Chris Horner writes in with this news, I had to chuckle at some of the language UofA used in the reply, seen below, as if Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck had to sit in the scribe room on hard wooden stools for days painstakingly reviewing each email with a magnifying glass. That’s what FOIA compliance officers are for, and even my own little local University has one. – Anthony
Horner writes:
Attached please find our request and invitation to the University of Arizona to satisfy its statutory obligations, and provide sufficient information about certain records they are refusing to disclose under that state’s Open Records Act. Our request was simple, and that was for them to allow us to make reasoned judgement about the propriety of each refusal. This is in our continuing quest to assist the Hockey Team solve the Mystery of the Missing ‘Context’ that, we are assured, would establish the ClimateGate leaks as a big misunderstanding, with no there there.
Also attached is U of A’s reply received yesterday. (see links below)
I am particularly intrigued to learn WUWT readers’ thoughts on the notion that disclosing public-record emails to and from fellow IPCC participants, whether or not an assessment report process has yet kicked off and indeed even just “involving” the IPCC process, “would also be against the best interests of the State”. That being a standard in Arizona law invoked by U of A, in which it would seem the IPCC and the state are at some level interchangeable (in certain dreams, no doubt).
Alternately, I’m curious about this learned crowd’s input as to the notion that emails mentioning or otherwise somehow relating to IPCC are “Composed of unpublished research data, manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research and prepublication peer reviews.” As we note, the IPCC still acknowledges that it performs no scientific research and it rises to no definition of peer review that withstands a moment’s scrutiny, as certain of your peers have established.
Such lines of argument only add to the mystery surrounding our efforts to solve the Mystery. Like U of A’s assurance yesterday that, e.g., a “UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] Summary” written by a faculty member rises to the same, described level. Which, if true, would mean that everything does, so long as you slap the word “science” on it. In this last instance we see in stark relief the sacrifices involved, how science has to lower itself to proclaim that nothing isn’t science in order to establish its lofty, privileged status, free from those nagging if agreed to “strings” that come with living off the taxpayer.
Of course, this is as much to update and inform as solicit input. It represents the state of play of the academic and scientific establishments’ efforts to slip out from under conditions they agreed to when living off the taxpayer. How broadly can they claim that they didn’t mean it or anyway, aren’t amused by the prospect of being held to it, debate over which will surely continue apace so long as the IPCC and its players continue to try and use their taxpayer-funded perches to so manifestly influence public policy and our economic well-being.
Christopher_Horner,_ATI,_Follow_up_Response (PDF)
ATI Reply to U of A Production Indexes (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another attempt to use the enforcement mechanisms of government to force others to act. Does ATI see no limit to government power?
Unless the University of Arizona is still operating in the 60, they should have an email administrator that can run a series of queries against their server using keywords and produce the needed FOIA.
Well of course it was excessively burdensome. Going through every damning email and inventing increasingly ludicrous excuses as to why it can’t be released takes hours. Then there are many more hours cross-checking to see if a “reply to” might contain the body text of one of those emails you have worked so hard to redact. And more hours again to check that no written reference to emails damaging to the “Cause” is contained in the junk emails you plan to snow them with. This all needs the personal oversight of team players. A mere compliance officer cannot be trusted with defending the “Cause”. An honest person might get tired of the sleaze and evasion and just say “Sod it!” and press “send all”.
/sarc
“would also be against the best interests of the State”
Chris, The only place In the AZ FOIA that I see where that laguage appears is in 39-103 that deals with the physical size of retained public records.
B. This section does not apply to public records smaller than eight and one-half inches by eleven inches, public records otherwise required by law to be of a different size, engineering drawings, architectural drawings, maps, computer generated printout, output from test measurement and diagnostic equipment, machine generated paper tapes and public records otherwise exempt by law. Additionally, records kept exclusively on photography, film, microfiche, digital imaging or other type of reproduction or electronic media as provided in section 41-151.16, subsection A are exempt from the size restrictions of this section. On written application the director of the Arizona state library, archives and public records may approve additional exemptions from this section if based on such application the director finds that the cost of producing a particular type of public record in accordance with subsection A of this section is so great as to not be in the best interests of this state.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=39
Maybe I missed something, but seems your getting the run around. No surprise.
sceptical says
February 6, 2013 at 5:24 pm
You obviously do not understand. Whenever a university researcher and/or the grants department sign to accept a government grant, they also sign away their ownership of everything that the monies they receive is used for. That includes desks, chairs ball point pens, lab notebooks, and yes – emails – and all the associated intellectual property rights – all are vested in the government.
