Notes
- Nothing in this document should be construed as advice to:
- restrict access to information that should be made available under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) or other legislation; or
- relax any protection for personal privacy.
- Fees: This document does not address the issue of charging fees for the routine release of records, something that is allowed under the Act (see s. 71(2)). Public bodies should develop a policy and schedule of fees for the routine release of records. The Schedule of Maximum Fees in the Regulations to the Act may serve as a guideline.
Contents
GENERAL ISSUES
Definition of Routine Release
Benefits of Routine Release
How to Identify Records That May Be Released Routinely
Compiling a List of Records That May Be Released Routinely
Program Area Staff Participation
Fees
ROUTINE RELEASE TECHNIQUES
Modifying Existing Records
Influencing the Creation of New Types of Records
Changing Filing Practices
Changing Release Policies
Obtaining Informed Consent
Adding Release Notes to Files
Publicizing Routinely Released Records
MAKING RECORDS AVAILABLE
Appendix: ARCS Routine Release Guidelines
| GENERAL ISSUES |
|
| |
|
| Definition of Routine Release |
Routine Release: The disclosure of certain types of information as a matter of course without the necessity of a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Routine release includes (but is not limited to) the release of records that have been designated as available without a formal request under section 71 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). Routine release may be reactive (responding to requests for information when received) or proactive (systematically disseminating information in advance of requests using mechanisms such as the Internet, libraries, etc.).
Privacy and Confidentiality: Information is disclosed routinely only in accordance with the privacy requirements of the Act and the privacy and confidentiality requirements of other applicable legislation and government or public body policies.
Public bodies identify records in their custody or under their control that are routinely available either because no exceptions under the Act apply or because the body would always exercise discretion in favour of disclosure despite the applicability of a discretionary exception.
Individuals seeking routinely available records simply make an inquiry to the public body that holds them. The records will be made available without a formal FOI request.
Additional information about the release of information without requiring a formal FOI request is available in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Manual (ss. C.1 and C.7).
Top
| |
|
| Benefits of Routine Release
|
Routine release produces several benefits:
- In most cases routine release is the most efficient and effective means of meeting the needs of the public.
- Routine release decreases the administrative burden of the Act, thus saving government time and money.
- Routine release reduces workload and costs by reducing the number of formal FOI requests that must be logged and processed and the numbers of enquiries for materials that may be released routinely.
- Proactive dissemination, such as on the Internet, saves government money by decreasing the number of questions from the public.
- A proactive routine release program demonstrates that public bodies are operating in the spirit of openness that was intended by the Act.
- Proactive routine release via the Internet supports the BC Government's Electronic Highway initiative, the plan to provide Internet access throughout British Columbia by 1999.
Top
| |
|
| How to Identify Records That May Be Released Routinely |
The Act does not require that all information released to the public be as a result of a formal request. In fact, the Act specifically states that it "does not replace other procedures for access to information" (s. 2(2)). Public bodies should follow these steps to identify records that may be released routinely:
- If disclosure is mandated by legislation, the record may be released routinely. For example, the Environmental Assessment Act stipulates that the Environmental Assessment Project Registry must be available for public inspection. Public bodies should examine their legislation to determine whether release of information is mandated.
- Any class of record that is released regularly without severing should be reviewed to determine whether it should be designated as releasable routinely. Public bodies should examine files that have been previously released without severing to determine if any request for the same class of records would also be released unsevered.
- Newly-created records should be designed to facilitate routine release, if possible. The FOI Co-ordinator should review new records at an early stage to determine which are routinely releasable and to establish a channel for routine disclosure.
- Public bodies should identify records that are frequently requested to determine if they may be released routinely. Strategies for identifying these records include examining material released in response to formal or informal FOI requests, and consulting communications, library staff, Enquiry BC, and program area staff to find out what is being requested frequently (e.g., public opinion polls and government contracts)
Where a public body determines that a record may not be released routinely, it should consider if parts of the record could be designated for routine release.
Routine Release of Personal Information: When individuals request access to their own personal information, public bodies review the records to determine whether any of the exceptions to disclosure apply. If none do, then the records may be disclosed to that individual without a formal request. Where appropriate, this process should be encouraged in order to reduce administrative costs
Top
| |
|
| Compiling a List of Records That May Be Released Routinely |
Program areas, with the assistance of FOI and records management staff, should prepare comprehensive and up-to-date lists of publications and records available through routine channels. Front-line staff use these lists to determine what information can be released routinely. Front-line staff are simply identifying records as belonging to a category that may be routinely released, not making decisions about how to apply exceptions in the Act or reviewing the information in the records.
