VUW: Records mentioning scientist Patrick Frank
Chris Johnston made this Official Information request to Victoria University of Wellington
The request was refused by Victoria University of Wellington.
From: Chris Johnston
Dear Victoria University of Wellington,
Please provide any records (including but not limited to internal/external: documents, emails, notes, minutes, text messages, or social media messages) mentioning scientist Patrick Frank.
For context - so that you can correctly identify the individual - some links relevant to his work are mentioned in the links below.
1) This is the peer reviewed paper (published on 6 September 2019) which finds that the statistical techniques used for forecasting global surface air temperature have not used an appropriate error propagation technique - and are therefore unreliable forecasts for the IPCC or governments to be using for policiy decisions.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....
or
https://t.co/tdnQhjzDCS?amp=1
2) This is Patrick Frank's blog about his paper when it was published - which was rather scathing and impolite.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/p...
or
https://t.co/VxX54HJh7f?amp=1
Yours faithfully,
Chris Johnston
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Kia ora
Official information request for information mentioning scientist Patrick
Frank
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request
dated 2 October 2019.
We received your request on 2 October. We will endeavour to respond to
your request as soon as possible and in any event no later than 31
October, being 20 working days after the day your request was received. If
we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an
extension of that timeframe.
If any additional factors come to light which are relevant to your
request, please do not hesitate to contact me so that these can be taken
into account.
Ngâ mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright – Legal Services
Victoria University of Wellington | Te Whare Wânanga o te Ûpoko o te Ika a
Mâui
Phone: 04 463 5249
Room 213, Hunter Building
Gate 2 Kelburn Parade PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnston <[FOI #11357 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 October 2019 7:55 PM
To: OIA Requests <[VUW request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - VUW: Records mentioning scientist
Patrick Frank
Dear Victoria University of Wellington,
Please provide any records (including but not limited to
internal/external: documents, emails, notes, minutes, text messages, or
social media messages) mentioning scientist Patrick Frank.
For context - so that you can correctly identify the individual - some
links relevant to his work are mentioned in the links below.
1) This is the peer reviewed paper (published on 6 September 2019) which
finds that the statistical techniques used for forecasting global surface
air temperature have not used an appropriate error propagation technique -
and are therefore unreliable forecasts for the IPCC or governments to be
using for policiy decisions.
[1]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
or
[2]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2) This is Patrick Frank's blog about his paper when it was published -
which was rather scathing and impolite.
[3]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
or
[4]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Yours faithfully,
Chris Johnston
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #11357 email]
Is [6][VUW request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Victoria University of Wellington? If so, please contact us
using this form:
[7]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. mailto:[FOI #11357 email]
6. mailto:[VUW request email]
7. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Please find the attached response to your request for information.
Ngâ mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright – Legal Services
Victoria University of Wellington | Te Whare Wânanga o te Ûpoko o te Ika a
Mâui
Phone: 04 463 5249
Room 213, Hunter Building
Gate 2 Kelburn Parade PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
From: Chris Johnston
Dear OIA Requests,
Thank you for the reply.
I respond to each of the points in turn:
LACK OF CONSULTATION
Your response states that you have failed to consult with me about what an acceptable response to this OIA might look like. This is a step that needs to be undertaken because there is likely to be way through.
A MINIMUM WAY THROUGH
At a bare minimum - quantitative counts on emails only are a possibility - based on keywords. This avoids all VUWs other concerns - Effort, Time frame for Response, S9(2)(g)(i) and the Education Act,
PREPARATION FOR AN AGREED QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
I need a count from the email system (which VUW have shown that they can search) a completed table with the following counts:
a) 3 Column Headers - each with the names of the authors mentioned in this OIA as follows:
- Dr Frank, Patrick Frank, Pat Frank
b) 11 Row headers - please search and count in the email system for the following combinations of keywords in addition to the author's name. So for example where "Climate" is the keyword then the search would be for: Climate + "Dr Frank". The keyword list that would initially be useful is:
- Stanford, Climate, Global Warming, CO2, IPCC, Greenhouse, Zero Carbon, Propagation, "Global Air Temperature", Frontiers, SLAC
The purpose of this approach is:
A) So that we can establish whether the University is likely to hold active records (emails) on these scientists (a piece of information in itself which is useful). If there was no other action on this OIA then this would have utility to me.
