Dear Peter
I am writing to provide a response to your FOI request. I can confirm that
the University does hold some relevant material in relation to your
request. Due to the file sizes, I will need to share the information
across several emails. We have included an explanation in relation to each
of your points below.
Agenda and supporting papers of the University Senate meeting held on 23
June 2021, as defined and set out under Standing Order 2.3 of The Senate
(including written questions tabled).
Persons present at the meeting referred to at point 1 [meeting of the
University Senate held on 23 June 2021]

I have been advised that there were no written questions tabled. The
agenda for the meeting and the persons present at the meeting are
contained within the minutes, and the minutes will be published on the
University’s website. We will therefore engage Section 22 of the FOIA,
which provides an exemption for information intended for future
publication. While the University recognises the value to the public in
understanding the proceedings of the meeting and the attendees, we feel
this need is met through publication of the minutes, and that this
represents the most cost-effective way of making the information
accessible. When the minutes are available, they will be published here:
[1]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/senat...

Please see the attached folder 'FOI - Papers'.

Copies of presentations made at the meeting referred to at point 1
Please see the attached folder 'FOI - Presentations'.

Notes made by the minuting official at the meeting referred to at point 1.
For the avoidance of doubt, at point 4, I am requesting copies of the
actual notes taken, not the authorised minutes
Please see attached the notes ('Combined minute taker notes - Senate 23
June 2021_Redacted_Part1' - Part 2 and Part 3 to follow in separate
emails). 
In order to balance the rights of individuals in respect to their personal
data against the right of the public to access information, we have
redacted the personal data of individuals. We do not consider it fair or
lawful to attribute specific comments or opinions to individuals at the
meeting. This information is withheld under Section 40(2) of the FOIA,
which exempts third-party personal data from disclosure, if disclosure
would contravene data protection principles.

The University has also engaged Section 43(2) of the FOIA in relation to a
small amount of information about competitor institutions (bottom of p.14
and p.16). Section 43(2) exempts information where disclosure would, or
would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests. While the University
recognises a public interest in the transparency of a public authority’s
operations, in this instance, the disclosure of this information could
prejudice the University’s commercial interests by potentially weakening
the University’s ability to secure cooperation and partnership with other
higher education bodies.
Copies of email correspondence dealing with the meeting referred to at
point 1, sent in the period 23 May 2021 - 23 June 2021, between:
a) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and the Vice Chancellor (Prof.
Lamberts)
b) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and Deputy Vice Chancellor (Prof.
Valentine)
Please see attached the emails the University can release to you
('Emails_Redacted').
 
We have chosen to redact the names and emails addresses of some
individuals, under Section 40(2) of the FOIA. Redactions have been made
where we judge the individuals would reasonably expect their details not
to be disclosed ‘to the world’, as under the FOIA.

Some of the emails within the scope of your request are exempt from
disclosure under Section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA:
“Information […]  is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a
qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act-
(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 application of s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) requires us to conduct a public
interest test, to consider whether the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Factors in favour of disclosure

• The University recognises a public interest in the disclosure of
information relating to decision-making processes of public
authorities, such as the meeting of the Senate. In relation to this
case, disclosure of the emails would help to promote transparency and
openness in relation to issues considered prior to and during the
Senate meeting.  
• Issues relating to the Department of Archaeology discussed at the
meeting of the Senate are currently subject to scrutiny and debate,
and there is an interest in the University being accountable for
decisions taken.

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• S36(2)(b)(i) It is important that the provision of free and frank
advice to the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor is
maintained, to inform matters at Senate in relation to this request,
and more generally to ensure senior staff have access to complete and
uninhibited advice so the best decisions for the University can be
made. Subjecting this correspondence to public scrutiny would be
likely to impair the candour of such communications in future, and as
a result the staff may be inhibited in providing frank and complete
advice.
• S36(2)(b)(ii) The University acknowledges the importance of
transparency and openness in decision making, however public
authorities must be entitled to a ‘safe space’ where options can be
discussed and approaches to challenges debated without unnecessary
intrusion or interference. This is to allow robust decisions to be
taken, and for those involved in deliberation to put forward free and
frank views. It is important that the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice
Chancellor have space to explore a range of options to agree on the
best approach to deal with matters at Senate, and other challenges in
future. If the deliberation process is inhibited, the quality of
debate would likely be poorer, thereby impairing the quality of
decision making by the University.
• A significant number of the emails requested constitute an exchange of
views for the purpose of deliberating the content and wording for
documents and correspondence relating to the Senate meeting. Senior
staff need freedom to explore options and refine wording so that
communications are published with the right message and appropriate
tone to reflect the sensitivities of the subject matter, away from
external interference.  
• During the pandemic and greater home-working, more advice and
deliberation has been provided via email than would normally be the
case. The prospect of publication of emails would likely make those
offering views and advice more cautious and risk averse in the future.
This in turn would deprive senior staff of valuable insights and
sources of information provided by such correspondence.
• While the governance processes to make a decision on the future of the
Department are concluded, the issues around the future of the
Department are still ‘live’. Disclosure of advice and deliberations
would be likely to compromise the ability of the University to
implement the decisions taken in regard to the Department as
effectively and efficiently as possible.

