All:
This topic was discussed extensively on the list back in July. The consensus
was that the "common sense" approach was acceptable, namely that this type
of information request on the list should be treated as "business as normal"
and should therefore not be interpreted as an FOI request unless explicitly
stated.
Regards,
Eldin.
RAMMELL CONSULTING
'Organisational Effectiveness through
Records & Information Management'
Mobile: 07940 859721
Tel: 01304 381691
Fax: 0870 762 3115
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.rammell.com
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of No Name
Sent: 12 January 2005 13:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FOI issue re Retention of destruction certificates
this is the response I sent to Chris Pounder had intended to send to all
In a message dated 1/12/2005 7:41:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, Pounder Chris
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>In general, do jiscmail rules need to state that an FOI request should
>go through other channels and not jiscmail? Otherwise one can't
>distinguish FOI requests from just requests for info etc. Just a
>thought?
Is the new UK FOI law that broadly interpreted? IF so then two things can
happen to this list (and others)
1. it will stifle all professional discussion or
2. folks should consider getting a personal email account (hotmail, yahoo,
gmail or any other free email account) and subscribe to the lists using that
account.
if solution 2 is used then folks could post questions in a broad manner
without exposing what authority/agency/organization they belong.
just a suggestion from across the pond.
peter
--
Peter A. Kurilecz CRM, CA
Richmond, Va
[log in to unmask]
|