B) It may inform in a subsequent phase of this OIA whether volumes are low enough in a particular area to progress where any issues below are worked through.
ISSUES WITH THE LOGIC OF VUW's RESPONSE
Not withstanding the above quantitative approach, there are items to resolve in the logic used by VUW in responding to this OIA.
S9(2)(a) INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY
I note that all other government entities responding to identically worded OIAs have been able to do this by annotating redactions in the relevant documents provided.
S9(2)(g)(i) FREE AND FRANK EXPRESSION OF OPINION IN COURSE OF DUTY + EDUCATION ACT and SPECIAL ROLE OF UNIVERSITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
This appears to be an argument that anything other than administrative records within a University are not subject to the OIA. This is worth testing via the Ombudsman.
I note that where personal identification is redacted S9(2)(a) and other sensitivities are catered for (like Intellectual Property and commercially sensitive information) any concerns for academic freedom at the individual and organisational level seem to decrease significantly. The argument VUW seems to put is that "we can only debate freely amongst ourselves if it remains secret" ... which is what I am sure a lot of government departments would also argue, but this is not the intent of the OIA law that Parliament passed.
Can VUW please point to other OIAs where the same chain of logic has been used to decline OIA requests? It would help decrease the Ombudsman's workload if we can be clear as early as possible whether this has been a successful interpretation in the past and if it has gone to their office beforehand.
On this topic of the cause of Global Warming and the reliability of the IPCC's work, Parliament is in the process of passing legislation that would significantly affect the economy, and the evidence and background information on which that is based should be available for debate as it is of high public interest.
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT and OIA
I will submit a separate OIA to further understand how VUW complies with the Public Records Act and Official Information Act. All other government agencies have been able to answer these identical requests to date - so at first glance it seems to me that VUW may be in breach of its legal obligations to the Crown and the public.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
From: Chris Johnston
Dear OIA Requests,
Please confirm that my latest communication on this OIA has been received and is being actioned.
An expected time frame for a response would also be appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Kia ora Chris
The University has received your email, and will conduct the requested
searches. Due to the size of our systems, and the amount of searches
requested, this will take some time.
The University is not treating this as an OIA request, rather a follow up
question from your previous request. We are aiming to provide answers to
your questions by the 12^th of November. This is based on the availability
of our ITS staff completing the searches. If this timeframe changes, I
will let you know.
Thank you for your patience.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright – Legal Services
Victoria University of Wellington | Te Whare Wānanga o te Ūpoko o te Ika a
Māui
Phone: 04 463 5249
Room 213, Hunter Building
Gate 2 Kelburn Parade PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnston <[FOI #11357 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2019 12:16 PM
To: OIA Requests <[VUW request email]>
Subject: RE: Official Information request - VUW: Records mentioning
scientist Patrick Frank
Dear OIA Requests,
Thank you for the reply.
I respond to each of the points in turn:
LACK OF CONSULTATION
Your response states that you have failed to consult with me about what an
acceptable response to this OIA might look like. This is a step that
needs to be undertaken because there is likely to be way through.
A MINIMUM WAY THROUGH
At a bare minimum - quantitative counts on emails only are a possibility -
based on keywords. This avoids all VUWs other concerns - Effort, Time
frame for Response, S9(2)(g)(i) and the Education Act,
PREPARATION FOR AN AGREED QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
I need a count from the email system (which VUW have shown that they can
search) a completed table with the following counts:
a) 3 Column Headers - each with the names of the authors mentioned in this
OIA as follows:
- Dr Frank, Patrick Frank, Pat Frank
b) 11 Row headers - please search and count in the email system for the
following combinations of keywords in addition to the author's name. So
for example where "Climate" is the keyword then the search would be for:
Climate + "Dr Frank". The keyword list that would initially be useful
is:
- Stanford, Climate, Global Warming, CO2, IPCC, Greenhouse, Zero
Carbon, Propagation, "Global Air Temperature", Frontiers, SLAC
The purpose of this approach is:
A) So that we can establish whether the University is likely to hold
active records (emails) on these scientists (a piece of information in
itself which is useful). If there was no other action on this OIA then
this would have utility to me.