The application of s36 requires the ‘reasonable opinion’ of the qualified
person. The Vice Chancellor has decided in his capacity as the qualified
person that the exemption at s36 is engaged. Taking into account the
factors above, the balance of the public interest test lies in ensuring
the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor receive free and frank
advice, and have access to a range of views and options to inform decision
making. 
 
If you are not satisfied with the response you have received, please see
details of our internal review process via the following link:
[2]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/foi/request

Best wishes
Elspeth
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 19:36, Peter <[3][FOI #768180 email]> wrote:

Dear University of Sheffield,

I am writing to request information from you under the Freedom of
information Act.  The following information is requested concerning the
meeting of the University Senate held on 23 June 2021: 
1. The agenda and supporting papers of the University Senate meeting
held on 23 June 2021, as defined and set out under Standing Order 2.3 of
The Senate (including written questions tabled).
2. Persons present at the meeting referred to at point 1.
3. Copies of presentations made at the meeting referred to at point 1.
4. Notes made by the minuting official at the meeting referred to at
point 1.
5. Copies of email correspondence dealing with the meeting referred to
at point 1, sent in the period 23 May 2021 - 23 June 2021, between:
a) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and the Vice Chancellor (Prof.
Lamberts)
b) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Prof. Valentine)

For the avoidance of doubt, at point 4, I am requesting copies of the
actual notes taken, not the authorised minutes.

Yours faithfully,

PP Christian

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #768180 email]

Is [5][University of Sheffield request email] the wrong address for
Freedom of Information requests to University of Sheffield? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published
on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses
will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

--

References

Visible links
1. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/senat...
2. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/foi/request
3. mailto:[foi%20#768180%20email]
4. mailto:[foi%20#768180%20email]
5. mailto:[university%20of%20sheffield%20request%20email]
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
7. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please see attached Part 2 of the notes.
Best wishes
Elspeth
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 17:11, Freedom Of Information <[1][University of
Sheffield request email]> wrote:

Dear Peter
I am writing to provide a response to your FOI request. I can confirm
that the University does hold some relevant material in relation to your
request. Due to the file sizes, I will need to share the information
across several emails. We have included an explanation in relation to
each of your points below.
Agenda and supporting papers of the University Senate meeting held on 23
June 2021, as defined and set out under Standing Order 2.3 of The Senate
(including written questions tabled).
Persons present at the meeting referred to at point 1 [meeting of the
University Senate held on 23 June 2021]

I have been advised that there were no written questions tabled. The
agenda for the meeting and the persons present at the meeting are
contained within the minutes, and the minutes will be published on the
University’s website. We will therefore engage Section 22 of the FOIA,
which provides an exemption for information intended for future
publication. While the University recognises the value to the public in
understanding the proceedings of the meeting and the attendees, we feel
this need is met through publication of the minutes, and that this
represents the most cost-effective way of making the information
accessible. When the minutes are available, they will be published here:
[2]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/senat...

Please see the attached folder 'FOI - Papers'.

Copies of presentations made at the meeting referred to at point 1
Please see the attached folder 'FOI - Presentations'.

Notes made by the minuting official at the meeting referred to at point
1. For the avoidance of doubt, at point 4, I am requesting copies of the
actual notes taken, not the authorised minutes
Please see attached the notes ('Combined minute taker notes - Senate 23
June 2021_Redacted_Part1' - Part 2 and Part 3 to follow in separate
emails). 
In order to balance the rights of individuals in respect to their
personal data against the right of the public to access information, we
have redacted the personal data of individuals. We do not consider it
fair or lawful to attribute specific comments or opinions to individuals
at the meeting. This information is withheld under Section 40(2) of the
FOIA, which exempts third-party personal data from disclosure, if
disclosure would contravene data protection principles.