The Appendix of this report provides a list of ARCS classifications that have been identified for routine release.
Top
| |
|
| Program Area Staff Participation |
As routine release usually takes place at the program area level, it is important to involve program area staff in its implementation by:
- giving front-line staff the authority to release as much information as possible without a formal request for information;
- involving program staff in identifying records that should be routinely released or actively disseminated, and in developing an access strategy;
- providing ongoing training and consultation to raise their awareness of routine release; and
- informing them that they may call upon information and privacy branches or records managers for advice.
Top
Section 71(2) of the Act allows public bodies to set their own fees for providing information through routine channels.
| |
|
| Routine Release Techniques |
The following techniques may be applied to frequently requested records in order to streamline the routine release process:
- modifying existing records
- influencing the creation of new records
- changing filing practices
- changing release policies
- obtaining informed consent
- adding release notes to files
- highlighting routinely released records
Each of these techniques is discussed below.
Top
| |
| ROUTINE RELEASE TECHNIQUES |
| |
|
| Modifying Existing Records |
Removing Information from Copies
Where justified by the volume of requests, an access copy of frequently requested records may be made by copying the originals while removing information that cannot be routinely released. It may be appropriate to indicate that certain information has been removed and why.
Notes:
- It may be appropriate to file series of copied and severed records separately from the originals. In any event, the originals remain the "copies of record" for all purposes except routine release.
- Individuals must be informed when information has been removed from a record to make it routinely releasable. The option of filing a formal request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is always available to them along with the appeal mechanisms in the Act.
| Example: |
- Requests for copies of permits: With the requester's agreement, sensitive personal information such as the permit holder's address and phone number is removed from copies of permits so that they can be released immediately without a formal request.
|
- Ministry of Attorney General: Names of all individuals can be removed from lists of landlord-tenant arbitrations so that the lists can be routinely released.
|
Changing the Structure of Forms
Forms may be changed so that routinely releasable information is gathered on one part of the form, while sensitive personal information or other information not routinely released, is recorded separately. This will enable information from one part of the form to be released routinely and will ease severing. This technique should only be used where it will not impede program delivery either by making it difficult to complete the forms or to process the data collected.
Advice on the design of effective forms is available from the Ministry Forms Officer.
| Example: |
- Licensing bodies: Bodies could record routinely released information in a license application on one side of an application form while non-releasable information (e.g., home phone numbers, results of criminal records checks, etc.) is recorded on the other. The applications could then be photocopied for routine release (one side only) without having to remove sensitive information.
|
Changing the Structure of Records
The structure of records may be changed to simplify release or severing.
| Example: |
- All public bodies: In briefing notes, policy advice should be contained in a recommendation/policy advice section that is clearly separated from the background information and "options" sections.
|
Moving Information into Appendices
Sensitive information that would not be routinely released may be moved from the body of a document into appendices. In this way, the body of the document could be routinely released.
Note:
- Individuals must be informed when information has been removed from a record to make it routinely releasable. The option of filing a formal request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is always available to them along with the appeal mechanisms in the Act.
| Example: |
- Contractors submitting proposals can be asked to place personal information about the qualifications of company personnel in an appendix.
|
Changing the Recording Format of Records
When cost-effective, records may be changed from one physical format to another in order to streamline future data modifications and subsequent records releases, in anticipation of different types of requests.
| Example: |
- All public bodies: Hard copy records may be converted to electronic format for easy deletion of any data fields containing information to which access or privacy exceptions would be applied.
|
Changing Policies on Creation of Content
Public bodies may change the way their records are created in order to make them routinely releasable.
| Example: |
- All public bodies: By anonymizing the parties to a mediated dispute (Party A, Party B, Witness A, etc.) and by limiting other personal identifiers to only those necessary to understand the case, public bodies can avoid identifying individuals. For employees with a need to know, the identities of the individuals is shown in an appendix that is not routinely released. Requesters must be made aware that they have the right to request the full record by filing a formal request under the Act.
