Copyright ARMA INt'l ED FOUNDATION

81 Pages·2012·0.92 MB·English

ARMA International Educational Foundation
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION:
HISTORY, EXPERIENCE AND RECORDS
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS IN THE USA, CANADA AND
THE UNITED KINGDOM
Mark Glover
Sarah Holsen
Craig MacDonald
Mehrangez Rahman
Duncan Simpson
The Constitution Unit
Department of Political Science/School of Public Policy
University College London UK
October 2006
Project Underwritten by:
The Houston Chapter of ARMA International and the
ARMA International Educational Foundation Endowment Fund
© 2006 ARMA International Educational Foundation
1609 Terrie Drive
Pittsburgh PA 15241 USA
www.armaedfoundation.org
ABOUT US
TheConstitutionUnit(CU)isresearchbodyhousedwithintheSchoolofPublicPolicy/Department
ofPoliticalScienceatUniversityCollegeLondonintheUK.ResearchersattheConstitutionUnit
specializeinconstitutionalreformandcomparativeconstitutionalstudies.TheUnit isindependent
andnon-partisan,andthecentreofawidenetworkofnationalandinternationalexperts.All oftheir
workhasasharplypracticalfocus,andaimstobetimelyandrelevanttopolicymakersand
practitioners.TheUnitischieflyfundedbycharitabletrusts,researchcouncilsandgovernment
departments.Italsooperatesacommercialconsultancytobringinadditionalincometofundits
activities.
WewereinvitedbytheARMAInternationalEducational Foundation’s(AIEF)ResearchCommittee
topreparethisreportforapresentationatthe2006ARMAInternationalConference inSan
Antonio.Theaimofthepaper istoshed lightonfreedomofinformationlegislationandhowit
worksbycomparingfreedomofinformation provisionsintheUSA,CanadaandtheUK.
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACPO AssociationofChiefPoliceOfficers
ATI AccesstoInformation
ATIA AccesstoInformationAct
ATIP AccesstoInformationandPrivacy
BBC BritishBroadcastingCorporation
CAIRS Co-ordinationofAccesstoInformationRequestsSystem
CBSA CanadianBorderServicesAgency
CCIC CanadaCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada
CIA CentralIntelligenceAgency
CNI Criticalnationalinfrastructure
DCA DepartmentforConstitutionalAffairs
DFAIT DepartmentofForeignAffairsandInternationalTrade
DHS DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
DOA DepartmentofAgriculture
DOC DepartmentofCommerceandtheDepartmentofState
DOD DepartmentofDefense
DOE DepartmentofEnergy
DOJ DepartmentofJustice
DOS DepartmentofState
DVA DepartmentofVeteranAffairs
EDRMS Electronicdocumentsandrecordsmanagementsystems
E-FOIA ElectronicFreedomofInformationActAmendments
EO ExecutiveOrder
ERMS ElectronicRecordsManagementSystems.