B) It may inform in a subsequent phase of this OIA whether volumes are low
enough in a particular area to progress where any issues below are worked
through.
ISSUES WITH THE LOGIC OF VUW's RESPONSE
Not withstanding the above quantitative approach, there are items to
resolve in the logic used by VUW in responding to this OIA.
S9(2)(a) INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY
I note that all other government entities responding to identically worded
OIAs have been able to do this by annotating redactions in the relevant
documents provided.
S9(2)(g)(i) FREE AND FRANK EXPRESSION OF OPINION IN COURSE OF DUTY +
EDUCATION ACT and SPECIAL ROLE OF UNIVERSITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
This appears to be an argument that anything other than administrative
records within a University are not subject to the OIA. This is worth
testing via the Ombudsman.
I note that where personal identification is redacted S9(2)(a) and other
sensitivities are catered for (like Intellectual Property and commercially
sensitive information) any concerns for academic freedom at the individual
and organisational level seem to decrease significantly. The argument VUW
seems to put is that "we can only debate freely amongst ourselves if it
remains secret" ... which is what I am sure a lot of government
departments would also argue, but this is not the intent of the OIA law
that Parliament passed.
Can VUW please point to other OIAs where the same chain of logic has been
used to decline OIA requests? It would help decrease the Ombudsman's
workload if we can be clear as early as possible whether this has been a
successful interpretation in the past and if it has gone to their office
beforehand.
On this topic of the cause of Global Warming and the reliability of the
IPCC's work, Parliament is in the process of passing legislation that
would significantly affect the economy, and the evidence and background
information on which that is based should be available for debate as it is
of high public interest.
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT and OIA
I will submit a separate OIA to further understand how VUW complies with
the Public Records Act and Official Information Act. All other government
agencies have been able to answer these identical requests to date - so at
first glance it seems to me that VUW may be in breach of its legal
obligations to the Crown and the public.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
-----Original Message-----
Please find the attached response to your request for information.
Ngâ mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright – Legal Services
Victoria University of Wellington | Te Whare Wânanga o te Ûpoko o te Ika
a Mâui
Phone: 04 463 5249
Room 213, Hunter Building
Gate 2 Kelburn Parade PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[1][FOI #11357 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[2]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #11357 email]
2. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
From: Chris Johnston
Dear OIA Requests,
Thanks for your reply.
From my point of view I am assisting VUW to comply with the law in answering the original OIA.
Could you also please respond to my responses to the VUW logic. If VUW have not changed their mind this will determine whether we head to the Ombudsman.
If there is no response by the close of business on Thursday 7 November then I will assume that you are not reconsidering. If you want to buy time to reconsider then please provide a date.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Kia ora Chris
Further to the below, the University is currently working to establish the
extent of documentation that will be captured by your requested searches.
With regard to your request for further information regarding the
University’s response to your original request, the University’s position
is currently being considered.
We will be in touch regarding both matters in due course.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright – Legal Services
Victoria University of Wellington | Te Whare Wānanga o te Ūpoko o te Ika a
Māui
Phone: 04 463 5249
Room 213, Hunter Building
Gate 2 Kelburn Parade PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnston <[FOI #11357 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November 2019 1:30 PM
To: OIA Requests <[VUW request email]>
Subject: RE: Official Information request - VUW: Records mentioning
scientist Patrick Frank
Dear OIA Requests,
Thanks for your reply.
From my point of view I am assisting VUW to comply with the law in
answering the original OIA.
Could you also please respond to my responses to the VUW logic. If VUW
have not changed their mind this will determine whether we head to the
Ombudsman.
If there is no response by the close of business on Thursday 7 November
then I will assume that you are not reconsidering. If you want to buy
time to reconsider then please provide a date.
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
-----Original Message-----
Kia ora Chris
The University has received your email, and will conduct the requested
searches. Due to the size of our systems, and the amount of searches
requested, this will take some time.
