Tag Archive for Disclosure Log

Disclosure Logs

FOI Man explains why he’s a convert to Disclosure Logs

One of the suggestions in my evidence to the Justice Select Committee is that consideration be given to making disclosure logs mandatory for large public sector bodies. It seems sensible to me that if responding to an FOI request is de facto disclosure to the world at large then why don’t we do just that?

I’m not alone – I know that others suggested it too. But why do I think it is such a good idea?

Towards the end of last year I implemented a disclosure log at my own organisation. Most responses are published there. My experience so far has been very positive. I’ve been able to refer several requesters to the information already published, saving my time and allowing a prompt response. Referral to the answers in the disclosure log is much more common than referral to information published through our publication scheme.

The publication scheme, I think, is just too blunt a tool to answer most requests. Most requesters want to drill down further than the published information, which tends to be at a high level. They want to know things that aren’t routinely published.

But having said that, I’ve noticed that in the case of my current organisation at least, many subjects do come up time and time again in requests. So responses published through the disclosure log are actually useful, both to me and to prospective requesters.

So based on my own experience so far, I’d definitely encourage fellow FOI Officers to consider introducing a disclosure log if they haven’t already. Interestingly, when the Protection of Freedoms Bill becomes law, we’ll all be required in effect to maintain a disclosure log for datasets (section 102(4) amends the FOI Act to the effect that publication schemes must include datasets disclosed under the Act), so maybe that will prompt more public bodies to maintain logs for all disclosures.

FOI, Datasets and the Protection of Freedoms Bill

A little while ago, Ibrahim Hasan of Act Now Training kindly asked me to write a piece for their Information Law Newsletter. It appears in the latest issue which has been published today.

In summary, I talk about the proposed amendments to the UK Freedom of Information Act in the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The piece covers what datasets are (also covered in more depth by Ibrahim in another piece elsewhere in the Newsletter), what practical steps we should be taking, and finally calls for FOI Officers to get more involved in open data projects in their organisations.

There are also pieces in the Newsletter from Emily Goodhand, better known as @CopyrightGirl on Twitter, who wrote a couple of great guest posts here and here a few months ago, and Jonathan Baines, an Information Rights Specialist at Buckinghamshire County Council, who writes about the Environmental Information Regulations.

Open Data – Just Do It?

Central Government has established a datastore for Open Data. But if you’re outside of Central Government, how do you react to calls for more online data? And what is the role of FOI Officers in getting them established? Southampton University’s new datastore may give us some clues.

This week Southampton University launched data.southampton.ac.uk, its open data repository. It is perhaps unsurprising that Southampton should take the lead in the Higher Education sector in this way. Two of its academic staff, Professors Nigel Shadbolt and Sir Tim Berners-Lee (yes, that one), sit on the Government’s Transparency Board and are heavily involved in the data.gov.uk site.

However, this is the lowest tier of the public sector at which I’ve seen this done. The Greater London Authority (GLA) in London has a Datastore, but the GLA has always been a strange beast – a weird hybrid between local government and central government with more flexibility than most public sector bodies. There may well be others doing great things, but I’m not aware of them. The fact that a higher education institution could do this set me thinking. Was this something I should be doing?

I’ve been hearing great things about the power of open data, but it all seems rather distant from me. The language used can be off-putting at times. All this XML, ODF, even the term ‘Repository’ suggests to me something difficult, technical and, most of all, expensive.

A journalist asked me last week if FOI Officers were involved in Open Data initiatives in the public sector. Being honest (like Superman, FOI Man never lies), I explained that from what I had gathered, where open data initiatives were in place (basically Government and the GLA) the two things seemed to be dealt with separately. FOI Officers were busy dealing with FOI requests and required specific knowledge of the application of legislation. Open Data projects tend to be run by techie-types, statisticians and economists. And it rankled with me that I was being left out of this important stage of the openness agenda.

Why shouldn’t we be involved in these projects? Through answering FOI requests we’ve built up a vast knowledge of the information held in our organisations and how feasible it is to extract and make public. Those of us who are records managers as well have an even deeper knowledge of our organisations’ information resources. Some of us even maintain Information Asset Registers so have already identified all the key datasets in our organisations. No, scratch that. Not only should we be involved, we should be initiating and leading on these projects.

A ‘repository’ is no more than the place where the files are put; it doesn’t have to be something new – unless and until the volume of material is massive, it can just be saved to our Content Management System (CMS) and published to the website that way. The format we publish in is probably less important than just getting it out there, but I have a hunch that the Excel spreadsheets we often send out when asked for data under FOI would be sufficient for most people who wanted to re-use our data. Once we start publishing this data routinely, we’ll presumably get feedback which will tell us which formats we should make data available in in future.

The biggest obstacle is perhaps the legal side of things. Here too though, things are simpler than they were. The National Archives’ new Open Government Licence provides a straightforward way to licence re-use of our data. Assuming the Protection of Freedoms Bill is passed, it will become mandatory for public bodies to adopt such a licence, so why not get ahead of the game?

But surely FOI Officers are there to deal with the requests that come in under the general right of access? Well, we’re also supposed to be maintaining Publication Schemes, pointing to the information our organisations make available pro-actively. And we’ve come under increasing pressure to create and keep up-to-date disclosure logs of the responses we’ve made to FOI requests. The Publication Scheme and Disclosure Log could well be used to structure our datastores.

I may be being terribly naive here, but it seems to me that establishing institutional online datastores outside central government is simpler than we may think. And that FOI Officers ought to be leading the way on them. We already have the tools and the justification for doing these things. Much of it won’t even need additional approval (which if you read We Love Local Government’s amusing, if depressingly familiar, post on Friday, you may appreciate).

