BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
Your Data Your Rights
B.C.’s ‘Open Government’ not so open
A new report from Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham reviewing the performance of the Government of British Columbia’s ‘open government’ initiative calls the open information component “the weakest component of the policy”.
This is a large initiative, covering a number of different areas, and so the results do vary. But the overall, they are not encouraging.
As part of the initiative, in 2011, the B.C. government made extensive amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). One of those amendments requires ministries to identify records that could be released without a Freedom of Information request. In a stunning discovery, Denham reports that even 18 months after the amendment, the government has identified precisely zero such documents. Denham pointed out that this new disclosure practice is not a matter of choice, but a legal obligation, and that currently no ministries are in compliance with the law.
In terms of the proactive release of information, Denham found that little has been done, and what information has been made available still pales in comparison to what other jurisdictions have been able to release. In particular, when it comes to government contracts, Denham found the government is only releasing information on those contracts already released as a result of a FOI request. She repeated the argument she made in her May 2011 report, that contracts (and audits) should be made available on the Web. She also recommended that anything listed under section 13(2) of FIPPA (records which are NOT policy advice) should also be posted proactively by the government.
The report also contains an extended response to FIPA’s complaint that the government is failing to post large numbers of completed and released FOI requests. Denham found this to indeed be the case, but also that the largest number of these requests were for calendars of ministers and government officials. Denham urged that these be released proactively, rather than requiring citizens to get them through FOI. The government claimed it had security concerns about releasing this information, but Denham pointed out the greater transparency of UK and US cabinet ministers, and noted that their security concerns are at least as great as those serving in the BC cabinet. She said her office would continue to monitor the situation.
She also found that the government was hiding behind copyright law in failing to post FOI requests, claiming that the release of materials produced by others (such as a newspaper article) would open them up to possible legal action for violating copyright. Denham squarely rejected this argument, citing sections of the Copyright Act which allow for release under FOI legislation.
As for Open Data, Denham agreed that large numbers of datasets were being released by the government, but that the information being released provided “…basic information about the province or [to] spur innovation, rather than increasing government transparency and accountability.”
Denham also asked the government to work to increase data literacy and reduce barriers to participation. This would allow ordinary citizens who don’t have the necessary skills to make sense of the datasets currently available to benefit from the information being released.
Finally, Denham noted the “critical situation” regarding archiving and managing government information, calling for immediate action to modernize the laws governing this area. She noted that since the introduction of a ‘fee for service’ model for the archiving of government records, ministries have not transferred any permanent records to the B.C. Archives. That is a decade worth of government records.
Taken as a whole, Commissioner Denham’s report shows a government that is happy to release bland, brochure-type information, but digs in its heels over anything else. Combine that with the elimination of the Cabinet committee on Open Government and the removal of ‘Open Government’ from the name of the ministry of Citizens’ Services, and it does not bode well for Denham’s recommendations to be implemented anytime soon.
Categories
Access to Information
Tags
A new report from Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham reviewing the performance of the Government of British Columbia’s ‘open government’ initiative calls the open information component “the weakest component of the policy”.
This is a large initiative, covering a number of different areas, and so the results do vary. But the overall, they are not encouraging.
As part of the initiative, in 2011, the B.C. government made extensive amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). One of those amendments requires ministries to identify records that could be released without a Freedom of Information request. In a stunning discovery, Denham reports that even 18 months after the amendment, the government has identified precisely zero such documents. Denham pointed out that this new disclosure practice is not a matter of choice, but a legal obligation, and that currently no ministries are in compliance with the law.
In terms of the proactive release of information, Denham found that little has been done, and what information has been made available still pales in comparison to what other jurisdictions have been able to release. In particular, when it comes to government contracts, Denham found the government is only releasing information on those contracts already released as a result of a FOI request. She repeated the argument she made in her May 2011 report, that contracts (and audits) should be made available on the Web. She also recommended that anything listed under section 13(2) of FIPPA (records which are NOT policy advice) should also be posted proactively by the government.
The report also contains an extended response to FIPA’s complaint that the government is failing to post large numbers of completed and released FOI requests. Denham found this to indeed be the case, but also that the largest number of these requests were for calendars of ministers and government officials. Denham urged that these be released proactively, rather than requiring citizens to get them through FOI. The government claimed it had security concerns about releasing this information, but Denham pointed out the greater transparency of UK and US cabinet ministers, and noted that their security concerns are at least as great as those serving in the BC cabinet. She said her office would continue to monitor the situation.
She also found that the government was hiding behind copyright law in failing to post FOI requests, claiming that the release of materials produced by others (such as a newspaper article) would open them up to possible legal action for violating copyright. Denham squarely rejected this argument, citing sections of the Copyright Act which allow for release under FOI legislation.
As for Open Data, Denham agreed that large numbers of datasets were being released by the government, but that the information being released provided “…basic information about the province or [to] spur innovation, rather than increasing government transparency and accountability.”
Denham also asked the government to work to increase data literacy and reduce barriers to participation. This would allow ordinary citizens who don’t have the necessary skills to make sense of the datasets currently available to benefit from the information being released.
Finally, Denham noted the “critical situation” regarding archiving and managing government information, calling for immediate action to modernize the laws governing this area. She noted that since the introduction of a ‘fee for service’ model for the archiving of government records, ministries have not transferred any permanent records to the B.C. Archives. That is a decade worth of government records.
Taken as a whole, Commissioner Denham’s report shows a government that is happy to release bland, brochure-type information, but digs in its heels over anything else. Combine that with the elimination of the Cabinet committee on Open Government and the removal of ‘Open Government’ from the name of the ministry of Citizens’ Services, and it does not bode well for Denham’s recommendations to be implemented anytime soon.
Categories
Access to InformationTags