The University is not treating this as an OIA request, rather a follow up
question from your previous request. We are aiming to provide answers to
your questions by the 12^th of November. This is based on the
availability of our ITS staff completing the searches. If this timeframe
changes, I will let you know.
Thank you for your patience.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright – Legal Services
Victoria University of Wellington | Te Whare Wānanga o te Ūpoko o te Ika
a Māui
Phone: 04 463 5249
Room 213, Hunter Building
Gate 2 Kelburn Parade PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[1][FOI #11357 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[2]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #11357 email]
2. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
From: Chris Johnston
Dear OIA Requests,
Thank you for your note describing that VUW is working towards a response..
Could you please provide a date?
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Please find the attached extension letter related to your request for
information.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access & Copyright
Legal Services
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
+-------------------+
|Phone +64 4 463 |
|5249 |
|-------------------|
|[1]www.wgtn.ac.nz ||
|0800 04 04 04 |
|-------------------|
+-------------------+
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Please find the attached response to your request for information.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access & Copyright
Legal Services
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
+-------------------+
|Phone +64 4 463 |
|5249 |
|-------------------|
|[1]www.wgtn.ac.nz ||
|0800 04 04 04 |
|-------------------|
+-------------------+
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
From: Chris Johnston
Dear OIA Requests,
Thanks for your estimate of the effort required to meet the record count triage request that helps VUW and myself:
1) Understand whether the counts are sufficient in their own right to answer my question (e.g. a zero count might), and/or
2) Whether the original OIA request can be answered because the number of documents involved is low – and therefore any effort to redact etc is low.
I will regard this letter as consultation on how to best meet the need for the information. This will enable you to respond in a more immediate way than waiting for the full allocated time, then extending the time, then providing a cost instead of an answer. I note that VUW has not followed its own process with respect to this OIA request as documented in “OIA process document.pdf”. For clarity I have included details of this process from the following OIA https://fyi.org.nz/request/11558-vuw-evi... below:
"Extensions:
• Should be given rather than declining for substantial collation or research under s18(f).
• Only extend for the amount of time needed.
Charging:
• Should be given rather than declining for substantial collation or research under section 18(f).
• There are strict requirements set out in the Ombudsman’s Charging Guidelines.
• Send the letter to the requester within the timeframe giving them time to pay to within the timeframe"
An extension was requested (presumably to complete the “substantial collation or research” rather than decline the request (as in the guideline quoted above). However, the VUW letter of 3 Dec 2019 is written in the future tenths – so I conclude that the research has not yet been undertaken.
I note that the procedure for charging is to send the letter to the requester “within the timeframe giving them time to pay within the timeframe”. Note that “within the timeframe” is mentioned twice. Communication sent on 3 December 2019 for a (extended) 5 December 2019 deadline with a promise of the results within 20 working days from the date of payment is not very compliant or proactive.
A selection of some key dates so far is also worth being explicit about:
• 2 October 2019 – Original request by myself
• 25 October 2019 – VUW refuse under 18(f) without consultation as required under 18B
• 30 October 2019 – An initial way of triaging by counting documents is suggested (so that i) the size can be estimated and ii) issue be taken with VUW’s logic of “too much effort”)
• 27 November 2019 – An extension letter sent by VUW
• 3 December 2019 – VUW concludes after 5 weeks (including an extension) that it takes 20 minutes per search to count documents in SharePoint/O365.
In order to provide some credibility to the 20-minute estimate VUW needs to provide a description of the process/steps followed to undertake their search. For example, is this human effort or computer run time, and can any “computer run time” be run in parallel?
CONSULTATION 1) Describe the process/steps followed to undertake the requested search to estimate the number of documents for a single cell in the grid that justifies “20 minutes per search” [Effort]
CONSULTATION 2) Describe the total amount of time in total that is reasonable to respond to an OIA that would not attract a charge from VUW. [Time Budget].
PROPOSAL 1) Where we can agree [Effort] we will calculate [Time Budget] by [Effort] and arrive at a “number of cells to be searched” for triage purposes. My proposal is 3 hours total, which even at 20 mins per search this would provide us with 9 searches per OIA (3 hours/20 mins). I would select the combinations to search and redefine the grid.