FBI FederalBureauInvestigation
FCO ForeignandCommonwealthOffice
FOI Freedomofinformation
FOIA FreedomofInformationAct
GAO GovernmentAccountabilityOffice
GCHQ GovernmentCommunicationsHeadquarters
7HEW DepartmentofHealth,EducationandWelfare
HSE Health&SafetyExecutive
ISOO InformationSecurityOversightOffice
MOD MinistryofDefence
NA NationalArchives
NARA NationalArchivesandRecordsAdministration
OGC OfficeofGovernmentCommerce
OIP OfficeofInformationandPrivacy
OPI Officeofprimaryinterest
OPM OfficeofPersonnelManagement
PCO PrivyCouncilOffice
PRAD PublicRightsAdministrationDivision
RDIMS RecordsDocumentInformationManagementSystem
RM RecordsManagement
SEC SecuritiesandExchangeCommission
SSA SocialSecurityAdministration
UK UnitedKingdom
USA UnitedStatesofAmerica
3
List of Figures
TABLE1 KEYLEGISLATIVEISSUESBYCOUNTRY...................................................................................11
TABLE2 COMMONEXEMPTIONS............................................................................................................23
TABLE3 CLASSBASEDEXEMPTIONS.....................................................................................................24
TABLE4 PUBLICINTERESTOVERRIDE....................................................................................................25
FIGURE1 EXEMPTIONSUSED,CANADA2005..........................................................................................28
FIGURE2 EXEMPTIONSUSED,UNITEDKINGDOM2005...........................................................................28
TABLE5 GOVERNMENT‘VETO’.............................................................................................................28
TABLE6 NUMBEROFINFORMATIONREQUESTSBYCOUNTRY................................................................35
FIGURE3 PERCENTAGECHANGEINNUMBEROFREQUESTSSINCE1997..................................................36
TABLE7 TENDEPARTMENTSRECEIVINGTHEMOSTINFORMATIONREQUESTS,PERCOUNTRY(2005)....37
TABLE8 SOURCESOFREQUESTS,CANADA,2005..................................................................................38
TABLE9 PROPORTIONOFINFORMATIONDISCLOSEDANDWITHHELD2005............................................39
TABLE10 BACKLOGS..............................................................................................................................39
TABLE11 STORIESINUKNEWSPAPERSUSINGFOI,2005.......................................................................41
TABLE12 TYPESOFINFORMATIONUSEDINSTORIESINUKNEWSPAPERSUSINGFOI,2005...................42
TABLE13 PUBLICAUTHORITIESRECEIVINGFOIREQUESTSFORNEWSPAPERARTICLES..........................43
TABLE14 ‘TOPTEN’GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTSRECEIVINGFOIREQUESTSFORINFORMATION
FEATUREDINNEWSPAPERARTICLES........................................................................................43
FIGURE4 GENERICFOIPROCESSINTHEUSA........................................................................................61
FIGURE5 FOIREQUESTRESPONSEPROCESSINTHEUK(MINISTRYOFDEFENCE)..................................63
FIGURE6 EXAMPLEOFANATIPROCESSINCANADA.............................................................................64
TABLE15 REPORTCARDCOMPLIANCECRITERIA.....................................................................................65
TABLE16 GRADINGOFCICANDDFAITFROM1998TO2005(APRIL1TONOVEMBER30)...................66
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUTUS....................................................................................................................................................2
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................3
LISTOFFIGURES......................................................................................................................................4
TABLEOFCONTENTS.............................................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..........................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................8
1. GOVERNANCEANDMANAGEMENTOFTHELEGISLATION...........................................10
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................10
KEYISSUES...............................................................................................................................................19
CASESTUDY–THEORIGINSOFTHEUKFOIACT.....................................................................................19
2. ELEMENTSRESERVEDFROMCOVERAGE&PROTECTEDBYTHELEGISLATION.22
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................22
KEYQUESTIONS........................................................................................................................................22
EXCLUSIONS&EXEMPTIONS....................................................................................................................22
WHOCANMAKEREQUESTS,ANDFORWHAT?...........................................................................................22
EXEMPTIONSTRUCTURE,COMMONEXEMPTIONS......................................................................................23
Publicinterestandharmtests .............................................................................................................25
Notabledifferencesinexemptionsandexclusions...............................................................................26
ENFORCEMENT.........................................................................................................................................27
Whatarethemostcommonlycitedexemptions? ................................................................................27
GOVERNMENT‘VETO’...............................................................................................................................28
CASESTUDY–THE‘NATIONALSECURITY’EXEMPTIONINTHEUSFOIAANDCHANGESSINCE9/11........30
3. USAGEANDSTATISTICS .............................................................................................................34
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................34
KEYQUESTIONS........................................................................................................................................34
USAGEOFFREEDOMOFINFORMATIONLAWS............................................................................................34
Levelsofusage.....................................................................................................................................34
Trendsovertime..................................................................................................................................35
Requestsbyindividualdepartments.....................................................................................................36
Requesters............................................................................................................................................38
Typesofinformationrequested............................................................................................................38
PERFORMANCEISSUES..............................................................................................................................39
Informationreleasedandwithheld......................................................................................................39
Backlogsanddelays............................................................................................................................39
