Why are we waiting, Warwick?
University increasingly fails to respond to information requests within time limit
This article was originally published on 12 March in Volume 42, Issue 10 of The Boar. We recommend reading the following on desktop for best quality.
The lateness of the University of Warwick’s response time to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests sent by The Boar's News Section has more than doubled in four years.
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) 2000, public authorities in the UK such as higher education institutions are required to enable public access to the information they hold.1
According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), data and documents that can be requested for under the act include “drafts, emails, notes, recordings of telephone conversations and CCTV recordings”.
Public authorities like Warwick are also mandated to provide raw data relating to topics such as admission statistics, carbon emissions, dropout rates and disciplinary fines, all of which were investigated by The Boar this academic year.
An analysis of the FoI requests sent by The Boar’s News teams to the University from the 2015/16 academic year2 to 6 March 20203 has revealed a sharp decrease in the punctuality of its responses.
While the time limit of responses to FoI requests is legally restricted to 20 statutory working days, the University of Warwick has increasingly failed in the past five years to respond within that limit.
Whereas 36% of FoI requests sent to the University in 2016/17 received late replies, the figure more than doubled to 73% this year.
One FoI request recorded in 2017/18–when The Boar broke the news of the Warwick group chat scandal–took 74 days to receive a response, the highest out of the five years to 2020.
The year after, the request which took the longest for a response was 88 days; this year, this statistic dropped to 65. In contrast, the FoI requests that saw the longest delays in 2015/16 and 2016/17 were 19 and 24 working days4 respectively.
The 2017/18 academic year also saw the lowest “success rate” for FoI requests sent by The Boar, as 44% of 18 in total were rejected on various grounds.*
One FoI request recorded in 2017/18–when The Boar broke the news of the Warwick group chat scandal–took 74 days to receive a response
Meanwhile, 80% and 89% of requests submitted in 2019/20 and 2015/16 respectively successfully retrieved the relevant information.
The year after the group chat scandal broke, the total number of late days across all FoI requests sent exceeded the number of days in a year, amounting to the figure of 376.
The Boar also calculated the average number of days which followed after the 20-day limit was exceeded before a response was received out of all late FoI responses in an academic year.
The average was 24 in 2018/19–nearly five times the average number of late days in 2015/16–meaning that each FoI which was responded to late took more than double the legal time limit to be fulfilled.
By 2019/20, the average dropped to 16 days, which is still over three times the 2015/16 figure of five late days on average.
Recent late responses have outlined that the University has "been receiving a large number of FOI requests" and are "currently working with the ICO in relation to its response times".
Andrei Dogaru, The Boar’s Co-News Editor for the 2018/19 academic year, commented: “My experience with sending FOIs to the University has not always been positive.
"Although they do generally make an effort to respond, on several occasions their response time exceeded the 20 day statutory deadline, with no good reason.
“Also, I get the sense that the University tries to unreasonably withhold information (by asking unnecessary follow-up questions to lengthen the response time or by using a very narrow interpretation of FoI law exemptions) whenever they feel it could affect their reputation."
Why were responses to The Boar's FoI requests withheld?
There are grounds for which an FoI can be rejected. For example, if the cost of retrieving information for an FoI exceeds £450, the FoI recipient can turn down the FoI request and will have to advise the sender on how to decrease the cost.
More reasons are detailed in each section below. Other grounds for rejection are detailed on the ICO's website.
Exceeding the cost limit
A number of FoIs by The Boar–particularly ones which requested information held departmentally rather than centrally–over the past five years could not be answered on the grounds that they would “exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12(1)” of the FoIA.
For example, a request on the number of hours lost to strike action and the associated monetary value, originally sent by The Boar on 11 May 2018, was declined as “public authorities are not obliged to work past” the cost limit, which “is currently £450”.
The information could not be provided because it “is reported into [its] payroll department as days rather than individual teaching hours”. Therefore, the data “is not held centrally”, and “to collate this would require obtaining the information from individual academic departments”.
The FoI response explained that the University is “obliged” to advise on how to refine the request, and offered to “provide data in days”, which The Boar accepted.
However, the University responded after receiving the refined request on 24 September 2018 that it “is not able to determine the difference between strike days taken/or work days lost to strike action, and specifically teaching days lost due to strike action”.