The University has also engaged Section 43(2) of the FOIA in relation to
a small amount of information about competitor institutions (bottom of
p.14 and p.16). Section 43(2) exempts information where disclosure
would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests. While the
University recognises a public interest in the transparency of a public
authority’s operations, in this instance, the disclosure of this
information could prejudice the University’s commercial interests by
potentially weakening the University’s ability to secure cooperation and
partnership with other higher education bodies.
Copies of email correspondence dealing with the meeting referred to at
point 1, sent in the period 23 May 2021 - 23 June 2021, between:
a) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and the Vice Chancellor (Prof.
Lamberts)
b) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Prof. Valentine)
Please see attached the emails the University can release to you
('Emails_Redacted').
 
We have chosen to redact the names and emails addresses of some
individuals, under Section 40(2) of the FOIA. Redactions have been made
where we judge the individuals would reasonably expect their details not
to be disclosed ‘to the world’, as under the FOIA.

Some of the emails within the scope of your request are exempt from
disclosure under Section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA:
“Information […]  is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of
a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act-
(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 application of s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) requires us to conduct a public
interest test, to consider whether the public interest in maintaining
the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Factors in favour of disclosure

• The University recognises a public interest in the disclosure of
information relating to decision-making processes of public
authorities, such as the meeting of the Senate. In relation to this
case, disclosure of the emails would help to promote transparency
and openness in relation to issues considered prior to and during
the Senate meeting.  
• Issues relating to the Department of Archaeology discussed at the
meeting of the Senate are currently subject to scrutiny and debate,
and there is an interest in the University being accountable for
decisions taken.

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• S36(2)(b)(i) It is important that the provision of free and frank
advice to the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor is
maintained, to inform matters at Senate in relation to this request,
and more generally to ensure senior staff have access to complete
and uninhibited advice so the best decisions for the University can
be made. Subjecting this correspondence to public scrutiny would be
likely to impair the candour of such communications in future, and
as a result the staff may be inhibited in providing frank and
complete advice.
• S36(2)(b)(ii) The University acknowledges the importance of
transparency and openness in decision making, however public
authorities must be entitled to a ‘safe space’ where options can be
discussed and approaches to challenges debated without unnecessary
intrusion or interference. This is to allow robust decisions to be
taken, and for those involved in deliberation to put forward free
and frank views. It is important that the Vice Chancellor and Deputy
Vice Chancellor have space to explore a range of options to agree on
the best approach to deal with matters at Senate, and other
challenges in future. If the deliberation process is inhibited, the
quality of debate would likely be poorer, thereby impairing the
quality of decision making by the University.
• A significant number of the emails requested constitute an exchange
of views for the purpose of deliberating the content and wording for
documents and correspondence relating to the Senate meeting. Senior
staff need freedom to explore options and refine wording so that
communications are published with the right message and appropriate
tone to reflect the sensitivities of the subject matter, away from
external interference.  
• During the pandemic and greater home-working, more advice and
deliberation has been provided via email than would normally be the
case. The prospect of publication of emails would likely make those
offering views and advice more cautious and risk averse in the
future. This in turn would deprive senior staff of valuable insights
and sources of information provided by such correspondence.
• While the governance processes to make a decision on the future of
the Department are concluded, the issues around the future of the
Department are still ‘live’. Disclosure of advice and deliberations
would be likely to compromise the ability of the University to
implement the decisions taken in regard to the Department as
effectively and efficiently as possible.

The application of s36 requires the ‘reasonable opinion’ of the
qualified person. The Vice Chancellor has decided in his capacity as the
qualified person that the exemption at s36 is engaged. Taking into
account the factors above, the balance of the public interest test lies
in ensuring the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor receive free
and frank advice, and have access to a range of views and options to
inform decision making. 
 