CASESTUDY.............................................................................................................................................41
Introduction– Media’suseofFOIintheUK,2005............................................................................41
1.Howmanyrequestsandbywhom?..............................................................................................................41
2.Requestersandtheirreasonsforseekinginformation..................................................................................42
3.Typesofinformation....................................................................................................................................42
4.Mostrequestedauthorities............................................................................................................................43
5.ProminenceofFOIarticles...........................................................................................................................44
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................44
4. PRACTICALISSUESFORAUTHORITIES ................................................................................45
5
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................45
KEYISSUES...............................................................................................................................................45
LOGISTICALCOMPLEXITIESOFTHEREQUESTPROCESS.............................................................................45
COSTOFCOMPLIANCE..............................................................................................................................49
TIMESPENTONPROCESSING.....................................................................................................................50
DEALINGWITHBACKLOGS........................................................................................................................52
DEALINGWITHEXEMPTIONS.....................................................................................................................53
THEWAYAUTHORITIESCLASSIFYANDDEALWITH‘VEXATIOUS’REQUESTSANDREQUESTERS................54
TRAININGANDAWARENESSWITHINPUBLICSERVICE...............................................................................56
SUPPORTFROMSENIORMANAGEMENT.....................................................................................................57
SENIORITYOFFOIOFFICER’SPOSITIONINTHEOFFICE.............................................................................58
CULTUREOFOFFICE–MANAGEMENTOFCHANGE....................................................................................59
RECORDKEEPINGASPARTOFTHEJOB......................................................................................................59
CASESTUDY.........................................................................................................................................65
Reportcardbackground......................................................................................................................65
Departmentalbackground...................................................................................................................66
Contributingfactors.............................................................................................................................67
PoorATIPcompliance(1998/1999)....................................................................................................67
1.1.Responseprocess:natureofthefilesrequested.........................................................................................67
1.2.Responseprocess:numberanddistributionofactorsinvolved.................................................................67
1.3Responseprocess:useoftechnology..........................................................................................................68
1.4.Responseprocess:typeoftrackingsystem................................................................................................68
2.Seniormanagement .........................................................................................................................68
3.Stafftrainingandawareness...........................................................................................................68
ImprovedATIPcompliance(2002)......................................................................................................69
1.1Responseprocess:natureofrequests..........................................................................................................69
1.2.Responseprocess:numberanddistributionofactorsinvolved.................................................................69
1.3Responseprocess:useoftechnology..........................................................................................................70
2.Seniormanagement .........................................................................................................................70
3.Stafftrainingandawareness...........................................................................................................70
DecreasingATIPcompliance(2003-5)...............................................................................................71
1.1Responseprocess:natureofrequests..........................................................................................................71
1.2.Responseprocess:numberanddistributionofactorsinvolved.................................................................71
1.3Responseprocess:useoftechnology..........................................................................................................71
1.4.Responseprocess:typeoftrackingsystem................................................................................................72
2.Seniormanagement .........................................................................................................................72
3.Stafftrainingandawareness...........................................................................................................72
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................73
5.FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONLEGISLATIONANDTHEROLEOFTHERECORDS
MANAGER.................................................................................................................................................74
POINTSFORRECORDSMANAGERS.............................................................................................................74
FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONASANOPPORTUNITYTODEVELOPBETTERRECORDSMANAGEMENT.............75
CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................................77
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Freedomofinformation(FOI)lawsarebecomingmoreandmorecommonworldwide.Fromnine
suchlaws20yearsagoto66in2006,thelegislationisoftentoutedbysupportersandcampaignersas
awindowintogovernment,andbylegislatingadministrationsasproofoftheircommitmentto
transparencyandaccountability.Howitworksinpractice,however,isoftenfarfromtheidealvision
eithergroupholdspriortoimplementation.Thispaperexploresfreedomofinformationinpractice
inCanada,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates,threecountriesthatlegislatedatthreedistinct
periodsofFOI’sevolution.
