have given rise to his concern that information requested under the FOIA might have been deleted if he did not take it home.

Preview of the Russell Review Report

Information Requests:
1. Please advise me on what dates if any prior to 7 July 2010 that UEA or UEA employees received copies of the draft and final Report of Sir Muir Russell.
2. Please advise me of the names and positions or job titles of UEA employees who received copies of the draft or final Report prior to 7 July 2010 and any individuals outside UEA that were sent such copies.

The Backup Server

Information Requests:
1. Does UEA have either the original backup server returned to its possession or a working copy of it.
2. Has any policy decision been made in respect of the retention of this information held in the backup server pending the final outcome of the House of Commons Select Committee and other possible enquiries?

Disbursements

I understand that the entire costs of the Russell Review were paid for by UEA.

Information Requests:
1. Please provide me with the total cost of the Russell Review, preferably by categories such as payments to members of the Review Team, and various expenses.
2. Please provide details of any reimbursement of legal expenses including at least name and fee of any Solicitor or legal advisor.

Yours sincerely,

David Holland

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Holland,

Please find attached a letter acknowledging your request received on 22
October 2010. The letter also contains further information regarding the
handling of this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. We will be in contact
with you further in due course.

Yours, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Mr. Holland

Further to your request of 22 October 2010, attached please find a letter
requesting clarification of your request for your review and response.
I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely, 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

Dear Mr Palmer,

Thank you for your letter of 5 November. I regret the inconvenience that this might cause UEA, but the answers that I am seeking are what many people believed would have come out of the several enquiries. I feel sure that you will already have undertaken the necessary work even if the results have not been published.

I wish to see all the emails that meet the terms of FOI_08-23 or –31 that were held by UEA at 5 May 2008. As a result of the leak from the backup server and other information requests, I do have copies of some that I am sure should have been held by UEA at that time and which were not released by you.

To clarify my request I will add a further request to know where each of them was located, if your Information Services Directorate only learnt of them after the leak from the backup server and when you so learnt. In other words I want to know separately (a) what you knew you held on 5 May 2008, (b) what you later learnt you held, (c) when you learnt and (d) where it was.

I make this new request because as I am sure you know any information received by or created by UEA and held by Professor Briffa or any other employee or other person on behalf of UEA was still, in law, held by UEA, even if the Information Services Directorate was unaware of it.

Accordingly, my request includes, but is not limited to, the emails that meet the terms of FOI_08-23 or –31, which you subsequently found were held by employees, such as Professor Briffa, but includes any such as those you sent to the Commissioner in response to his request of 2 June 2009. Clearly, having told Mr Colam-French sometime before 18 December 2008 that he had taken home emails for safekeeping, what and when Professor Briffa admitted to holding is of great interest.

In regard to the request to see “all correspondence concerning FOI_08-31 or its subject matter, that was not addressed or copied to me, from 20 November 2009 to today”, I have in mind, for instance, the letter that accompanied the emails you sent to the Commissioner. It would also include, but is not limited to, any emails that Professors Acton, Briffa, Davies, Jones or Dr Osborn had with other scientists including but not limited to Susan Solomon, Jonathan Overpeck, Sir Muir Russell or his team.

The inclusion of “or its subject matter” is intended to include any emails that are obviously about my requests or how you might comply, refuse, resist or otherwise block them, but do not specifically use your references.

Yours sincerely

David Holland

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Holland,

Please find attached a letter acknowledging your request received today, 8
November 2010. The letter also contains further information regarding the
handling of this request under the Environmental Information Regulations
2004. We will be in contact with you further in due course.

Yours, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

2 Attachments

Mr. Holland

Attached please find a response to your request received by us on 22
October 2010. Please note that there is one (1) .zip file attached to this
email that comprises part of our response. If you have any further
questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, 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

Stephen McIntyre left an annotation ()

The UEA stated: "There is no question that a suggestion was received by Prof. Briffa from Eugene Wahl and this material is publicly available and has been widely commented upon."

This is untrue. The Wahl suggestion was contained in an attachment to a Climategate email. I sent an FOI to the University asking for the attachment, but they refused, claiming that they were no longer in possession of the attachment (though elsewhere they've stated that nothing was deleted.

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Mr. Holland,

Further to my letter and attachments of 19 November 2010, I attach a
letter clarifying and correcting certain points within that letter. If you
have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Mr. Holland,
It came to light on Friday that we had inadvertently left one piece of
correspondence out of Appendix G to our response in answer to your
question "Please may I see all UEA email correspondence concerning
FOI_08-31 or its subject matter, that was not addressed or copied to me,
from 20 November 2009 to today". Specifically, we neglected to include an
email from Ms. Lisa Williams to Sir Muir Russell dated 25 October 2010 and
I hereby append that document to this email. Please accept my apologies
for this oversight.

Yours, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Mr. Holland

Attached please find a response to your request received by us on 8
November 2010. Please accept my apologies for the delay in forwarding our
response to you. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to
contact me.

Yours sincerely, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

Freedom of Information would like to recall the message, "Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_10-122; EIR_10-16) - Response".

