“This government job would be great if it weren’t for the public”– anonymous government employee

Dear Sir,

Season’s greetings. The honourable premier David Burt, with his background in information technology, seems to be flummoxed on using technology to solve a problem — efficiently providing what is public information to the public.

He needs to be reminded that information produced by the Government is owned by the public, not by the Government. The people should not be charged for the information owned by the people.

Why not invest some of the corporate income tax revenue into making simple improvements to the Pati process? Additionally, why not require Cabinet ministers and the Premier to only fly coach class?

One could speculate that, with an election approaching, controlling information has become a priority. Any negative information must be delayed or suppressed until after the election by any means necessary.

From the Information Commissioner’s Office 2022 Annual Report: “Limited budgets, reduced staff and increased workloads are challenges faced by many authorities. Responding efficiently to Pati requests, however, is a fundamental component of modern democracies that cannot be set aside when challenges arise.”

Does anyone know why a few information officers are so incredibly efficient in serving the public while most are not? Based on the Information Officer list posted on the ICO website as of October 30, 2023, 15 officers cover 71 authorities and 124 officers cover 124 authorities. At that time, 13 of the 124 had no designated information officer. Has even one of those 15 officers who cover 71 authorities publicly complained about the workload? Give those officers the public recognition they deserve — a raise and a certificate!

Anyone who has submitted a Pati request knows the process is inefficient on both sides of the equation — the Government and the ICO. Consider the following doable solutions:

Observation No 1: There is no central database of information from all authorities for the public to search online

Suggestion: Move to self-service. Centralise as much information as possible from all authorities into a searchable database. A Pati request is created only when a person cannot find what they are looking for.

Observation No 2: The work of an information officer is on an as-needed basis and is not a full-time position. The information-retrieval skill level of the numerous information officers is minimal, which is why officers stumble along looking for documents. Based on the Information Officer list posted on the ICO website as of October 30, 2023, there are about 13 authorities without a designated officer. Two information officers are assigned to at least 14 and 15 authorities, respectively. Yes, processing Pati requests takes away time from the officers’ regular government duties. Yes, that has an adverse, downstream ripple effect on others in the Government waiting for that regular output to complete assigned duties and on the public — often the final receiver of the Government’s output. But staff going on holiday often has the same effect.

Public Access To Information Regulations 2014

(p 9 Delegation of functions)

18, (1) An information officer may delegate to an officer such of his functions as he thinks necessary or expedient but shall remain accountable for the discharge of those functions

Sharing of information officers

19, A public authority may agree with one or more other public authorities to appoint one information officer

Suggestion: Centralise the information-retrieval process from government systems as much as possible. Ministries contribute to funding what I would call an Information Retrieval Specialist, who, at a minimum, processes the government systems data-retrieval requests such as e-mail records. The information officer submits an information-retrieval request to the IRS instead of struggling to remember where to find the information, who to contact and how to retrieve it.

The IRS would be also responsible for creating and maintaining the indexing of all records on government systems. Such an index does not exist at present. An index dramatically speeds up the information search. Once established, every document, file, spreadsheet and e-mail would be automatically scanned, and every word would be searchable. For example, a search for records containing Person A’s e-mail address would not have to scan through hundreds of thousands of e-mails because the index immediately points to the relevant records.

As a neutral party, the IRS would not have a problem searching for information across authorities and would not be worried about stepping on anyone’s toes – thus performing a more thorough records search. There is no doubt in my mind that every information officer does not perform thorough record searches to avoid stepping on toes.

The officer reviews the information collected by the IRS and decides what is appropriate to send to the requester per the Pati Act. A list of what has not been sent is included, along with the specific reasons for denial.

This IRS resource frees up valuable time for the officers to perform their regular duties. It minimises the adverse ripple effect on the Government and the public. There would be a cost-saving to each authority and the Government, such as:

• Not spending time and money to train information officer replacements on retrieval technology applications

• Not spending time and money on technology-refresher training

• Not spending time and money on new technology training

From the ICO website list, it appears that 15 officers cover 71 authorities and 124 officers cover 124 authorities. Thirteen of the 124 have no designated officer. In theory, centralising the information-retrieval portion of Pati would substantially decrease the workload for 139 people [15 + 124]. The 139 does not include the cost of alternate information officers to fill in when the primary officer is unavailable for whatever reason — such as taking two to three of holiday, maternity leave, sickness.

