Please share this blog
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- More
125 responses to “Government Distributes Freedom of Information Bill For Feedback As Promised”
I suppose, Pat, from your comment that your section felt under some kind of pressure from this seeker of info, and therefore made it as difficult as possible for him to retrieve the information he was looking for.
Your experience highlights the culture FOI is trying to change,
If the public require proper information from their civil servants, they should be assisted, not obstructed from gaining full access.
I have a report on the meeting on my Blog for those interested and I see from above comments that WIV is more than 1 person, since I do not recall seeing Peter Wickham?
@Straight talk… I bow to you… An *excellent* question…
@Pat… Based on ST’s above, how much did the “s*** disturber” pay for the “four (4), four-cubic foot cardboard boxes” of “[un]collated, [un]stapled, [un]order[ed]” documents?
And, equally important, how long did it take to deliver same to same?
These are, IMHO, relevant and important questions.
May we… Actually, no… We *do* live in interesting times… (Once again, this is actually an ancient Chinese curse…)
Our interpretation of Pat’s matter of fact comment is that she has identified how the abuse of the FOI can place an administrative burden on the government. The constructive thing to do would be to discuss how such abuse might be countered.
@BU.David… I agree with you completely…
However, I still think my two specific questions to Pat (prodded by ST) are relevant to *our* situation.
As in, the specific costs for access to “documents” is not defined in the proposed Act.
It would be valuable (no joke intended) to learn if the “s*** disturber” instance Pat is familiar with paid for the privilege of getting everything they asked for (on a per-page basis), or if it was a “gratis”.
[An attempt at humour:] Are we there yet?
@Chris Halsall
I dont remember, but the first 20 pages are free.
@Straight Talk
He got full access. The problem was that he did not know how much information we had. We knew who the person was because he had filed several similar requests and it was his subject of interest.
Sometimes if the request is not clear, The Commissioner will send it back with request for clarification. Sometimes we asked for clarification and/or specifics, if we think a bona fide tax payer is off in left field, or is unaware of the breadth and scope of a subject/issue. In this way we can narrow the search. There is also an appeal/complaint process.
In the case above we did not request clarification. We rallied the troops and got together all we had. This particlar individual was intent on keeping us busy, so we could not get on with our jobs. We just turned the tables.
@Chris Halsall
When a request is made the applicant has to submit $5 with the request. This is partly to ensure one is serious. However, the money is returned if under 20 pages. Over that you are billed per page, bit it is not designed to fill the Treasury, just to offset the copying costs.
@Pat… Truly, thank you for your responses…
Two questions:
1. What currency are you speaking of?
2. With regards to your aforementioned “s*** disturber” instance, were they delivered their request results by way of:
2.1. a Cash on Delivery (COD) invoice?
2.2. notified of their exposure before delivery?
2.3. …or… was this a “gift of the Crown”?
Thank you again for your insights and answers.
Pat I hope that you refusin’ US. I feel that Chris got a lot to off load….
Ian Bourne
I hear that you wanted to get in contact with me. So let me contact you. How do I do that?
By the way thanks for the heads up on the town hall meet. I really could not make it… under the weather (back pains ya know, not so young na more). I will be there for the second one next week tho’.
@Chris
Canadian $;
By invoice through the ATIP office. Each department (Ministry) has an Access to Information and Privacy Office. This office receives all requests from the Commissioner, ATIP and forwards them to the relevant responsibility centre. We work with the ATIP office within our ministries and forward them the information. They censor according to the acts under which they work – ATIP, Secrets, Security, etc. They also mail the information and send invoices. They can also charge for excessive work and the customer has to pay postage for more than 20 pages.
Payment is usually due in 30 days, the same the government allows for its suppliers.
We also restrict information that is still under discussion or where final decisions are being contemplated, or where early release could have a detrimental effect to the expected outcomes. This information would be forwarded at a later date. We set the timeframe for this (that is the information holder, be it the desk officer, senior analyst, director, etc.).
The only gift from the crown is the first 20 pages.
We can also delay by telling the ATIP office that we have to source information from other sectors other than our own, or from regional offices, etc.
The public usually have no problems getting information in a timely manner. After a while you get to understand the writing style of journalists and broadcast media and the files/issues they would be interested in.
Sometimes it is is a very fine line between public embarassment for your minister and you the lead on the issue and the rights of the press to publish.
You have to judge on a case by case basis. If necessary also prepare briefing notes for the Minister in case s*** hits the fan.
@ Chris
I forgot to mention, but you probably picked it up, the information providers are not supposed to know the identity of the person requesting said information. That is confidential, ALWAYS.
All names are censored in information sent out, as well as any information that could easily identify anyone. That explains lots of the blacked out passages that Straight Talk referred to earlier. It is not necessarily that the information itself is censored but the fact that if included a civil servant or minister could be identified.
@Chris
By the way, people learn the hard way not to mess with this Bajan! hehehe
@Pat. Thank you again for your above.
Although I have to be honest, and say I don’t entirely understand your immediate above.
I asked you questions for general clarification on how things are done away, and you answered. Again, thanks. (Ha ha?)
@Pat… Sorry, I’m really slow at the moment (haven’t slept for 36 hours…) I just got your above… hehehe…
@Ian Bourne
Thanks for representing the blogs.
David I want you to represent the blogs next time. Wha you say..?
I felt a bit guilty speaking others’ words, which is why I made sure to acknowledge everyone in my report
Congratulations Barbados and Barbadians. You are showing the rotten mouth critics in Guyana who love to point a finger at others that you have evolved way beyone the level they are at, in terms of your willingness to mold an open and truly democratic society.
In contrast, the corrupt Guyana Government passed a law that gives it the right to spy on its citizens. Guyanese are heading backwardly, propelled so by a regime unqualified to rule over a diverse population. A regime that supports a drive to Hindutava in Guyana, and the sublimation of its black population to the role of dalits.
I dont think it makes a difference who speaks on behalf of the blogs, just so long as the input is submitted. Besides, Ian Bourne is not ‘incognito’.
How could he be? Seen the size of that man’s gut recently?
David
Informing the BU family of some guidelines for a Freedom of Information Act. Check the Speaking Up Blog at:
http://bangospeaks.blogspot.com
No matter what they put as law, the govmnt will never obey their own law. They don’t respect the rule of the law.
No Way FOI
The government will not be administering the Act and nothing has to go before or be approved by Ministers. It is all run by the Commissioner and beauracracy.
Civil servants will get necessary training on the Act and information that HAS to be divulged. It is out of the ‘government’ (politicians) hands. The Commissioner should be independent of government.
Freedom of Information my eye!
Does Haloute own land the Government of Barbados acquired for a public purpose from private individuals?
Just out of curiosity BAFBFP, what does my appearance or your getting personal have to do with the topic? Your continuous display of ur lack of intelligent discourse provides other speakers a non-stop source of comedy…
@everyone else – I was not able to attend the last 2 as I am now back at work; did anyone go 2 S’town or Deighton Griffith?