Theresearchundertakentocompletethispaperconsistedmainlyofsecondarysourcereviewand
analysis.Governmentreportsandotherliterature,newspaperandacademicarticles,websitesandthe
piecesoflegislationthemselveswereconsultedandexamined.Everyattempttolocatethemost
currentinformationwasmade.Onecasestudyisbasedonthepreliminaryfindingsfromoriginal
researchthatiscurrentlybeingcarriedoutbyresearchersattheConstitutionUnit.
Thepaperconsistsoffourdistinctbutrelatedtopicsthat,together,formacomprehensiveviewof
thelegislationineachcountry: governanceandmanagementofthelegislation;elementsreserved
fromcoverageandprotectedbythelegislation;usageandstatistics;andpracticalissuesfor
authorities. Thetopicsfollowoneanotherinanorderthatallowsthereadertobuildhis/her
knowledgeofthelawsinalogicalfashion.Inadditiontofactualinformationandanalysis,eachtopic
includesacasestudytohighlightaspecificissuewithintheoveralltopicscope.Belowarethemain
findings:
 Inpractice,freedomofinformation(FOI)worksdifferentlytotheidealvisionofhowitshould
work.
 ThecostsandbenefitsofFOIareunclear;furtherresearchisrequiredtoassesseach.
 MonitoringFOIformsanimportantcomponentinanysuccessful implementation;however,
monitoringrequirementsandstandards varyconsiderablyacross theUSA,Canada,andtheUK.
 Thereisacoresetofexemptionscommonto almostallFOIlaws,whichincludesthoserelating
tonationaldefense,internationalrelations,personalinformation,legalproceedingsandpolicy
advice.
 SomeFOIregimes,mostnotablytheUK’s(whichentailsa‘governmentveto’thatenablesitto
withholdinformation),illustrateacertaindegreeofreluctanceto movetogenuinely‘open
government’.
 Theproportionofacountry’spopulationthatuseFOIisverysmall.CitizensintheUnited
StatesaremoreactiveusersofFOIthancitizensintheUnitedKingdomorCanada. Despite
whatonemightthink,mostjournalistsdonotusetheAct; howacoregroupofreportersand
editorsdousethelegislation; oftentogreateffect.
 Privateindividuals(i.e.‘membersofthepublic’),businessesandthemediaarethemostfrequent
usersofFOI.
 ThereareveryfewFOI‘horrorstories’;thereleaseofinformationhasrarelyimpactednegatively
onthepublicinterest.
 Thenewsecurityenvironmenthashadamarkedimpactonfreedomofinformation,especially in
theUnitedStateswhereseveralmeasureshavebeenintroduced to restrictaccesstoinformation.
 Inspiteofdrawbacksandproblemsencounteredineachjurisdiction,moreinformationisbeing
releasedintothepublicdomainandtherearesignsthatFOIlegislationhelpscreateagreater
cultureofopennessingovernment.
 RecordsmanagementisattheheartofsuccessfulimplementationofFOIlegislation;essentially,
iftheinformationcannotbeefficientlylocateditisunlikelytobereleased.
7
INTRODUCTION
Ifdemocracycannotfunctionwithoutinformedcitizens,neithercanitfunctionwithoutfreedomof
informationorrecordsmanagement.1Asmoreandmorecountriesimplementfreedomof
informationlawsintheir questtoprovetheir‘transparency’,‘accountability’anda‘cultureof
openness’,theareaofrecordsmanagementiswheretheirattemptswillstandorfall,andwhereitwill
becomeclearifFOIisagenuineattempttoimprovedemocracyortomerelypaylipserviceto
citizens’demands.
Ontheonehand,FOIlawsareonlyasgoodasthesystemsthatunderpinthem.Staff-information
andrecordsmanagers,ITspecialists,legaladvisors,communicationsofficers,theirseniormanagers
andministers- havetolearntodealwiththedemandsofcomplianceandanewdecisionmaking
process.Procedures- forthecreation,management,disposalandarchivingofdocumentsand
records-are keytotheirsuccess.Ifagovernmentemployeecannotfindinformationwhenaskedfor
it,he/shecannotevaluateit,makethedecisiononwhethertoreleaseit,makenecessaryredactions,
andrelayittotherequesterwithinthelegislation’sstatutorytimelimit.Withoutgoodrecords
managementFOIsimplydoesnotwork.
