Submissions and Information on Arts Cuts
Joshua Grainger made this Official Information request to University of Canterbury
The request was partially successful.
From: Joshua Grainger
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
Please find our initial response attached.
____________________________________________________________
Information and Records Management
Office of the Registrar | University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140
( 03 364-2987 ext 3612 | [1]http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.
Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclai... for more
information.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
hide quoted sections
From: Juliet Hamill
University of Canterbury
Good morning
Please find attached our official response to this request from Joshua
Grainger.
Regards
____________________________________________________________
Information and Records Management
Office of the Registrar | University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140
( 03 364-2987 ext 3612 | [1]http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.
Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclai... for more
information.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
hide quoted sections
From: Joshua Grainger
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
Dear Joshua
We will investigate this further and respond to you shortly.
Regards
Juliet Hamill
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Grainger [mailto:[OIA #377 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012 1:00 p.m.
To: Juliet Hamill
Subject: Internal review of Official Information Act request - Submissions and Information on Arts Cuts
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
-----Original Message-----
Good morning
Please find attached our official response to this request from
Joshua
Grainger.
Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[OIA #377 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an OIA officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: records
University of Canterbury
12.24 Grainger response to request for internal review 08082012 signed copy.pdf
66K
Download
View as HTML
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/
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Grainger [mailto:[OIA #377 email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012 1:00 p.m.
To: Juliet Hamill
Subject: Internal review of Official Information Act request - Submissions and Information on Arts Cuts
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
-----Original Message-----
Good morning
Please find attached our official response to this request from
Joshua
Grainger.
Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[OIA #377 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
http://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an OIA officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Anita Kerr
University of Canterbury
Good afternoon Joshua,
Please find attached follow up to our email of 8th August 2012.
Regards
Anita
___________________________________________________________
Information and Records Management
Office of the Registrar | University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140
( 03 364-2987 ext 3612 | [1]http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
This email may be confidential and subject to legal privilege, it may
not reflect the views of the University of Canterbury, and it is not
guaranteed to be virus free. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message
and any attachments.
Please refer to http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/emaildisclai... for more
information.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/irm/
hide quoted sections
Gavin Millar left an annotation ()
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
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
Joshua Grainger left an annotation ()
Very very interesting. The University of Canterbury have cited the use of FYI as preventing disclosure under the Official Information Act, and have instead said that they will only let me view the submissions if I view hard copies in person.
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