UEC Minutes

Alexander Ashton made this Freedom of Information request to Durham University

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 successful.

Dear Durham University,

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please
provide me:

1) Electronic copies of the Unviersity Executive Committee minutes for the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the present date.

2) Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the present date.

3) The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the University's website.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander E Ashton

ACCESS I., Durham University

Email: Alexander Ashton [mailto:[email address]]
Name: Alexander Ashton

Dear Mr Ashton,

Freedom of Information Request

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 17/2/17 requesting further information from Durham University.

Please be advised that the University will respond as soon as possible and in any event by 20 March 2017.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah English
Information and Data Protection Support
t: +44 (0) 191 334 6103 e: [Durham University request email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is intended solely for the addressee(s) in the first instance and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete the message from your system immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other party.

show quoted sections

ACCESS I., Durham University

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    By Circulation Elvet Riverside Sunday Opening UEC busines by circulation Redacted.pdf

    848K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

7 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Ashton

 

Thank you for your request for information from Durham University.  Please
see our response below and attached.

 

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act please provide me:

 

1)     Electronic copies of the University Executive Committee minutes for
the academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

2)     Copies of all open UEC papers filed with the minutes for the
academic year 2014/15 and any subsequent available meeting up to the
present date.

 

Please see attached.  Due to file size restrictions within the
University’s email client, the attachments are added to 18 emails. Please
note, the University has redacted some information from the attached
minutes and associated documents and has withheld some documents in full
under section 22 (intended for future publication), section 36 (prejudice
to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data)
and section 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

 

Section 22

 

The University has withheld some information under Section 22 of the
Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (FoIA). Section 22 of the FoIA exempts
information from release where the public authority or another person
intends to publish the information at some future date, whether determined
or not, and where it is reasonable to withhold the information prior to
publication. The University will publish its People Strategy and
Organisational Change report once the draft has been finalised,  the
points raised in it fully explored and the approach finalised and agreed
for release. 

 

Section 36

 

Secondly, the University has withheld some information relating to
University strategy planning and delivery, estate strategy, and
performance monitoring under section 36 of the FoIA which states
that information is exempt from release under section 36 (2) (b) (i) and
(ii) if release:

 

b)    would, or would be likely to, inhibit –

 

i.      the free and frank provision of advice; or

ii.     the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of
deliberation

 

The release of this information is likely to prejudice the effective
conduct of the University’s affairs. The University recognises that the
public has an interest in University decision-making processes and that
releasing information about to University strategy planning and delivery,
academic progress, annual development review, staff accommodation, estate
strategy, and performance monitoring and review may help the public to
better understand the issues involved and promote openness and
transparency between the University and the public. However, under section
36, which requires consideration of the public interest test, the
University’s qualified person (the Vice-Chancellor) has formed the
reasonable opinion that the exemption is applicable for the following
reasons. The disclosure of the information in the documents would
undermine the quality of decision making in the University by prejudicing
the ability of staff to provide views openly.  The University is currently
undergoing a full strategic review and it is important that University
staff have safe space to provide opinions openly in order to make sure
that the right decisions are made. In the future, provision of advice and
views may be inhibited if staff understood that there was a likelihood of
release under the FoIA. 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, which
would ultimately prejudice the quality of administrative and governance
decisions at the University.

 

Section 40

 

Thirdly, the University has withheld personal data relating to staff
health, and a departmental restructure, and has also redacted photographs
and personal biographical details where the University does not have
consent to release that personal data to a wider audience. The University
has also withheld the names of junior officers on the basis that the
individuals in question would not reasonably expect their names to be
disclosed.

 

Section 43

 

Finally, the University has withheld some information under Section 43 (2)
of the FOIA. Section 43 (2) of the FOIA exempts information from release
where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice
substantially the commercial interests of any person or public authority.
As section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, the University has performed a
public interest test and has concluded that release of information
relating to PGT, research competitiveness, research grant competitiveness,
student recruitment, planned University budgets, value for money, estate
strategy, and business planning, review and development strategies would
prejudice the commercial interests of the University.

 

The University recognises that release of the requested information would
allow an individual to better understand how the organisation is
structured, our decision making processes and would demonstrate a
commitment to openness and accountability. However, release of the
information requested would significantly weaken our current position by
revealing business sensitive information that would undermine our position
in the Higher Education Market.  Release would, for example, allow
competitors to better understand areas for University review/development,
University strengths and weaknesses, business planning priorities and
market share strategies and allow them to adapt their own plans
accordingly.

 

3)     The reason why the minutes are no longer published on the
University’s website.

 

Information not held.  Please be advised that the University now follows
the practice of my competitor universities and publishes its Executive
Committee minutes on the University intranet.

 

Should you wish to appeal any decision concerning the release of
information by the University please see
[1]http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r... for details of our
review procedure.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dur.ac.uk/foi/info_requests/r...

ACCESS I., Durham University

3 Attachments

Mr Ashton

 

I have received notification that email 7 of 18 has not been delivered due
to its size.  I have, therefore, split the files and sent them separately,
marked 7a and 7b.

 

Regards

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

show quoted sections

ACCESS I., Durham University

2 Attachments

Mr Ashton

 

I have received notification that email 7 of 18 has not been delivered due
to its size.  I have, therefore, split the files and sent them separately,
marked 7a and 7b.

 

Regards

 

Elaine Richardson

Information Governance Officer

Durham University

 

 

 

show quoted sections