If you are not satisfied with the response you have received, please see
details of our internal review process via the following link:
[3]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/foi/request

Best wishes
Elspeth
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 19:36, Peter <[4][FOI #768180 email]> wrote:

Dear University of Sheffield,

I am writing to request information from you under the Freedom of
information Act.  The following information is requested concerning
the meeting of the University Senate held on 23 June 2021: 
1. The agenda and supporting papers of the University Senate meeting
held on 23 June 2021, as defined and set out under Standing Order 2.3
of The Senate (including written questions tabled).
2. Persons present at the meeting referred to at point 1.
3. Copies of presentations made at the meeting referred to at point 1.
4. Notes made by the minuting official at the meeting referred to at
point 1.
5. Copies of email correspondence dealing with the meeting referred to
at point 1, sent in the period 23 May 2021 - 23 June 2021, between:
a) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and the Vice Chancellor (Prof.
Lamberts)
b) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Prof. Valentine)

For the avoidance of doubt, at point 4, I am requesting copies of the
actual notes taken, not the authorised minutes.

Yours faithfully,

PP Christian

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #768180 email]

Is [6][University of Sheffield request email] the wrong address for
Freedom of Information requests to University of Sheffield? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published
on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses
will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

--

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[university%20of%20sheffield%20request%20email]
2. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/senat...
3. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/foi/request
4. mailto:[foi%20#768180%20email]
5. mailto:[foi%20#768180%20email]
6. mailto:[university%20of%20sheffield%20request%20email]
7. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
9. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please see attached Part 3 of the notes.
Best wishes
Elspeth
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 17:12, Freedom Of Information <[1][University of
Sheffield request email]> wrote:

Please see attached Part 2 of the notes.
Best wishes
Elspeth
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 17:11, Freedom Of Information <[2][University of
Sheffield request email]> wrote:

Dear Peter
I am writing to provide a response to your FOI request. I can confirm
that the University does hold some relevant material in relation to
your request. Due to the file sizes, I will need to share the
information across several emails. We have included an explanation in
relation to each of your points below.
Agenda and supporting papers of the University Senate meeting held on
23 June 2021, as defined and set out under Standing Order 2.3 of The
Senate (including written questions tabled).
Persons present at the meeting referred to at point 1 [meeting of the
University Senate held on 23 June 2021]

I have been advised that there were no written questions tabled. The
agenda for the meeting and the persons present at the meeting are
contained within the minutes, and the minutes will be published on the
University’s website. We will therefore engage Section 22 of the FOIA,
which provides an exemption for information intended for future
publication. While the University recognises the value to the public
in understanding the proceedings of the meeting and the attendees, we
feel this need is met through publication of the minutes, and that
this represents the most cost-effective way of making the information
accessible. When the minutes are available, they will be published
here: [3]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/senat...

Please see the attached folder 'FOI - Papers'.

Copies of presentations made at the meeting referred to at point 1
Please see the attached folder 'FOI - Presentations'.

Notes made by the minuting official at the meeting referred to at
point 1. For the avoidance of doubt, at point 4, I am requesting
copies of the actual notes taken, not the authorised minutes
Please see attached the notes ('Combined minute taker notes - Senate
23 June 2021_Redacted_Part1' - Part 2 and Part 3 to follow in separate
emails). 
In order to balance the rights of individuals in respect to their
personal data against the right of the public to access information,
we have redacted the personal data of individuals. We do not consider
it fair or lawful to attribute specific comments or opinions to
individuals at the meeting. This information is withheld under Section
40(2) of the FOIA, which exempts third-party personal data from
disclosure, if disclosure would contravene data protection principles.

The University has also engaged Section 43(2) of the FOIA in relation
to a small amount of information about competitor institutions (bottom
of p.14 and p.16). Section 43(2) exempts information where disclosure
would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests. While
the University recognises a public interest in the transparency of a
public authority’s operations, in this instance, the disclosure of
this information could prejudice the University’s commercial interests
by potentially weakening the University’s ability to secure
cooperation and partnership with other higher education bodies.
Copies of email correspondence dealing with the meeting referred to at
point 1, sent in the period 23 May 2021 - 23 June 2021, between:
a) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and the Vice Chancellor (Prof.
Lamberts)
b) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Prof. Valentine)
Please see attached the emails the University can release to you
('Emails_Redacted').
 
We have chosen to redact the names and emails addresses of some
individuals, under Section 40(2) of the FOIA. Redactions have been
made where we judge the individuals would reasonably expect their
details not to be disclosed ‘to the world’, as under the FOIA.