It offered again to “try and provide this information in days” to meet the cost limit, and subsequently confirmed that “in total 395 staff self-declared participating in the recent industrial action with 3,166.5 working days lost–as opposed to teaching days”.
Moreover, a FoI request on the number of students who applied for mitigating circumstances at Warwick for the three academic years to 2018/19, sent in July and received back in October 2019, was not answered under section 12(1).
The University does not centrally record how many students apply for mitigating circumstances as these types of requests are dealt with at a local, departmental level
“The University does not centrally record how many students apply for mitigating circumstances as these types of requests are dealt with at a local, departmental level,” the response wrote.
As such, collecting the information would necessitate “searches within each individual academic department,” which the University estimated would exceed the maximum of “18 hours allowed” for an FoI response.
Likewise, the answer to an FoI sent in March 2019 on the number of students applying for extensions and the number granted said the request would “exceed the appropriate costs limit”.
This was also because “the University does not have a central record of this information”, and “requests for extensions for assessment deadlines are handled by academic departments so [it] would need to contact each one individually”.
Images:
- Money: Unsplash
- Warwick UCU strikes 2020 : Loic Verstrepen Sande / The Boar
- Exams desks: dcJohn / Flickr
Balance of public interest
A FoI request by The Boar which asked for the minutes of the Investment Sub-Committee (ISC) meeting that took place last term was withheld in February, concluding that it was “in the public interest” to do so.
The request, originally sent by The Boar on 17 January, was chased up a month later for exceeding the time limit of 20 working days.
However, the University replied that it was “able to extend [the limit] up to a ‘reasonable’ time” to “determine whether or not the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining an exemption”.
Minutes of the ISC meeting which took place on Thursday 22 October 2019 were withheld based on section 36 of the FoIA, as publicising the minutes is “likely” to “inhibit the free and frank provision of advice at said committees” and “the free and frank exchange of views given at them for the purposes of deliberation”.
The University was also “of the view” that “disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs”.
The FoI response added that the “opinion has to be expressed by the Vice-Chancellor”, Professor Stuart Croft, and a document written by the University was attached with his reasoning for withholding of the committee minutes.
The vice-chancellor wrote that from his “personal experience of attending and taking part in the ISC”, he was “aware that matters discussed and deliberated upon are of great significance and importance to the University” and can “be potentially sensitive”.
Professor Croft continued that the disclosure of the minutes “would be likely to inhibit the ability of senior University staff”, who are “tasked with important matters to express themselves openly, honestly and completely, or to explore extreme options, when providing advice...as part of the process of deliberation”.
The University was also “of the view” that “disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs”
Furthermore, he claimed that the “disclosure of what is discussed” would impact future meetings due to “fear of public criticism about views expressed/choices made”.
This “loss of frankness and candour would damage the quality of advice and deliberation and lead to poorer decision making”, he wrote.
The minutes also contained “information about property that forms part of the University's overall assets”, which, if disclosed, “would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of the University's commercial affairs as interested parties would become aware of [its] stance”.
The FoI response concluded that “whilst the University recognises there is a need for some transparency”, its “primary duty to interested parties” such as current and future students “is to make the best financial decisions it can”.
This “must” be done “in an environment where advice can be given/views expressed without fear of them becoming public knowledge”, it continued.
The request for the minutes of the meeting that took place on 16 January 2020, meanwhile, could not be given as the University did “not [currently] hold the information”.
Image: Warwick Media Library
Detriment to commercial interest
In an FoI sent by The Boar in September 2019, a question centred on the University’s divestment from fossil fuels asking for the “investments the University has in index-related tracker funds that are not fossil-free” was withheld.
The information was declined as the University “considers that the release of this information is exempt information under sections 41(1) and 43(2)” of the FoIA.
The grounds were that “disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence” and may “prejudice the commercial interests of the University”, its “fund managers” or “the funds in which it invests”.
Releasing the information would likely “weaken” its ability “in a competitive environment”, as well as “reveal commercially sensitive information of potential usefulness to other investors” and “key competitors”, who may gain a “competitive advantage”.