Ontheotherhand,FOImayalsobeaforceforchange.Freedomofinformationrightshavebeena
majordrivingforceinenablingthedevelopmentofelectronicdocumentsandrecordsmanagement
systems(EDRMS)andsustainablesolutionsforthelong-termstorageandpreservationofdigital
records.EDRMShasthecapacitytotransformtheaccessibilityofinformationathighspeedand
withincreasedaccuracy,relativeeaseofoperationandabilitytoenableonlinetransmissionof
information.
Yetfreedomofinformation,inparticularitsintersectionwithrecordsmanagement,isanunder-
researchedfield.Theneedforstudyiscompoundedbytheacceleratedinternationalizationofthe
legislation–overhalftheFOIlawscurrentlyinforcewereintroducedinthelasttenyears.2This
internationaltrendcanbeunderstoodinthree‘waves’oflegislationsincethefirstactwaspassedby
Swedenin1766.3Thefirstwave issaidtohavebegun200yearslater whenin1966theUSApassed
theFreedomofInformationActandcontinuedthroughoutthe1970s,whenseveralEuropeancountries
(Denmark,Norway,FranceandtheNetherlands)legislated.Inthe1980sthesecondwave,which
providedmotivationsandexamplesformany ‘thirdwave’laws,hit.Thesecondwaveincluded
Australia’sFreedomofInformationAct,NewZealand’sOfficialInformationAct andCanada’sAccessto
InformationAct,allimplementedin1982or1983.Betweenthelate1980sand2006thethirdwavehit
asdozensofstates’newlypassedlawscreatedafloodof‘opengovernment’.Twenty-eightofthe30
OECDstatesnowhavesomeformofFOIlegislation,mostwithexemptionsprotectingpersonal
information.Around20otherstatesareknowntobeconsideringtheintroductionofFOIlegislation.
ThisseriesofrecentnewcomerstoFOIincludestheUK,whoseFreedomofInformationAct2000was
1Theterm‘accesstoinformation’isoftenusedinterchangeablywith‘freedomofinformation’.InCanadathe
term‘accesstoinformation’isusuallyusedbecausetheCanadianactiscalledtheAccesstoInformation
Act;however,inthispaperweusetheterm‘freedomofinformation’orFOI(thecommonlyused
abbreviation)asagenerictermfortheconceptofpublicaccesstogovernmentinformation.
2Seeforinstance,Banisar,D.FreedomofInformationAroundtheWorld2006:AGlobalSurveyofAccess
toGovernmentRecordsLaws.2006,p.6
http://www.privacyinternational.org/foi/foisurvey2006.pdf.
3ADutchlegalconsultant,RogerVleugels,hasproducedasurveyofcurrentandproposedfreedomof
informationregimes,publishedinFebruary2006,anditisfromthislistthatthesedetailshavebeentaken.
See:OverviewofFOIAcountriesworldwide.
http://www.foiadvocates.net/files/foia_list.pdf
8
fullyimplementedinJanuary2005.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,weconcentrateononecountry
fromeachFOI‘wave’–theUnitedStatesofAmerica,Canada,andtheUnitedKingdom.
WhatdoweneedtoaskaboutFOIandrecordsmanagementinthesethreecountries?Foursetsof
questionsemerge.First,hastherebeen adevelopmentinFOIlegislationandpracticeaslessonsare
learned,ordocunningbureaucratslearnmoresophisticatedavoidancetechniquesandreducethe
scopeoftheact?Anin-depthcomparisonoflegislationshedslightonthisquestion.
Second,towhatextentisthepowerofthelegislationlimited?Thisquestioncanbeansweredbya
comparativeanalysisoftheexemptionssetoutinthethreepiecesoflegislation.Somesecrecyis
necessaryforpublicsecuritybuthowmuch?Practitionersalsohavetograpplewiththepublic
interesttest.Isthepublicservedbydisclosingorwithholdingacertainpieceofinformation?How
doesonejudge?Howvolatileisthebalancebetweensecrecyandfreedomofinformation?How
muchinfluencedowidersocialandpoliticalforceshave?