Some of the emails within the scope of your request are exempt from
disclosure under Section 36(2)(b) of the FOIA:
“Information […]  is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion
of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act-
(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 application of s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) requires us to conduct a
public interest test, to consider whether the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

Factors in favour of disclosure

• The University recognises a public interest in the disclosure of
information relating to decision-making processes of public
authorities, such as the meeting of the Senate. In relation to
this case, disclosure of the emails would help to promote
transparency and openness in relation to issues considered prior
to and during the Senate meeting.  
• Issues relating to the Department of Archaeology discussed at the
meeting of the Senate are currently subject to scrutiny and
debate, and there is an interest in the University being
accountable for decisions taken.

Factors in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• S36(2)(b)(i) It is important that the provision of free and frank
advice to the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor is
maintained, to inform matters at Senate in relation to this
request, and more generally to ensure senior staff have access to
complete and uninhibited advice so the best decisions for the
University can be made. Subjecting this correspondence to public
scrutiny would be likely to impair the candour of such
communications in future, and as a result the staff may be
inhibited in providing frank and complete advice.
• S36(2)(b)(ii) The University acknowledges the importance of
transparency and openness in decision making, however public
authorities must be entitled to a ‘safe space’ where options can
be discussed and approaches to challenges debated without
unnecessary intrusion or interference. This is to allow robust
decisions to be taken, and for those involved in deliberation to
put forward free and frank views. It is important that the Vice
Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor have space to explore a
range of options to agree on the best approach to deal with
matters at Senate, and other challenges in future. If the
deliberation process is inhibited, the quality of debate would
likely be poorer, thereby impairing the quality of decision making
by the University.
• A significant number of the emails requested constitute an
exchange of views for the purpose of deliberating the content and
wording for documents and correspondence relating to the Senate
meeting. Senior staff need freedom to explore options and refine
wording so that communications are published with the right
message and appropriate tone to reflect the sensitivities of the
subject matter, away from external interference.  
• During the pandemic and greater home-working, more advice and
deliberation has been provided via email than would normally be
the case. The prospect of publication of emails would likely make
those offering views and advice more cautious and risk averse in
the future. This in turn would deprive senior staff of valuable
insights and sources of information provided by such
correspondence.
• While the governance processes to make a decision on the future of
the Department are concluded, the issues around the future of the
Department are still ‘live’. Disclosure of advice and
deliberations would be likely to compromise the ability of the
University to implement the decisions taken in regard to the
Department as effectively and efficiently as possible.

The application of s36 requires the ‘reasonable opinion’ of the
qualified person. The Vice Chancellor has decided in his capacity as
the qualified person that the exemption at s36 is engaged. Taking into
account the factors above, the balance of the public interest test
lies in ensuring the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor
receive free and frank advice, and have access to a range of views and
options to inform decision making. 
 
If you are not satisfied with the response you have received, please
see details of our internal review process via the following link:
[4]https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/foi/request

Best wishes
Elspeth
On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 at 19:36, Peter <[5][FOI #768180 email]> wrote:

Dear University of Sheffield,

I am writing to request information from you under the Freedom of
information Act.  The following information is requested concerning
the meeting of the University Senate held on 23 June 2021: 
1. The agenda and supporting papers of the University Senate meeting
held on 23 June 2021, as defined and set out under Standing Order
2.3 of The Senate (including written questions tabled).
2. Persons present at the meeting referred to at point 1.
3. Copies of presentations made at the meeting referred to at point
1.
4. Notes made by the minuting official at the meeting referred to at
point 1.
5. Copies of email correspondence dealing with the meeting referred
to at point 1, sent in the period 23 May 2021 - 23 June 2021,
between:
a) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and the Vice Chancellor
(Prof. Lamberts)
b) The University Secretary (Dr Strike) and Deputy Vice Chancellor
(Prof. Valentine)

For the avoidance of doubt, at point 4, I am requesting copies of
the actual notes taken, not the authorised minutes.

Yours faithfully,

PP Christian

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #768180 email]

Is [7][University of Sheffield request email] the wrong address for
Freedom of Information requests to University of Sheffield? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read
the latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses
will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

--

--

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[university%20of%20sheffield%20request%20email]
2. mailto:[university%20of%20sheffield%20request%20email]
3. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/govern/senat...
4. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/foi/request
5. mailto:[foi%20#768180%20email]
6. mailto:[foi%20#768180%20email]
7. mailto:[university%20of%20sheffield%20request%20email]
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
9. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
10. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...