If you do not like that idea – don’t accept government research funds.
Normal you suggest that these people are taking the pee , but then they are climate scientists so perhaps they really don’t have IT skills , which could automate much of this , worth a dam .
The ‘trick ‘ of claiming its ‘ongoing ‘ research is one we are going to see time and again , its down to those enforcing the FOI to make sure their not allowed to get away with it .
But you have to say ,has before , if the science is has settled has claimed, the facts validate of AGW and the situation has dramatic with no time to lose has they said. Why all the need for such smoke and mirrors in the first place , why are they not kicking people doors down to show it?
Chris recons
and its players continue to try and use their taxpayer-funded perches to so manifestly influence public policy and our economic well-being.
———–
This is a bogus attribution of motivation.
It’s also likely back to front. Scientists are paid by the state to act as a reservoir of expertise. It’s their duty to provide expert advice. If they did not that would be in violation of their social contract.
Maybe the issue here is the Chris doesn’t like the competition when it comes to providing advice about social policy issues. Chris is simply trying to exclude those he percieves as competitors to his own schemes of power and influence.
Actually they are attempting to make government employees be accountable to their employers – the people of the state! You really have no clue what you are typing about!
I’m ashamed to be a Wildcat, Class of 1968, and am withholding my alumni contributions and urge others to do the same until the University of Arizona realizes it has a responsibility to law, taxpayers, and transparency.
Take a lesson or two in writing so your prose are intelligible. Shorter sentences with single points would really help.
Federal law requires data retention for a period of time. As written originally this period of time was eternity. Can you imagine the server space on storing eternities worth of emails? So the actual practical outcome of various court filings and practice have determined that you need an email retention policy. Recommendation is generally 1 – 3 years with some agencies going for 7. The draw back is that during this time everything gets archived and at the end is destroyed unless actively saved by printing or converting to a PDF or other format. Legal filings of course should trigger saving of the archive as of that point in time.
Now that above is based on practical experience with K12 institutions and federal agencies. State agencies can have different laws modifying this but that is the federal rules on data retention and storage and the practical response that has evolved over the last dozen plus years.
That said if you have a proper email archive system in place and they can run $50,000+ for a small one that manages a years worth of emails … It is relatively easy to search and recover emails or specific users emails from the retention period. The tools are part and parcel of the storage system. Even systems not designed specifically as email archiving systems can provide an amazing degree of flexibility in searching for and recovering emails. For example the Barracuda system has an amazingly flexible email back up and recovery system and thats just a side focus of the system.
I’m not positive how all of the above impacts universities, thought it likely they are under one or more of these rule sets and are legally bound to have an email and data retention policy. Mind you they may have looked and set their policy to as short as one year and that can impact future FOI requests. Because if the agency your questioning has a retention policy in place and your request comes in after the expiration of the retention period they can legally tell you the information is gone. Destroyed per policy.
Now that said to avoid lawsuits for discovery to search every computer in the organization you need to actively prevent the saving or archiving of the data on home or work systems. If it turns out that Professor Green has an email archive on his computer it makes the entire organization subject to an active legal hostile search for other data. Additionally if you file a request for email data the organization should archive the archive as of that date pending the outcome of the request. If they permit the archive to age out in hopes of avoiding the request they could be very vulnerable to a lawsuit seeking damages. In the past such lawsuits have brought penalties of $2,000,000+ as a result of such action.
Walt says:
February 6, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Take a lesson or two in writing so your prose are intelligible. Shorter sentences with single points would really help.
>>>>>>>
Take a lesson in reading comprehension so that well written prose are understandable to you, that would really help.
LazyTeenager;
Scientists are paid by the state to act as a reservoir of expertise. It’s their duty to provide expert advice. If they did not that would be in violation of their social contract.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah the naivete of youth.
I’ll do it for free if that’s the issue.
Why are these guys involved in it? It’s like the crims sorting out what evidence to give to the police. Shouldn’t the lot be seized and some independent judge or panel decide what is okay to hand over? I know it’s not set up like that, but isn’t there a fairer method than letting these jokers cover their own butts?
Rob Dawg says:
February 6, 2013 at 7:08 pm
I’ll do it for free if that’s the issue.