The Government always finds money for consultants. Or perhaps the Department of Information and Digital Technologies hires someone whose primary duties are information-retrieval and government-records management. Or trains an IDT employee, such as the Database Administrator, for the role. In any case, the cost of the IRS is spread proportionally among the authorities on an agreed formula and/or an hourly chargeback rate. An alternate IRS should be used when the primary IRS is unavailable.

Observation No 3: Although detailed documentation is in place on the Pati process from the Pati Pipa Unit, ministries and authorities are fiefdoms doing things their way and at their own speed. Efficiency increases by making the information officer and ICO processes as foolproof as possible. For example, an information officer should never have to be reminded by a requester that a due date has passed. Based on missing due dates, the Government’s tracking system may lack alert functionality, and its use by authorities is not mandatory if they use their own system. The number of authorities using the Government’s tracking system is unknown. But it makes no sense to have multiple tracking systems for obvious reasons. Alert functionality needs to be investigated.

It is simply unacceptable and unprofessional when e-mail systems such as MS Outlook have calendars with reminder protocols. As a double-check, the IRS could set up MS Outlook calendar reminders for the information officer and their manager as part of the duties listed in the job description.

Suggestion: Properly track request deadlines. The officer’s manager would see the Pati deadlines to schedule resources to help the officer and/or take up the regular workload so the authority is not blindsided and does not fall behind in performing core mission duties. There should also be an alternate officer notified because people go on holiday, get sick and miss work for a variety of reasons.

For the ICO, having visibility to potential incoming Pati requests in advance would help in scheduling and balancing personnel workloads and resources. An ICO Outlook e-mail account specifically for due date notifications can be set up for informational purposes.

Observation No 4: Complaints about “limited budgets, reduced staff and increased workloads” to process Pati requests. Such excuses are unacceptable to the public. In the private sector, managers and employees would be fired and replaced with someone who delivers results. No one in government seems to be thinking outside the box and their own ministry to address the overall problems. When people go on holiday, the Pati process for authorities and the ICO seems to significantly slow down and even stop.

Suggestion: To process and expedite the Pati backlog, reach out to law firms for temporary pro bono resources using associates from firms such as:

• Appleby

• Carey Olsen

• Conyers Dill & Pearman

• Marshall Diel & Myers

• MJM Ltd

The Pati Act and associated processes are not rocket science. Law firms are always looking to demonstrate goodwill to the community. Associates must add new experiences and skills to their résumés to make themselves billable. These firms have resources that can be leveraged, and those extra resources will help to clear the backlog in the Government and at the ICO. Just ask!

When the backlogs are resolved, the law firms can market the knowledgeable associates to ministries to help process Pati requests. A win-win. An innovative partner would craft a proposal to the Government to take over portions of the Pati process where applicable — delegation of functions — which frees up time for government information officers but still holds officers accountable. Another win-win.

Observation No 5: I have not read anything about any information officer and authority ever being officially reprimanded, fined or fired. There appear to be no penalties issued for failure to meet deadlines, intentional delays or incompetence.

Public Access to Information Act 2010

(p 30 Protection against liability)

63. No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any public authority, its employees or agents in respect of the disclosure or non-disclosure by any of them of any record under this Act, or any action taken or omitted to be taken under this Act, unless it is shown that the authority, employee or agent acted in bad faith.

It is statically impossible that no one and no authority has been reprimanded, fined or fired. Unless I missed reading it, no one has been penalised for any reason. No information officer is fired for failing to meet legal deadlines. “Failure to decide” and missing submission deadlines as a norm are unacceptable. Logically, both should be considered acting in bad faith. Poor management and plain incompetence are inexcusable, as is the rubber-stamping of failure by an internal review. Again, in the private sector, people would be fired or replaced for such failures. However, the Government has very little sense of urgency.

The Government does not accept excuses from a business that is not paying taxes on time or missing legally required paperwork filing deadlines. Why should the public and the ICO accept an authority’s failure to decide and missing submission deadlines without repercussions?

Suggestion: If an information officer cannot do the job, replace them. At a minimum, name and shame them and their managers.

Conclusion

Implementing any of the above suggestions would increase efficiency in processing Pati requests. Increasing efficiency is good for the Government, the ICO and the public. Remember, the public own the information!

JOE ZAJAC

Devonshire