Follow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
CHCH101 Grade Breakdown
To University of Canterbury by Joshua Grainger 22 January 2012
Grade Breakdown by Course Subject Code
To University of Canterbury by Joshua Grainger 4 March 2012
Arts program cuts information
To University of Canterbury by Joshua Grainger 30 March 2012
University of Canterbury Budget and Financial Reports
To University of Canterbury by Joshua Grainger 23 August 2012
2012 Change Proposal Voting Details
To University of Canterbury by Joshua Grainger 31 May 2012
Cost of Christchurch Rebuild Plan Video
To Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority by Joshua Grainger 30 July 2012
Leader of the House Reports
To Leader of the House by Joshua Grainger 14 May 2012
Salary information for positions within the UCSA
To University of Canterbury by rum66811 5 December 2012
Officials' Committees Agendas
To Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by Joshua Grainger 30 August 2012
MoD Organizational Information
To Ministry of Defence by Joshua Grainger 30 June 2012
Submissions and Information on Arts Cuts
Joshua Grainger made this Official Information Act request to University of Canterbury
The request was partially successful.
From: Joshua Grainger
2 July 2012
Dear University of Canterbury,
When deciding whether to cut certain Arts courses the University of
Canterbury invited concerned individuals to submit feedback on the
cuts, with a deadline of the Friday the 18th of May at 5pm. I would
like to request the following under the Official Information Act:
1) a copy of all submissions that were provided on the proposed
cuts. If the amount of feedback is large enough to trigger a s18(f)
refusal I would like to instead request instead the name of each
submitter.
2) the number of people who met with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of
Arts or the Vice-Chancellor to discuss the proposed cuts. If anyone
who met the PVC was representing an organization or group I would
like to request the name of that group.
3) it is mentioned in the Vice-Chancellor's report for May that
"Finance, Planning and Resources Committee of Council has been
provided with copies of all materials – proposals, submissions,
responses, minutes and recommendations." I would like to request
any material that this committee was provided with that are not
covered by request 1. If the amount of material provided is large
enough to trigger a s18(f) refusal I would like to instead request
the title/subject of each document provided.
Feel free to contact me if you wish me to clarify my request. May I
please have a reply confirming that my request has been received?
Yours faithfully,
Joshua Grainger
From: Juliet Hamill
University of Canterbury
4 July 2012
Please find our initial response attached.
show quoted sections
From: Juliet Hamill
University of Canterbury
30 July 2012
Good morning
Please find attached our official response to this request from Joshua
Grainger.
Regards
show quoted sections
From: Joshua Grainger
31 July 2012
Dear Juliet Hamill and Tom Norcliffe,
First, thank you very much for dealing with my request. You've been
very helpful.
I was wondering if the Universty would reconsider not releasing the
submissions as the Ombudsmen has previously ruled that submissions
will usually be available unless the '[organization] states that it
will regard all submissions as having been made in confidence.' No
such statement appears to have been put in this case. (source:
Volume 6, Issue 2 of the Ombudsmen Quarterly Review)
As for the names of submitters, the Ombudsmen has ruled on this
issue also. To quote the Quarterly Review: 'A complaint was made to
an Ombudsman about the deletions [of names of submitters], and the
view was formed that there was no good reason under the OIA to
withhold the names of the organisations [who had submitted].
However, there was good reason under s.9(2)(a) of the OIA to
withhold the identities of those individuals who had expressed
concerns that the release of their identity would interfere with
their privacy.' (source: Volume 10, Issue 3 of the Ombudsmen
Quarterly Review)
Given this, will the University reconsider its view in withholding
submissions? If not, I will likely be making a complaint to the
Ombudsmen.
Yours sincerely,
Joshua Grainger
From: Juliet Hamill
University of Canterbury
3 August 2012
Dear Joshua
We will investigate this further and respond to you shortly.
Regards
Juliet Hamill
show quoted sections
From: records
University of Canterbury
8 August 2012
Good afternoon Joshua
Please find the Universities response attached.
Regards
____________________________________________________________
Information and Records Management
Office of the Registrar | University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140
03 364-2987 ext 3612 | http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
show quoted sections
From: Anita Kerr
University of Canterbury
31 August 2012
Good afternoon Joshua,
Please find attached follow up to our email of 8th August 2012.
Regards
Anita
show quoted sections
Gavin Millar left an annotation ( 1 September 2012)
The rules are pretty clear about the requester having the choice of how information is provided except in certain circumstances.
From reading the letter it seems like UC are claiming that this request falls into section 16 2(c), in particular due to section 9 and their being no public interest.
This seems a significant stretch and I would expect the Ombudsmen to decide that they have no right to dictate that the documents can only be viewed on site.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence



Joshua Grainger left an annotation (31 August 2012)
I think this is the first time explicitly that the use of FYI has been cited as reason to decline under the OIA?
Anybody have thoughts? I'm tempted to appeal to the Ombudsmen, for the fact that we'll get some guidance that'll help develop FYI in the future.
Link to this