Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide me with any rules, regulations or policies regarding the making of a verbatim record [1] of an appeal, grievance, disciplinary, etc. hearing in the University that were in effect on the dates given below. Please also supply me with any rules, regulations or policies regarding the use and/or presence of stenographers (or individuals in a similar role) at appeal, grievance, disciplinary, etc. hearings in the University that were in effect on the dates given below:

27 February 2008

20 May 2008

(If the relevant rules, etc. were the same on both dates then supplying them once with a statement to this effect is sufficient).

For the purposes of this request the term "appeal hearing" should be understood to cover appeals against the outcome of the recent "assimilation to the new grading structure and single salary spine" exercise, as well as any other meaning which the University may ascribe to this term.

For any such rules, policies, etc. that were in effect on the above dates please also provide the following:

- Details of where the rules, policies, etc. are documented (e.g. where in the Statutes or Ordinances of the University, in which minutes of the Personnel Committee, etc.);

- The date on which the rules, etc. were agreed; and

- The date on which the rules, etc. were promulgated to the University at large.

[1] By "verbatim record" I mean an exact record of everything that is said at the hearing, such as might be made by a stenographer or court reporter. Note that the University may use some other term to describe such records.

Yours faithfully,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your response. I asked about regulations, policies, etc. regarding the making of a "verbatim record" (as defined in my original request). The relevant portion of the University's reply was:

"There are no rules, regulations or policies that govern whether or not an interview can be recorded."

I see two points of confusion with this reply - please could you clarify them for me?:

(1) Is the term "interview" in your reply to be understood to be a general term that covers all of the following: appeal, grievance, disciplinary, etc. hearings, and, specifically appeal hearings of appeals against the outcome of the recent "assimilation to the new grading structure and single salary spine"?

(2) In your reply above, does the term "recording" include making a verbatim record (as defined in my original request) of such a hearing? I ask because such usage would not be the common meaning most individuals would ascribe to the term "recording" in the context above.

Please note that both of the above questions have been deliberately phrased so that they only require simple "YES" or "NO" responses.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

In this FOI request I asked both about making a verbatim record ("verbatim record" as defined in my original e-mail) and about the use and/or presence of stenographers. Whilst your response may have provided the information about making a verbatim record, it has not provided any information about the use and/or presence of stenographers.

For clarity, I repeat that portion of the request:

"Please also supply me with any rules, regulations or policies regarding the use and/or presence of stenographers (or individuals in a similar role) at appeal, grievance, disciplinary, etc. hearings in the University that were in effect on the dates given"

I am aware that the statutory time limit for responding to my request has not yet expired, and so you may be in the process of dealing with this. However, in case this portion of the request has been overlooked, I am sending you this gentle reminder.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear Sir or Madam,

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 'Regulations governing the making if verbatim records of appeal hearings, etc.'.

Although the University responded to part of my request, it has yet to respond to the remainder of my request, despite the reminder which I sent on 23 January 2009. A response from the University is now overdue, which means that, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the University is breaking the law.

For convenience, the portion of the request to which the University has not responded is repeated below:

"Please also supply me with any rules, regulations or policies regarding the use and/or presence of stenographers (or individuals in a similar role) at appeal, grievance, disciplinary, etc. hearings in the University that were in effect on the dates given below:

27 February 2008

20 May 2008

(If the relevant rules, etc. were the same on both dates then supplying them once with a statement to this effect is sufficient).

For the purposes of this request the term "appeal hearing" should be understood to cover appeals against the outcome of the recent "assimilation to the new grading structure and single salary spine" exercise, as well as any other meaning which the University may
ascribe to this term.

For any such rules, policies, etc. that were in effect on the above dates please also provide the following:

- Details of where the rules, policies, etc. are documented (e.g. where in the Statutes or Ordinances of the University, in which minutes of the Personnel Committee, etc.);

- The date on which the rules, etc. were agreed; and

- The date on which the rules, etc. were promulgated to the University at large."

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

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles

Dear FOI,

I am writing to confirm that I have received today, 28 May 2009, a letter dated 26 May 2009 from the Administrative Secretary of the University in response to my long overdue request for an internal review of your handling of this FOI request. I am happy to say I consider that the University has now adequately responded to my FOI request in its entirety (although I do not agree with the reasoning or decision of the internal review).

I note that, in taking this long to respond to my request for an internal review, the University has singularly failed to adhere to the Information Commissioner's guidance regarding the time limits on carrying out internal reviews (Good Practice Guidance 5):

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

which states that "a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. ... in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.".

Further, I suspect that the only reason the University finally carried out an internal review was as a result of my complaint to the IC and the response (dated 22 May 2009) from the ICO to the University (Case Reference Number FS50246295).

However, be that as it may, I am happy that the University has now confirmed that it has no rules, regulations or policies regarding the use and/or presence of stenographers (or individuals in a similar role) at appeal hearings, etc. in the University. (Note that, in this context, "appeal hearings" includes appeals against the outcome of the recent "assimilation to the new grading structure and single salary spine" exercise.)

For the avoidance of doubt, below I reproduce the main text of the letter communicating the internal review decision to me:

<================== Letter begins ==================>

26 May 2009

Dear Mr Beckles,

In your e-mail of 23 February 2009, you asked for a review of the University's handling of your FOI request about 'Regulations governing the making if verbatim records of appeal hearings, etc.' I have, in undertaking this review, considered the relevant documentation.

In response to your request of 8 January 2009 (headed Freedom of Information request- Regulations governing the making if verbatim records of appeal hearings etc.), the University stated that there 'are no rules, regulations or policies that govern whether or not an interview can be recorded'. In my view, the meaning and effect of this in the context of your request (and as subsequently explained in a letter of 5 February 2009) was that the University had no rules, regulations or policies about both the making of a verbatim record of employment hearings in the University and the use and/or presence of stenographers (or individuals in a similar role) at such hearings.

I conclude that the University's previous response was a full and sufficient response to all parts of your request. However, I note that you consider the request to have been unclear and/or incomplete and so, for the avoidance of doubt, and to help you, I can confirm that no information as specified in your request was held by the University.

<================== Letter ends ==================>

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Beckles