ORIGNAL OIA of 2 OCTOBER 2019
VUW has also not responded to the questions posed in my communication of the 5 November 2019 about the logic used in declining the request. On 13 November 2019 VUW said that it was [re]considering its position. [My annotation].
CONSULTATION 3) Has VUW changed its mind on how the original OIA of 2 October 2019 will be treated?
THE PATH FROM HERE
When taken in the whole, it seems that:
• Both of the following OIAs with VUW are affected – both significantly overdue:
o https://fyi.org.nz/request/11357-vuw-rec...
o https://fyi.org.nz/request/11356-vuw-rec...
• It would be simpler and cheaper to revisit the original OIAs in their original form now that there is greater clarity on VUW’s self-acknowledged obligations and the awareness of its staff.
o All academic staff in VUW are clearly briefed that the information they create is subject to the OIA
o The argument of “free and frank” expression has thus fallen away.
o See IRM Booklet.pdf in https://fyi.org.nz/request/11558-vuw-evi... and my summary letter in that OIA trail at the link of 9 December 2019
• I need answers to CONSULTATION 1, 2 and 3 above.
• In the meantime, and without prejudice to continuing this process directly with VUW, I will be forwarding this OIA and the other associated ones to the Ombudsman for their input and guidance.
I note that the following OIA with VUW is also underway and may encounter similar debates, issues and delays:
o https://fyi.org.nz/request/11355-vuw-rec...
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Kia ora Chris
The University is closed from today and will reopen at 8am on the 6th of
January 2020. We will respond to your email as soon as we can.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access & Copyright
Legal Services
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
+-------------------+
|Phone +64 4 463 |
|5249 |
|-------------------|
|[1]www.wgtn.ac.nz ||
|0800 04 04 04 |
|-------------------|
+-------------------+
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnston <[FOI #11357 email]>
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 12:20 PM
To: OIA Requests <[VUW request email]>
Subject: Re: Official Information request - VUW: Records mentioning
scientist Patrick Frank
Dear OIA Requests,
Thanks for your estimate of the effort required to meet the record count
triage request that helps VUW and myself:
1) Understand whether the counts are sufficient in their own right to
answer my question (e.g. a zero count might), and/or
2) Whether the original OIA request can be answered because the number of
documents involved is low – and therefore any effort to redact etc is low.
I will regard this letter as consultation on how to best meet the need for
the information. This will enable you to respond in a more immediate way
than waiting for the full allocated time, then extending the time, then
providing a cost instead of an answer. I note that VUW has not followed
its own process with respect to this OIA request as documented in “OIA
process document.pdf”. For clarity I have included details of this
process from the following OIA
[2]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
below:
"Extensions:
• Should be given rather than declining for substantial
collation or research under s18(f).
• Only extend for the amount of time needed.
Charging:
• Should be given rather than declining for substantial
collation or research under section 18(f).
• There are strict requirements set out in the Ombudsman’s
Charging Guidelines.
• Send the letter to the requester within the timeframe giving
them time to pay to within the timeframe"
An extension was requested (presumably to complete the “substantial
collation or research” rather than decline the request (as in the
guideline quoted above). However, the VUW letter of 3 Dec 2019 is written
in the future tenths – so I conclude that the research has not yet been
undertaken.
I note that the procedure for charging is to send the letter to the
requester “within the timeframe giving them time to pay within the
timeframe”. Note that “within the timeframe” is mentioned twice.
Communication sent on 3 December 2019 for a (extended) 5 December 2019
deadline with a promise of the results within 20 working days from the
date of payment is not very compliant or proactive.
A selection of some key dates so far is also worth being explicit about:
• 2 October 2019 – Original request by myself
• 25 October 2019 – VUW refuse under 18(f) without consultation
as required under 18B
• 30 October 2019 – An initial way of triaging by counting
documents is suggested (so that i) the size can be estimated and ii) issue
be taken with VUW’s logic of “too much effort”)
• 27 November 2019 – An extension letter sent by VUW
• 3 December 2019 – VUW concludes after 5 weeks (including an
extension) that it takes 20 minutes per search to count documents in
SharePoint/O365.
