Fwd: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
Locked
Fwd: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
 
|
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Giggey, Robert <[hidden email]> Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:38 PM Subject: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure To: "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> A report was carried at Finance committee this week that I thought you would be interested in: http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2012/04-03/04%20-%20Year%20end%20MFIPPA%20report.htm
If you scroll down to the bottom to the section called “Document 1: Routine Disclosure Guidelines Initiative” you’ll see that as part of their push for routine disclosure (which is a great thing in and of itself), they also state that “the ATIP Office would provide an expanded access to the results of access requests (MFIPPA Requests) by posting the information on the city’s Open Data page 30 days after release to the requester”. In actuality it likely won’t be the OpenData catalogue itself, in order to keep the data files separate from the reports and information, and this still has to be approved by Council, but it seems like it will pass, and I believe this is a great step forward, and addresses some of the concerns you’ve raised regarding access to reports and other documents.
Just thought I’d pass this along; didn’t get much exposure here, but I think it’s a great step forward.
Related article: http://blogs.canoe.ca/cityhall/general/unlocking-city-information/
Thank-you,
This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you. Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration. Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Fwd: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
The effect of making more public information easily accessible, I agree with. But I'm perplexed by this bit of logic. "It is anticipated that, once fully
implemented, this initiative should result in a reduction of the overall number
of formal requests that must be processed in accordance with MFIPPA as well as
a corresponding reduction in staff time and resources in addressing same." As people know more, their information wants & needs changes. So I wouldn't anticipate a reduction in formal requests. FOI provides a legal assurance that records are accessible. People will always want this assurance as they continue to discover things that are important to them. From: Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 8:34:14 AM Subject: [CivicAccess-discuss] Fwd: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Giggey, Robert <[hidden email]> Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:38 PM Subject: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure To: "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> A report
was carried at Finance committee this week that I thought you would be interested in:
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2012/04-03/04%20-%20Year%20end%20MFIPPA%20report.htm
If you scroll down to the bottom to the section called “Document 1: Routine Disclosure Guidelines Initiative” you’ll see that as
part of their push for routine disclosure (which is a great thing in and of itself), they also state that “the ATIP Office would provide an expanded access to the results of access requests (MFIPPA Requests) by posting the information on the city’s Open Data
page 30 days after release to the requester”. In actuality it likely won’t be the OpenData catalogue itself, in order to keep the data files separate from the reports and information, and this still has to be approved by Council, but it seems like it will
pass, and I believe this is a great step forward, and addresses some of the concerns you’ve raised regarding access to reports and other documents.
Just thought I’d pass this along; didn’t get much exposure here, but I think it’s a great step forward.
Related article:
http://blogs.canoe.ca/cityhall/general/unlocking-city-information/
Thank-you,
This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any
distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the
telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete
this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de
la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou
reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent
par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite.
Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par
téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis supprimer
sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que
toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.
Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
An important argument for open data/information is that it will reduce the amount of work officers have to do, or make their work easier. As you mention, Mark, there's a good chance this will not be realized in this case. Nonetheless, it's important to make this argument as it increases the odds that this project will go through.
On 2012-04-27, at 12:28 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
|
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
Why make a (potentially) bad argument to advance a good idea? If it's a good idea, why not find the good argument? From: James McKinney <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 10:45:23 AM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure An important argument for open data/information is that it will reduce the amount of work officers have to do, or make their work easier. As you mention, Mark, there's a good chance this will not be realized in this case. Nonetheless, it's important to make this argument as it increases the odds that this project will go through. On 2012-04-27, at 12:28 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
I don't think it's a bad argument. If an argument convinces a decision-maker to go ahead with a good idea, that, to me, is a good argument. An argument that is meant to make them go ahead with a good idea, but fails (or backfires), is a bad argument. An argument's value is in its power to persuade. As written in this OKFN blog post http://blog.okfn.org/2012/04/25/odcc/ Tom Steinberg of mySociety explained that "officials are more receptive to the argument that open data will reduce their workload, for example, than that it will shine a light in dark corners, which may be just what they fear." In the context under discussion, the workload argument is better than the transparency argument. But maybe we just have fundamental differences in what we consider "good" arguments. On 2012-04-27, at 2:42 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
|
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
In reply to this post by Mark Weiler-2
Sort of have to agree with Mark here. I don't think we should twist the truth to meet reality, we should just find a different argument. Not everything needs to be based on costs. See F-35s for example, all about quality!
On 2012-04-27, at 2:42 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
|
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
Sophist!
Jonathan On 2012-04-27, at 3:02 PM, James McKinney wrote:
|
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
In reply to this post by Jonathan Brun-2
The truth is we don't know what effect it will have on workload. It's not a lie. There's a real possibility it will reduce workload. And, actually, there's a fairly good argument that it will reduce a particular kind of work, i.e. make operations more efficient. It's just that this new efficiency may create greater demand. Of course, articulating all that properly makes for a less punchy argument.
On 2012-04-27, at 3:02 PM, Jonathan Brun wrote:
|
Re: FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure
|
|
In reply to this post by James McKinney-2
A better argument is going to appear in the recognition that the people of Ontario, through their elected officials in
the Legislative Assembly, gave everyone permission to access the
information. To speak to the specific concerns that Tom mentioned, the above statement allows us to recognize that public institutions themselves can benefit from this permission to access info. With more information readily available, public employees and public institutions will benefit because of the breakdown of internal, unnecessary silos of information. As an example: over 50% of the visitor to the Treasury Board of Canada's page that lists summaries of completed ATIs (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/atipo-baiprp/req/req-eng.asp) are from other departments in the Federal government. From: James McKinney <[hidden email]> To: civicaccess discuss <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:02:08 PM Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] FOI Request Releases and Routine Disclosure I don't think it's a bad argument. If an argument convinces a decision-maker to go ahead with a good idea, that, to me, is a good argument. An argument that is meant to make them go ahead with a good idea, but fails (or backfires), is a bad argument. An argument's value is in its power to
persuade. As written in this OKFN blog post http://blog.okfn.org/2012/04/25/odcc/ Tom Steinberg of mySociety explained that "officials are more receptive to the argument that open data will reduce their workload, for example, than that it will shine a light in dark corners, which may be just what they fear." In the context under discussion, the workload argument is better than the transparency argument. But maybe we just have fundamental differences in what we consider "good" arguments. On 2012-04-27, at 2:42 PM, Mark Weiler wrote:
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |