Access to information can only work if information is managed. In FIPA’s view we all lose when public bodies can’t manage their information to make data-driven decisions and provide access to information.
FIPA’s Access Assessment is going through a top to bottom rewrite and restructure in preparation for the upcoming release of a full report from Spencer Izen.
We’re proud to have created the space to initiate, develop and sustain this activity over the past two years within our program areas and mandate. With the finish line in sight, it is important to highlight the work that has been done and the impact that it has already begun to create.
How we got here.
FIPA has a long history of research and advocacy on freedom of information, dating back to before the passage of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 1992, when we published Information Rights for British Columbia. Given the current erosion of trust in public institutions and the intersection of trust and transparency we wanted to identify current problems and solutions.
In 2022 we recognized that FIPA needed to become an active requestor rather than observer to gain better insight into the administration of FOI in practice. We started with the premise of getting meta with FOI and built a structure. That led us to begin filing formal and informal requests with the lofty ambition of An FOI a Day. Some insights were immediate. Ongoing activities involved asking regulators how they would conduct an access regime evaluation. Each action contributed greater insight and build a foundation.
With that groundwork complete at the end of 2023, Izen focused on the main question.
How do access regimes mediate rights to access government records under the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Information Management Act?
To answer this we needed to understand:
How is the implementation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Information Management Act coordinated in the public bodies under study?
How are the practices of personnel performing their duties under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Information Management Act coordinated in the access regimes under study?
Where we are.
The central activity to answer the questions required, 66 public bodies — the complete population of core government and boarder public sector organizations — to each receive five FOI requests targeting specific governance-related records.
These requests underwent minor refinement and were spaced out over the last 9 months to ensure they were manageable. For the recipients, it meant responding with about 28 types of records. For Izen, it means managing a possible 1,848 units of observation.
With all requests out, responses are still coming in and we are transitioning to the analysis phase. The full report is due out by the end of the year and the complete release packages will be available with the final report.
In the interim, we continue to make new observations daily. What we’ve noticed so far is:
Some organizations are encouragingly well-organized, others are disappointingly disorganized.
Few organizations are “walking the talk” and meeting the legislative requirements.
Undertaking a “trust but verify” activity to assess information management and access to information can change practices in real time. Some organizations have thanked us for creating the external influence that enables them to internally improve information management by highlighting the gaps.
The research is setting the stage for a re-implementation of freedom of information. That implementation centers on a more collaborative, non-polarizing understanding of government transparency. It is meant to support recordkeeping for social justice and efficient and effective public governance in the public interest.