In order to provide some credibility to the 20-minute estimate VUW needs
to provide a description of the process/steps followed to undertake their
search. For example, is this human effort or computer run time, and can
any “computer run time” be run in parallel?
CONSULTATION 1) Describe the process/steps followed to undertake the
requested search to estimate the number of documents for a single cell in
the grid that justifies “20 minutes per search” [Effort] CONSULTATION 2)
Describe the total amount of time in total that is reasonable to respond
to an OIA that would not attract a charge from VUW. [Time Budget].
PROPOSAL 1) Where we can agree [Effort] we will calculate [Time Budget] by
[Effort] and arrive at a “number of cells to be searched” for triage
purposes. My proposal is 3 hours total, which even at 20 mins per search
this would provide us with 9 searches per OIA (3 hours/20 mins). I would
select the combinations to search and redefine the grid.
ORIGNAL OIA of 2 OCTOBER 2019
VUW has also not responded to the questions posed in my communication of
the 5 November 2019 about the logic used in declining the request. On 13
November 2019 VUW said that it was [re]considering its position. [My
annotation].
CONSULTATION 3) Has VUW changed its mind on how the original OIA of 2
October 2019 will be treated?
THE PATH FROM HERE
When taken in the whole, it seems that:
• Both of the following OIAs with VUW are affected – both
significantly overdue:
o
[3]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
o
[4]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
• It would be simpler and cheaper to revisit the original OIAs
in their original form now that there is greater clarity on VUW’s
self-acknowledged obligations and the awareness of its staff.
o All academic staff in VUW are clearly briefed that the
information they create is subject to the OIA
o The argument of “free and frank” expression has thus fallen
away.
o See IRM Booklet.pdf in
[5]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
and my summary letter in that OIA trail at the link of 9 December 2019
• I need answers to CONSULTATION 1, 2 and 3 above.
• In the meantime, and without prejudice to continuing this
process directly with VUW, I will be forwarding this OIA and the other
associated ones to the Ombudsman for their input and guidance.
I note that the following OIA with VUW is also underway and may encounter
similar debates, issues and delays:
o
[6]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
-----Original Message-----
Please find the attached response to your request for information.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access & Copyright
Legal Services
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
+-------------------+
|Phone +64 4 463 |
|5249 |
|-------------------|
|[1][7]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
|0800 04 04 04 |
|-------------------|
+-------------------+
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
References
Visible links
1. [8]http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
[9]http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[10][FOI #11357 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
http://www.wgtn.ac.nz/
2. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
9. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
10. mailto:[FOI #11357 email]
11. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
From: OIA Requests
Victoria University of Wellington
Kia ora Chris
Thank you for your email.
The University has provided its responses to your OIA requests dated 2
October 2019 (“First Request”) and 30 October 2019 (“Second Request”). The
University responded to your First Request on 25 October 2019 and to your
Second Request on 3 December 2019.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access & Copyright
Legal Services
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
+-------------------+
|Phone +64 4 463 |
|5249 |
|-------------------|
|[1]www.wgtn.ac.nz ||
|0800 04 04 04 |
|-------------------|
+-------------------+
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johnston <[FOI #11357 email]>
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 12:20 PM
To: OIA Requests <[VUW request email]>
Subject: Re: Official Information request - VUW: Records mentioning
scientist Patrick Frank
Dear OIA Requests,
Thanks for your estimate of the effort required to meet the record count
triage request that helps VUW and myself:
1) Understand whether the counts are sufficient in their own right to
answer my question (e.g. a zero count might), and/or
2) Whether the original OIA request can be answered because the number of
documents involved is low – and therefore any effort to redact etc is low.
I will regard this letter as consultation on how to best meet the need for
the information. This will enable you to respond in a more immediate way
than waiting for the full allocated time, then extending the time, then
providing a cost instead of an answer. I note that VUW has not followed
its own process with respect to this OIA request as documented in “OIA
process document.pdf”. For clarity I have included details of this
process from the following OIA
[2]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
below:
"Extensions:
• Should be given rather than declining for substantial
collation or research under s18(f).
• Only extend for the amount of time needed.
Charging:
• Should be given rather than declining for substantial
collation or research under section 18(f).