I’d love to hear from anyone who has been involved in establishing an Open Data store for their organisation, or has expertise in this area. Am I over-simplifying this? Or perhaps I’m being slow on the uptake (not the most unlikely thing in the world) and everybody else is already well aware how to go about this? Whichever, do please comment on this post – I’m particularly interested to hear your views on Open Data and what we should be doing to make it a reality.

The Freedom Bill – some initial thoughts

This morning the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-11 was published. This is, rather unsurprisingly, not the same as the Bill proposed by the Liberal Democrats in 2009. There’s no end to the Ministerial veto for a start. (Interestingly, the Freedom Bill website has disappeared, so we’re left with this summary from the Campaign for FOI blog.)

Early days, but I’ve already posted some observations on the FOI amendments included in the Bill on Twitter, so for your convenience, here they are in one place:

  • Information Commissioner weakened, in my view, by one term limit
  • ‘Dataset’ provisions seem very wordy way of saying what s.11 said already – this is what Francis Maude promised way back in October. It’s supposed to force authorities to disclose requested ‘datasets’ in the electronic form stipulated by the requester. Whatever your views on this, the Bill seems a bit wishy-washy on this subject, and in fact doesn’t seem to require much more than is already stipulated by s.11 of the FOI Act (ie public authorities have to comply with wishes of requester “so far as reasonably practicable”)
  • copyright changes look interesting, but why just ‘datasets’? – the one aspect of the ‘dataset’ changes that looks potentially useful is the requirement to allow re-use of disclosed datasets in line with a licence which will be stipulated under the s.45 Code of Practice . This has the potential to clear up the issue that @copyrightgirl commented on in her posts here and here on the blog in recent weeks. But why restrict this to ‘datasets’? If they made provision for re-use of all disclosures, it would resolve the tension between FOI and copyright law for good, especially in relation to things like WhatDoTheyKnow.
  • Publication Schemes – req to publish datasets disclosed. Why not all disclosed info? There are some interesting proposals in terms of Publication Schemes, but again they focus on ‘datasets’. Basically it appears to be introducing mandatory disclosure logs but only for disclosed datasets. Why not make it mandatory to publish all disclosed data? Would help FOI Officers who have been battling for years to get Disclosure Logs past IT managers and web masters who think they upset their nice web design.
  • Gets rid of loophole for companies set up by 2 or more public authorities – good.
  • Martin Rosenbaum of the BBC has commented that he thinks the Bill introduces more freedom for the Information Commissioner in procedural matters – not sure I got that, but may well be true.

So overall, nothing really to write home about. Except I have. One to keep an eye on I think.

What Do I Know? A Postscript

Well, this blog has come of age this week. The Campaign for FOI described my last post as “Interesting and provocative”. And it certainly has provoked more comment than anything I’ve previously written.

Before addressing the most controversial issue raised in the comments, I just want to highlight some great advice that WhatDoTheyKnow have given to FOI Officers if they want to follow my suggestion and encourage their requesters to submit requests through WDTK (to facilitate its use as a Disclosure Log):

  • The simplest method is to link to the WDTK site – you can link directly to the part of the site for your organisation – WDTK have no problem with you doing this and you don’t have to let them know you are doing it
  • I would suggest that if you’re going to do this effectively, you should at the very least provide instructions on your website to potential requesters explaining how they can make their request through WDTK alongside your direct contact details; it’s up to you how far you promote this as a method of making requests (ie is it your preferred method or just one of several?)
  • Alex from WDTK has suggested that “If an authority wants to go a bit further, e.g. by having all their requests on the site or wanting a branded request service, then they should talk to us in the first instance to discuss their requirements.”

So there you go, those are your options if you want to try this out.

The most controversial of the points I raised related to the suggestion that WDTK advised requesters on how to avoid providing their name when making requests. I’ve got to say that at this stage I’m unapologetic about this point (though if I’m persuaded otherwise I may post on this topic again). My reasons for this are:

  • It’s there in black and white at section 8 – a request is only valid if it “states the name of the applicant”; the Information Commissioner also takes this view and explains why in his guidance (CFOI disagree with the Commissioner on his view)
  • There’s good reason – much as you as a requester may not like it (especially if you are on the fringes of acceptability when it comes to your dealings with the authority), if we don’t have a name, it is difficult to identify requesters that are making repeat or vexatious requests, or to apply the fees regulations where costs could be aggregated
  • It costs money to answer requests; arguably we should not be spending this money on requests that are not valid, or can be refused for other reasons. We have a duty not just to those who use FOI but also to other taxpayers.

To me, it always comes back to the Act itself. Someone commented that ‘vexatious’ is “redundant and subjective”. It’s not. A vexatious request is defined in the Act and in numerous ICO and Tribunal decisions now. The ICO’s guidance is clear on when it can be applied. We are not talking about vague concepts here, but about specific behaviour which goes beyond what public officials should be expected to put up with. In 6 years, I’ve only used section 14 once, and this was for an individual who had written well over 100 times (not all FOIs) in a year, and had made threats of physical violence to a politician at the authority. But to apply it depends on being able to demonstrate who is making the requests in the first place.

I completely accept that some people might have a reason for remaining anonymous (CFOI cited an example where someone lost their job as a result of making a request). And ultimately, who’s going to know if you do use a (subtle) pseudonym? But I stick by my view that in general, if you’re making a request you should follow the rules just as you expect a public authority to do.

In passing, I should recommend a blog posting from a barrister on WDTK’s liability if they publish documents containing libellous material. This wasn’t an issue discussed in my post, but is certainly of interest.

Thanks for your continued support – nearly 1400 of you have read the blog at some point in the last 6 weeks, and whether I agree with you or not, its also great to receive your comments. Do continue to spread the word – if you have access to other forums or blogs, please do mention this blog if they touch on subjects I’ve discussed. More next week.