- Ministry of Attorney General: Knowing that investigation records created by the ministry's Investigation, Inspection and Standard's office are of interest to the public, a severed copy of the original investigation report is prepared and proactively released. The original copy of the investigation report which includes names of alleged victims, witnesses and other individuals is filed for internal use on a need to know basis.
|
Collection of Information
Some classes of records that are frequently requested cannot be routinely released because they contain personal or other information subject to exceptions in the Act. If, upon review, it is determined that it is no longer necessary to collect this sensitive information, changing collection practices to exclude this information would allow the records (or portions of them) to be released routinely. Public bodies should review their collection of sensitive information to determine if all of the information being recorded is necessary to meet program requirements.
| Example: |
- Some permits could be released routinely if they did not contain the personal address or phone numbers of the permit holder. While addresses or phone numbers may be necessary information on a permit application form, it might not be necessary to record this information on the permit document itself.
|
Top
| |
|
| Influencing the Creation of New Types of Records |
Public bodies should ensure that information and privacy staff as well as records and forms managers are consulted during the design of new forms, records systems and databases so that routine release issues can be addressed at an early phase.
| Example: |
- Forest Renewal BC consulted BC Information Management Services to assist in developing a contract tendering system that would facilitate the routine release of tendering information.
|
| |
|
| Changing Filing Practices |
If justified by the volume of requests, filing practices may be changed so that routinely releasable records are separated from other documents (e.g., using file backs or file dividers) to make them readily retrievable for routine release. Requesters must be made aware that they have the right to request the full record, if they wish.
| Example: |
- Ministry of Attorney General: Liquor inspection reports (releasable to anyone who requests them) could be separated from other documents in licensing application case files by using file backs. File classification numbers would appear on both parts of the file.
|
| |
|
| Changing Release Policies |
Public bodies may publish or otherwise distribute records as authorized under other enactments (in some cases, the manner in which these records are created and handled may be amended to honour the spirit of privacy protection and other requirements of the Act).
| Example: |
- Ministry of Attorney General: The residential tenancy registrar may invoke legislated discretionary authority to publish landlord-tenant arbitration decisions, while concurrently adopting a policy of informing new arbitration applicants that arbitration decisions may be published in the future.
- Anonymyzing reports is an effective method of releasing information that meets a public demand while still protecting the privacy of individuals (as with previous examples, the identities of individuals would be made available to those with a legitimate need to know while those identities would be screened from other members of the public who request the information).
|
Top
| |
|
| Obtaining Informed Consent
|
When appropriate, informed consent for future release (i.e., freely given agreement with knowledge of the relevant factors) may be obtained from parties at the time records are created so that there are no impediments to releasing the information. The consent should be in writing and specify what information may be released and to whom.
Informed consent cannot be considered as having been given if the individual could not reasonably anticipate who might request access to the record, for what purpose, or the content of the record.
| |
|
| Adding Release Notes to Files |
When, in response to an access request, a document, file or record series has been analysed to determine its releasability, a note may be added to it to eliminate the need to review it again in response to subsequent requests. The note should make it clear on what basis the release decision was made as subsequent requests for access may involve different considerations depending on the individual seeking the information.
| Example: |
- BC Archives: The Archives maintains an "Access Register" that documents whether a specific box of records is entirely releasable or restricted, or whether access status must still be determined. Access review notes are also maintained so that staff are aware that specific documents are routinely releasable or restricted.
|
| |
|
| Publicizing Routinely Released Records |
Public bodies may publicize the existence of records series that are available without a formal request.
| Example: |
- The Continuing Care Program of the Ministry of Health has compiled a "Public Record Index" of records available without a formal FOI request. The index includes instructions on how it may be used and what to do if the records being sought are not listed in the index.
|
Top
Public bodies should consider the following mechanisms for making routinely releasable records available, taking into account the resources needed for each:
- obtaining the informed consent of affected individuals, businesses and organizations to release records in their entirety
- maintaining updated, publicly available lists of routinely releasable records for each program area
- making certain records available for public access onsite in hardcopy, microfilm and other formats (with or without a fee for this service)
- providing onsite access to specific electronic databases (provided that database security and integrity is maintained)
- providing a copying service (with or without a fee)
- depositing copies of certain high demand records in public libraries (along with a policy regarding further copying for personal use)
- posting documents on Internet websites when that is more cost-effective than disseminating hardcopy records
- providing remote access through electronic networks such as BC Online
- assigning dissemination rights for certain information to individuals or companies under contract to government.