• There are strict requirements set out in the Ombudsman’s
Charging Guidelines.
• Send the letter to the requester within the timeframe giving
them time to pay to within the timeframe"
An extension was requested (presumably to complete the “substantial
collation or research” rather than decline the request (as in the
guideline quoted above). However, the VUW letter of 3 Dec 2019 is written
in the future tenths – so I conclude that the research has not yet been
undertaken.
I note that the procedure for charging is to send the letter to the
requester “within the timeframe giving them time to pay within the
timeframe”. Note that “within the timeframe” is mentioned twice.
Communication sent on 3 December 2019 for a (extended) 5 December 2019
deadline with a promise of the results within 20 working days from the
date of payment is not very compliant or proactive.
A selection of some key dates so far is also worth being explicit about:
• 2 October 2019 – Original request by myself
• 25 October 2019 – VUW refuse under 18(f) without
consultation as required under 18B
• 30 October 2019 – An initial way of triaging by counting
documents is suggested (so that i) the size can be estimated and ii) issue
be taken with VUW’s logic of “too much effort”)
• 27 November 2019 – An extension letter sent by VUW
• 3 December 2019 – VUW concludes after 5 weeks (including an
extension) that it takes 20 minutes per search to count documents in
SharePoint/O365.
In order to provide some credibility to the 20-minute estimate VUW needs
to provide a description of the process/steps followed to undertake their
search. For example, is this human effort or computer run time, and can
any “computer run time” be run in parallel?
CONSULTATION 1) Describe the process/steps followed to undertake the
requested search to estimate the number of documents for a single cell in
the grid that justifies “20 minutes per search” [Effort] CONSULTATION 2)
Describe the total amount of time in total that is reasonable to respond
to an OIA that would not attract a charge from VUW. [Time Budget].
PROPOSAL 1) Where we can agree [Effort] we will calculate [Time Budget] by
[Effort] and arrive at a “number of cells to be searched” for triage
purposes. My proposal is 3 hours total, which even at 20 mins per search
this would provide us with 9 searches per OIA (3 hours/20 mins). I would
select the combinations to search and redefine the grid.
ORIGNAL OIA of 2 OCTOBER 2019
VUW has also not responded to the questions posed in my communication of
the 5 November 2019 about the logic used in declining the request. On 13
November 2019 VUW said that it was [re]considering its position. [My
annotation].
CONSULTATION 3) Has VUW changed its mind on how the original OIA of 2
October 2019 will be treated?
THE PATH FROM HERE
When taken in the whole, it seems that:
• Both of the following OIAs with VUW are affected – both
significantly overdue:
o
[3]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
o
[4]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
• It would be simpler and cheaper to revisit the original OIAs
in their original form now that there is greater clarity on VUW’s
self-acknowledged obligations and the awareness of its staff.
o All academic staff in VUW are clearly briefed that the
information they create is subject to the OIA
o The argument of “free and frank” expression has thus fallen
away.
o See IRM Booklet.pdf in
[5]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
and my summary letter in that OIA trail at the link of 9 December 2019
• I need answers to CONSULTATION 1, 2 and 3 above.
• In the meantime, and without prejudice to continuing this
process directly with VUW, I will be forwarding this OIA and the other
associated ones to the Ombudsman for their input and guidance.
I note that the following OIA with VUW is also underway and may encounter
similar debates, issues and delays:
o
[6]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Yours sincerely,
Chris Johnston
-----Original Message-----
Please find the attached response to your request for information.
Ngā mihi nui
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access & Copyright
Legal Services
Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington
+-------------------+
|Phone +64 4 463 |
|5249 |
|-------------------|
|[1][7]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
|0800 04 04 04 |
|-------------------|
+-------------------+
This message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy any copies of this e-mail.
References
Visible links
1. [8]http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
[9]http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[10][FOI #11357 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
http://www.wgtn.ac.nz/
2. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
9. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/
10. mailto:[FOI #11357 email]
11. https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
Mark Montgomery left an annotation ()
25 October 2019
VUW release the 'final' advice to the requester refusing under section 18(f) of the Act on the basis that the requested information cannot be made available without
substantial collation and research.
Link to this