Information related to Campus Improvement Program
Dear University of Sydney,
Could you please send through documents on the Regiment Mixed-Use Redevelopment component of the Campus Improvement Program relating to:
- population targets for each building
- expected revenue forecasts
This is an official freedom of information request.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Barclay
Dear Mr Barclay,
Thank you for your message. Your request will be dealt with as an application for access to University information under the NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA Act). However, the GIPA Act provides for an application fee of $30 (discounts are available). Information about the fee, and applications in general, is available here: http://sydney.edu.au/arms/gipa/makapp.sh...
The University will process your request once the fee is paid. The link above includes details for making the payment by EFT.
The University has a form for GIPA applications and I have attached a copy for your convenience. It is not essential for you to use the form but it does assist the applicant and the University in these matters.
Please feel free to ring me to discuss anything related to your application. My office number is 9351 4263.
Regards,
Tim
TIM ROBINSON | Manager
Archives and Records Management Services
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Archives A14 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 T +61 2 9351 4263 E
[USYD request email] | W http://sydney.edu.au/arms
CRICOS 00026A
Dear Tim Robinson,
Thanks for your response in regards to my request for information.
Given the media coverage this development has already received (links included below for your reference) and given the development is "inherently public in nature,” as was argued in the Environmental Impact Statement, can I ask that the fee be waived in this instance given its special benefit to the public?
I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Barclay
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newsloc...
Dear Mr Barclay,
I passed your request for a waiver of the application fee to the University's GIPA decision maker, the Group Secretary. He has declined your request.
If you make the payment by EFT I would be grateful if you could let me know.
I would like to confirm that you are aware that this correspondence is public on the Right to Know website. The University does not ordinarily disclose the identity of an applicant.
Regards,
Tim
TIM ROBINSON | Manager
Archives and Records Management Services
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Archives A14 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 T +61 2 9351 4263 E
[USYD request email] | W http://sydney.edu.au/arms
CRICOS 00026A
Dear Tim Robinson,
Thanks again. I can confirm I have paid the fee and called the transfer 'GIPA fee' as per instructions.
And no problem re: Right to Know correspondence being public.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Barclay
Dear Mr Barclay,
Please see the attached.
Regards,
Tim
TIM ROBINSON | Manager
Archives and Records Management Services
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Archives A14 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 T +61 2 9351 4263 E
[USYD request email] | W http://sydney.edu.au/arms
CRICOS 00026A
Dear Tim Robinson,
Touching base to see how my request relating to the 'Information related to Campus Improvement Program' is progressing.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Barclay
Dear Mr Barclay,
Attached please find the Group Secretary's decision in response to your application and a factsheet regarding reviews under the GIPA Act.
Regards,
Tim
TIM ROBINSON | Manager
Archives and Records Management Services
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Archives A14 | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006 T +61 2 9351 4263 E
[USYD request email] | W http://sydney.edu.au/arms
CRICOS 00026A
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
Strange. The agency tries to quote s 59 of the GIPA Act but instead of copying the words from an original text, they retype it, and then make spelling mistakes. In s 59 the Act spells the word "publicly" exactly like that; correctly. The agency retypes the section its own way and spells the word incorrectly with "publically", like "locally". And then the agency repeats the spelling mistake several times in the rest of the decision letter. It is not a terrible sin but it does not look so good when a University cites the Act incorrectly and spells words in an unusual way. Yes, I know that some dictionaries recently include the spelling "publically" but this word is not in the Act.