It would also “involve the divulgence of commercially sensitive information about individual portfolio companies and would prejudice the University’s ability to attract, engage and retain investment managers of the requisite expertise and integrity in the future”.
Information requested by The Boar in April 2019 regarding Warwick’s marketing costs was withheld on similar grounds. The University also cited section 43(2) and said that releasing the information would “prejudice [its] commercial interests”.
It continued: “Marketing spend is typically and in the majority used for recruiting students, which generates the majority of income to the University.
42 universities responded to The Guardian’s FoI requests on marketing costs in 2018/19
“The information requested with respect to the departments’ marketing strategy and budget or spend [...] would have a considerable impact on this student recruitment activity.”
It would thus be “detrimental” to release information which would have a “significant negative impact on the University’s student recruitment” and subsequently on its “financial performance”.
The Boar’s FoI was sent following a report by The Guardian on marketing costs of UK universities.
42 universities responded to The Guardian’s FoI requests on marketing costs in 2018/19. The three universities which spent the most were the University of Central Lancashire at £3.4m, the University of the West of England (UWE) Bristol at £3m and Middlesex University at £2.6m.
Both responses to The Boar’s FoI requests on divestment and marketing justified the exemption of information under section 43(2), as the University “must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure”.
It “recognise[d] that there is legitimate public interest in providing information about [its] decision making processes and allocation of publicly funded money”.
However, it assessed that there is “no overriding public interest [...] that would warrant prejudicing the University or other organisations’ commercial interests”.
Images:
- Fossil fuels: Unsplash
- Warwick flags: Warwick Media Library
Asked about the above instances of information being withheld, the University of Warwick said it "would refer [to] what was said at the time".
In 2017/18, 33% of 18 FoI requests sent by The Boar News were rejected on the grounds that they would exceed the cost limit outlined in Section 21(1).
Sections 40(2) and 43(2) were cited five and four times respectively.
Meanwhile, student newspapers at other universities have consistently received responses to their FoI requests within 20 working days. Such is the case for The Beaver at the London School of Economics (LSE) as well as The Glasgow Guardian, The Gaudie and Concrete at the universities of Glasgow, Aberdeen and East Anglia respectively.
Concrete’s Editor-in-chief Chris Matthews told The Boar that Warwick’s response was nine days late to a FoI request they sent for an article on data leaks earlier this year.
“University information compliance teams have a legal responsibility to reply within 20 working days in most circumstances,” he said.
“UEA manages to do it so I don't see why Warwick can't, although UEA is a smaller university.”
Image: Unsplash
Upon The Boar's enquiry, the University stated: "Historically the University has always maintained a high response percentage to information rights requests [...] however there has been a steady increase in requests over the past 10 academic years, especially since the introduction of the GDPR in relation to data subject rights requests."
The University also said that the number of staff "within the central team (Information and Data Compliance - IDC) responsible for solely dealing with information rights requests has only increased from 1 person to 2 people in the past 10 years", comparative to "a 418% increase in FOI requests and 494% increase in data subject right requests".
"A high turnover of staff in the 2 main roles responsible for centrally dealing with FOI requests [...] has impacted upon the University's response time" and "a third temporary staff member" had been added.
Moreover, "any work done to provide a response to a request is in addition to the normal daily duties of staff within academic departments," the University commented.
"The majority of departments have seen no increase in resource regarding the dealing with information rights requests.
"The IDC are working with academic and professional services departments who are struggling withe the growing demand of FOI requests."
The University added that it "takes its statutory obligations seriously and is working with the ICO to ensure the University's performance returns to GDPR levels.
"We will absolutely spend the resource needed to meet all our statutory obligations but every penny so spent means of course less resource for teaching, research and the student experience."
All figures have been rounded off to whole numbers.
FoI requests sent by individuals to the University of Warwick and its subsequent replies are collated on the WhatDoTheyKnow website.
1 Exemptions and reasons used by the University to reject complying with a request are outlined accordingly.
2 To maximise accuracy due to FoIs being sent in preparation for Freshers' week, for example, we have determind the "academic year" to start from 1 September and end on 31 August.
3 Data on the 2019/20 academic year has been collated to 6 March 2020, when this article was written.
4 "Days" refers to working days in this article.
Built with Shorthand