Voting Procedures in Regent House, 2011
Dear University of Cambridge,
My request FOI-2011-288 of 13 December 2011 included a request for information concerning the material holdings of the University relating to the Grace 3 ballot of June 2011; the University subsequently complied with this part of my overall request. Pursuant to the details supplied to me on that occasion, I am hereby requesting that you provide me with copies of the following items:
1) List of ballot papers returned in the post as undeliverable with notes of follow-up action
taken in each case.
2) Print-out of email correspondence about press interest in the ballot.
3) Working papers relating to the count (handwritten with calculations, handwritten without calculations, printed).
4) Print-out of email correspondence about a request for a recount.
5) Print-out of email correspondence about the counting procedures.
I understand that under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the University is not obliged to comply with 'a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from [the same] person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request'. I make this new request on the understanding that it differs substantially from the request I made in December, insofar as it seeks material which is definitively different from that sought in FOI-2011-288. That is, the two requests are related, but not 'substantially similar'.
I also understand that official email correspondence can often include personal messages which would be exempt from any Freedom of Information request. However, requests for emails written in the course of official duties are certainly legitimate, and in this case the emails listed above were written in the execution of official business. Therefore I will accept copies of the emails listed above with any personal messages redacted. Any apparently informal comments pertaining to the vote and included in such correspondence should not be redacted, however, for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, I recognize that items 1) and 3) might feasibly contain information which would violate voters' expectations of privacy and anonymity. I would therefore accept copies of these items with any personal identifiers or addresses redacted. In the case of item 1), I would understand if only the 'notes of follow-up action taken in each case' could be supplied in good conscience.
If possible, the copies should be sent electronically to this address; however, if this should be deemed too expensive then, rather than refusing the whole request, I would ask that you arrange alternative postage with me via follow-up. All other correspondence should be sent to this email address.
Yours sincerely,
Dr [Name Removed]
Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman
This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information. Your reference number is FOI-2012-30. We will respond on or before 29 February 2012.
Regards,
FOI Team
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [University of Cambridge request email]
Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman
Further to our acknowledgement of your request reference FOI-2012-30, our deadline to respond will be 28 February 2012.
Regards,
FOI Team
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [E-bost cais University of Cambridge]
Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,
Further to your request for information, please find attached the University’s response.
Regards,
FOI Team
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [University of Cambridge request email]
Dear Dr Knapton,
Thank you for your prompt and full response to this request.
The interpretation of some of the material you have provided depends on the procedural contexts in which the ballot count is to be understood: I hope that you and the University administration can answer a few of my questions relating to these contexts.
I realize that you are under no legal obligation to determine how the material provided under the Act is to be interpreted; however, you do have a duty to provide 'advice and assistance' to me, and I hope that you will be able to engage with my questions under that stipulation.
In particular, I would like your advice or assistance in interpreting item 3): the working papers relating to the count. All of my questions relate to this document either wholly or partly.
1) Can you confirm that the outline given below represents an accurate interpretation of the document? In choosing how to respond to this question, the University should be aware that this interpretation is likely to be very common among members of the University, indeed among members of the broader public, and that it raises serious and urgent issues of accountability and democratic integrity. I would welcome any description of important procedural contexts or mitigating factors:
"The result of the first count was: 676 'placet'; 680 'non placet'. The result of the second count was: 678 'placet'; 680 'non placet'. The Presiding Officer and her assistants then searched the building to check for missing votes. 3 votes were found on a shelf in the post-room; a further vote was found in a plain white envelope in the Registrary's office. These votes were 3 'placet', 1 'non placet'. These votes were then added to the total votes as they had been calculated during the second vote, giving the result '861-861', which meant the motion failed. This was then published."
2) Who specifically found the document in the Registrary's office?
3) Can you the describe the length of the interval between the discovery of the 3 'placet' votes in the postal room and the discovery of the decisive 'non-placet' vote in the Registrary's office?
4) The Senior Proctor at the time, Dr James Trevithick, was in charge of overseeing the counting procedure on behalf of the members of Regent House. I have read documents which seem to suggest he had to leave for a separate engagement after the second count, but before the last four ballot papers were discovered. Is this correct?
5) The following instructions were printed on the original ballot papers for this vote:
"Please return the completed ballot paper in the envelope provided to arrive by 5 p.m. on Monday, 25 July 2011."
The envelope supplied was *brown* and was *marked* 'VOTING PAPERS'.
Can you explain why a ballot paper found in an envelope which was *white*, *unmarked*, and had possibly been delivered by hand after the 5pm deadline was counted as legitimate, given that that it had not been returned in the proper manner, and given that its providence could not therefore be known with the degree of security required for an important vote to which this paper was known at the time to be making a decisive contribution?
6) Finally, is the University able to explain why Dr Ben Etherington's request for a recount was refused? This request seemed perfectly reasonable and conscientious given the circumstances revealed by this document, the speed with which the counting was completed, the supreme closeness of the result, and this event's national political significance.
I realize, Dr Knapton, that you may not be in a position to answer these questions yourself. As I mention above, I also realize that you may not be legally obligated to do so in the strictest sense. However, I expect you will agree that the University has an interest in providing some kind of frame of reference for material which raises so many urgent questions relating to the University's democratic procedures and principles, especially now that this material is in the public domain.
Please send all responses to this email address.
Your sincerely,
[Name Removed]
Dear Dr Oppitz-Trotman,
Further to your email of 22 February 2012, please find attached a letter from the Information Compliance Officer.
Regards,
FOI Team
Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [E-bost cais University of Cambridge]
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now