Third,howandbywhomisthelegislation used?Itisnotpossibletofullyunderstandtheactwithout
knowingtheextenttowhichthepublicareusingitandhowauthoritiesareperformingintermsof
compliance.Statisticsandotherdatafrommonitoringreportshelpclarifytheseissues.
Fourthandlast,howsincereisthegovernment’scommitmenttoFOI?Andtowhatextentdo
disclosureandrecordsmanagementprocedurescontributetothesuccessorfailureofthelegislation?
Ananalysisofcomplianceprocedures,practicalities,andprocesses,alongwithadiscussionofthe
implicationsforrecordsmanagers,completesthepaper.
Toaddressthesequestionsandrelatedissues,thispaperisstructuredaroundthefollowingfour
topics:
 Governanceandmanagementofthelegislation
 Elementsreservedfromcoverageandprotectedbythelegislation
 Usageandstatistics
 Practicalissuesforpublicauthorities
Eachsectioncontainsacomparisonoftheissuesacrossthethreecountriesandanisolatedcase
studyencapsulatingthebroaderissues.Afinalsectionofthereportwilldrawouttheoverarching
issuesandconclusions,withparticularreferencetothewaysinwhichfreedomofinformationaffects
theworkoftherecordsmanager.
9
1. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
LEGISLATION
Introduction
Freedomofinformationlegislationworksbyconferringtothegeneralpublictherighttoaskforand
receiveinformationthatpublicbodieshold.Thelegislationqualifiesthatrightbydefiningaseriesof
issuesforwhichtherightisnotvalid.Theseareusuallycalled‘exemptions’.Exemptionsarethekey
sectionofanyFOIlegislationbecausetheirbreadthanddepth determinehowmuchinformationis
actuallydisclosed.Thereareadditionalprovisionsbearingonthe useoftheexemptionsthat can
workeitherfororagainstdisclosure.Thus,forexample,theUKFOIAhasaseparatepublicinterest
testthat bearsonthemajorityoftheexemptionsandrequiresseparateconsideration.Itisa
subjectiveconceptandcannotbesaidtofavoreitherdisclosureorwithholdinganditislargelya
questionofhowitisusedbythoseresponsibleformakingthedecision.Farlessbalancedarethe
provisionsundersomeacts–includingtheUKandCanada–wherebygovernmentministersareable
tooverridenormalworkingsandcertifynon-disclosureevenaftertheCommissioner,orwhoeveris
responsiblefortakingthedecision,hasdeclaredbeinginfavorofdisclosure. Theseprovisionsare
notwidelyused,however.Theuseofexemptionsisaddressedseparatelyinsection2startingon
p.22.
Thereareotherimportantissuesaboutthewayinformation accesslegislationisstructuredandhow
itsworkingsareprovidedforinlawandrelatedguidance– asopposedtohowtheydevelopand
operateinpractice,whichisusuallyadifferentstory.Thissectionexplorestheseissuesbyaddressing
thefollowingquestions:
 Howwidelydoesthelegislationapply?Doesitcoverthelocalaswellasthecentraltiersof
government?Doesitextendtohealthandeducationbodies,lawenforcement,mechanisms(such
asParliament)oftheadministrationitself?
 Whocanmakerequests–anyoneintheworld?Citizensofthestateonly?
 Howisthelawenforced?Howstronglydoesthelanguageofthe legislationencourage
disclosure?
 Whatguidancedoesgovernmentprovideonhowaccessistobemanagedandbywhom?
 Doesthelawspecifyquicktimelimitsfordealingwithaccessrequestsanddoesthegovernment
keeptothelimits?
 Istherightofaccessfreeofchargeordorequestershavetopay?
 Istherearightofappealandisthere someonewithindependentpowersofaction,suchasan
InformationCommissioner,answerabledirectlytotheparliamentary/legislativebody?
Theanswerstothesequestionsaresetout inacomparativetable(Table1),whichbreaksdownthe
detailsoftheFOIregimesintheUS,CanadaandtheUK.
10