———————-
Yup. Seriously, if it’s such a burden, disclose it all.
my earlier post was aimed at Sceptical. My point is if you do not want to answer open government and freedom of information requests, don’t work for the government or accept government grants. Once you are on the government payroll, anything you do relating to said employment is the property of the people, though intellectual rights are assigned by contract provision. In other words, you can’t use FOIA/Open Government laws to steal a patent or copyright. Every citizen has a right to know what the government is doing with their tax dollars and has a duty to be familiar with the actions taken in their names by government officials (and yes, college professors are government officials if they teach at a state run school) so they can vote in a manner consistent with good stewardship of the people’s limited funds and the values, priorities and needs of the general welfare of their state.
Any other result is lazy or diseased.
The cloak and dagger response to a FOI request only makes sense if there is something to hide, related to the IPCC so called scientific discussion.
It appears the IPCC has an ideological basis, a preconceived conclusion, an agenda.
Dodging and weaving cause they are still deceiving.
Sorry we can not provide you with the requested info, as the truth if widely known, would be very bad for the state of our finances and future freedom.
Context, amazing how after climate gate,the team claimed context would clear them all, then no further explanation of this new and post reality context.
Instead 5 pathetic whitewashes and this ongoing rearguard fight.
But the team has nothing to hide.
IPCC, most transparent ever….
Another communication problem, for the cause??
LamontT says:
February 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Federal law requires data retention for a period of time. As written originally this period of time was eternity. Can you imagine the server space on storing eternities worth of emails? So the actual practical outcome of various court filings and practice have determined that you need an email retention policy. Recommendation is generally 1 – 3 years with some agencies going for 7. The draw back is that during this time everything gets archived and at the end is destroyed unless actively saved by printing or converting to a PDF or other format. Legal filings of course should trigger saving of the archive as of that point in time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I find that incredibly hard to believe though probably true. In my company, every active project was kept on line for review until complete, even if the project lasted 10 years. All inactive projects were archived and taken off the servers. Storage is relatively cheap. We used to use tape, then CD’s then DVD’s and now you have many forms of storage that can compress and hold thousands upon thousands of files that can easily be retrieved. Almost all of our engineering material has been kept for around 20 years, then they were offered to our clients for storage or disposal. Key design material has been kept virtually forever. Most engineering material MUST be kept for at least 10 years from completion of projects due to liability issues. I have been retired for 11 years and I still pay liability insurance. Revenue Canada requires financial and related information to he held for a minimum of 7 years and they retain the right to go back farther if they see anything suspicious. I am amazed that US law would allow destruction after a year. (Although a lawyer once told me that for every document you find in the archives that will support your case, you will find another that won’t – so they sort of suggested it might be better to ask for forgiveness than for permission which I assume is how case law has developed in the document retention area.)
Its pretty easy to do email searches for discovery. It is called search. Most exchange admins in companies do this on a regular basis. It takes about two days for really long demand letters and a few minutes for something simple. Something like this is routine.
And just to respond to some of the comments on here. A medium sized email system like a university has will fall into two categories – outsourced or home grown. In either case, there will be two to five people on the staff who can do the FOIA – and who have done something like this already for legal and HR.
Done right, a system with 500 users on staff accounts will be about 25 TB for the last 7 years. The actual servers are cheap compared to the SW licenses and labor to maintain. By law most public agencies have to keep docs for the last calendar 7 years. Universities are far more rat packy – and keep stuff going back forever in a lot of cases.
UA’s response looks like it was written by someone having a hissy fit and who was not technically literate in email searches or used to dealing with large amounts of data. Which to me sounds like your average professor.
Just another thought. What is UA’s FOIA policy? Did it get violated in fulfilling this response? I’d ask for a copy of the pertinent policies and related procedures..
LazyTeenager says |February 6, 2013 at 6:02 pm:
“Scientists are paid by the state to act as a reservoir of expertise. It’s their duty to provide expert advice.”
———————-
Must be a drought at that university then.
Konrad says
Well of course it was excessively burdensome. Going through every damning email and inventing increasingly ludicrous excuses as to why it can’t be released takes hours. Then there are many more hours cross-checking to see if a “reply to” might contain the body text of one of those emails you have worked so hard to redact. And more hours again to check that no written reference to emails damaging to the “Cause” is contained in the junk emails you plan to snow them with. This all needs the personal oversight of team players. A mere compliance officer cannot be trusted with defending the “Cause”. An honest person might get tired of the sleaze and evasion and just say “Sod it!” and press “send all”.
Actuall,Konrad,I think you can leave off the /sarc tag,as what you say is all true.
Lazyteenager, your nickname is SOOOOO appropo. Maybe go visit “Climate Change Guide” and have a field day. Your robust stance should have weight there.