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Mr. Holland

Attached please find a response to your request received by us on 8
November 2010. Please note that this response replaces our response sent
at 17:13 today which contained an incorrect attachment. Please accept my
apologies for the delay in forwarding our response to you. If you have any
further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, 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

Dear Mr Palmer,

Thank you for your letters of 19 and 23 November 2010. However, I am asking, under regulation 11, that you fully reconsider your responses.

Exceptions
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
With the exception of regulation 12(4)(a), all of the grounds that you are citing for refusing to disclose information are subject to the public interest test which, in view of the November 2009 UEA email disclosures and the subsequent enquiries, should be strongly in favour of the fullest disclosure. With the exception of the limited applicability of the Data Protection Act there is nothing preventing the University of East Anglia being as open and transparent as the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology was promised and had made clear that it expected.

In March last year, in reply to MP Graham Stringer’s suggestion that Professor Acton might have missed the point of the cathartic lesson MPs had just experienced and that he appeared to be prejudging the Russell Review, Professor Acton told the Committee:

“The point of setting up the independent inquiry is to hear it and allow it to look absolutely fully into all the matters before it. I want to know the full truth; I am surprised you find a prejudging here and I am concerned.”

Sir Muir Russell then told the Committee that the principle of the Review was to be “open and transparent”, but so far I believe it has been private and opaque. I suspect that few, if any, of the University’s critics have changed their minds on Climategate, though some of its long standing friends may have.

I would hope to avoid a referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office but would point out that your claims for confidentiality on IPCC matters are in direct conflict with the second of the internationally agreed “Principles Governing IPCC Work”. Confidentiality has not been upheld in any of the Decision Notices issued on IPCC related cases. In the case of DN FER0239225 on the University of Reading, the release of 368 emails was not seen as manifestly unreasonable and I believe considerably more from UEA could be justified in the public interest in this case.

I am aware that the Courts are reluctant to set aside solicitor-client privilege but would point out that the University is not obliged to rely upon it and if it does so in relation anything germane to the Russell Review, it cannot then claim to have had an open, transparent and independent Review of the matters revealed by the leaked emails.

However, if necessary I will challenge its application to information peripheral to any actual legal advice such as its timing and whether it was being requested on behalf of the University or at the behest of Sir Muir Russell.

(1) Please advise me on what and when legal advice was sought and received in connection with the Russell Review or any freedom of information requests.

The FOI_08-31 Issue
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
I am grateful for your limited response on this matter but you must realise that this is central to the concerns many have over the Russell Review of the leaked email matter, including more than one member of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. I would ask for your regulation 9 advice and assistance in obtaining any and all the information that pertains to why there is no mention of FOI_08-31 in the Russell Review Report and will challenge your refusal to disclose internal correspondence on the matter. I would remind you that it was you who wrote to me advising that my request of 27 May 2008, FOI_08-31, was to be treated separately from the earlier request, FOI_08-23.

(2) Can you confirm, for the avoidance of any doubt, that you were present at the meeting of 18 December 2009 referred to in my request and that, at that time, you wrongly stated that there were only 2 requests and not the 3 you now say?

(3) Please state if you were speaking from memory or had the complete formal log of FoIA/EIR requests in front of you.

(4) Please supply a copy of the notes Lisa Williams took.

(5) When and in what form did the Russell Review Team get access to the complete formal log of FoIA/EIR requests referred to on page 90 of its Report?

Professor Briffa’s Response to Professor Boulton
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
I am grateful to you for disclosing Professor Boulton’s letter and Annex. In his letter Boulton suggested that a complete submission was attached when he wrote:

“A detailed account on which this allegation is based has been presented to us and is given in the annex to this letter.”

I regret the need to be pedantic but, as this is possibly the most important document so far released, I would like to be absolutely sure that what you sent me is an identical copy of what Briffa actually received. What you released has a more recent pdf file creation date and has a heading added.

(6) Please supply me an exact copy of what was received by UEA?

Who had access to my Russell Submission
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
I am grateful for your original and corrected reply to the question as to who had access to a copy of my Russell submission or Boulton’s Annex. However, I ask that you carefully reconsider your response. As already mentioned Professor Acton told the Commons Select Committee “I want to know the full truth”. FOI_08-31 was referred to and I was mentioned by name in the Deputy Information Commissioner’s press statement that was taken by UEA to be suggesting that there was prima facie evidence of an offence. Also in March last year before the Commons Select Committee, Professor Acton appeared to be fully briefed and directly interested in my information request stating:

“May I comment because I am rather puzzled about the statement from the ICO because, as I understand it, our principle is that it and without investigation suggests that there is a case to answer. To my mind there is prima facie evidence; why else did I set up the Muir Russell independent review?”

(7) Are you asking me to believe that Professor Acton did not ask to see what I had submitted despite all the publicity concerning my information request and Professor Jones’ email seeking to delete it?

When asked about my submission, Sir Muir Russell told the Commons Select Committee:

“Yes, and you will see that Mr Holland’s recent comments do acknowledge that in fact Briffa and colleagues saw his submission and commented on it.”

Sir Muir is less than transparent. Using the plural “and colleagues”, he implies a wider distribution than just Briffa, but he failed to tell the Committee that Briffa only commented on an incomplete, edited and rearranged fragment of my submission. Tim Osborn must have had access to something to jointly write the reply to Boulton.

(8) For avoidance of any doubt please confirm whether or not each of Professor Acton and those you listed as having access to Boulton’s Annex also had access to the copy of my Russell submission that you say Briffa had obtained from someone that I had sent it to.

(9) Please examine the emails sent by Briffa, Osborn, Jones between March and May 2010 and any one else that had access to my submission to establish if it was forwarded to others at UEA or elsewhere and advise me of who.

Both Boulton’s and Briffa’s Annexes are only about one quarter of my actual Russell submission and have similar significant alterations in what is left. I wish to establish who did the editing and reformatting.

(10) Given the lack of any provenance for what Briffa received as being my actual and complete Russell submission, please can you send me an exact copy of the document that Briffa received.

(11) Please let me know if Briffa received my submission by email or other means?

Boulton’s Annex
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
You say that Boulton’s Annex was attached to Briffa’s reply of 19 May 2010. This is wrong as Briffa himself refers to his Annex as his “version” of Boulton’s rather than what he received. In fact his version actually includes a version of my Russell Submission edited to contain exactly the same text characters as Boulton’s Annex but retained almost all my formating. Once again the provenance of what is shown at the Russell Review website as Briffa’s reply is unsatisfactory since, according to its pdf properties, it was last modified at 11:45 on 7 July 2010. This was long after Briffa sent it to Russell but between the time when the UEA Decision Notice was issued and the Russell Report was published the same day.

(12) Please send me an exact copy Briffa’s reply as sent to Boulton on 19 May 2010.

Preview of the Russell Review Report
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
In your answer to my request for the names of who had access to the preview of the Russell report, I am surprised that for a 5 day preview on a sensitive report there appeared to be no request for signed confidentiality undertakings or logging of comments and corrections. Those who had barely an hour’s preview had to send an email accepting confidentiality. However, you say the objectives set out by Sir Muir included the “checking for factual accuracy”.

(13) Did you, Professors, Acton Jones, Briffa, Davies or anyone else notice and report to anyone on the omission of any reference to FOI_08-31 and the misreporting of the number of requests received by CRU in 2008?

(14) Did anyone checking the draft tell Sir Muir Russell’s Team or anyone at UEA that Jones’ email of 29 May 2008 was preceded by my FOI_08-31 which specifically asked for what he was seeking to delete?

(15) Did anyone at UEA question the statement on page 92 of the Russell Report:

“There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made”?

(16) Did anyone at UEA report to the Review Team the inaccessibility of Briffa’s response to Boulton referenced in footnote 31on page 80?

(17) Were there any changes requested as a result of the preview?

(18) Was the draft supplied in paper or electronic form?

Information that meets the terms of FOI_08-23 or –31
’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
(19) As stated at the outset I do not accept your exceptions and ask that you reconsider your decision. However in the interest of resolving this issue I will restrict my request to the period 1 December 2005 to 1 September 2006.

Yours sincerely

David Holland

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Holland,

Further to your email of 12 January 2011, attached please find an
acknowledgement of your appeal of our response of 19 November 2011.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in acknowledging your appeal.
Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions

Yours sincerely, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Holland,

Please find attached a letter acknowledging your request received 12
January 2011. Please accept my apologies for the delay in acknowledging
your request. The letter also contains further information regarding the
handling of this request under the Environmental Information Regulations
2004. I will be in contact with you further in due course.

Yours sincerely, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

2 Attachments

Mr. Holland,

Attached please find a response to your request received by us on 22
December 2010. Please accept my apologies for the delay in forwarding this
response to you. Please note that there is one (1) .pdf file attached to
this email in addition to the response letter that comprises part of the
response to your request.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Holland,

Please find attached a response from Jonathan Colam-French, Director of
Information Services, to your request of 12 January 2011 seeking an
internal review of our response of 19 November 2010 to your request for
information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Yours sincerely, 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

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

2 Attachments

Mr. Holland,

 

Pursuant to the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice of 11 June 2012
in this matter, attached please find a further release of information and
an update on further actions in regards this matter. 

As always, should you have any concerns, do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours, Dave Palmer

 

____________________________

David Palmer

Information Policy & Compliance Manager

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

Norwich, England

NR4 7TJ

 

Information Services

Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523

Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010

 

 

Freedom of Information, University of East Anglia

2 Attachments

Mr Holland,

 

Further to our letter and attachments of 16 July 2012 and your emails of 3
and 4 October 2012, attached please find further information in response
to the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice of 11 June 2012 in this
matter. 

As always, should you have any concerns, do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours, Dave Palmer

 

____________________________

David Palmer

Information Policy & Compliance Manager

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

Norwich, England

NR4 7TJ

 

Information Services

Tel: +44 (0)1603 593523

Fax: +44 (0)1603 591010