The Protocol for RTI Request Testing
This assessment tool involves making one or more RTI requests for information to each of the public authorities which have been selected for review. The first issue to be decided here is what information to ask for from the various public authorities. The following considerations should be taken into account when deciding on what information to request:
• Avoid lodging too many RTI requests with the same authority as this may make them suspicious that a test of some sort is going on. Where more than one RTI request is made, it might be a good idea to have different people submit them.
• Try to submit at least some RTI requests without using the form for this to see how the public authority reacts. When doing this, only provide the information required by the law, even if the form asks for more information.
• Most of the RTI requests (at least 75%) should be for information which is clearly not exempt and which it is not difficult for the authority to provide. These requests demonstrate most obviously whether or not the system is basically functional.
• Some RTI requests should be more difficult in the sense that they engage the exceptions (i.e. represent borderline cases). This will give some indication of how authorities go about interpreting exceptions. At least some RTI requests should also engage public interest issues, to see if the public interest override is applied.
• Some RTI requests should relate to a larger volume of information, again to see how public authorities deal with this.
• Some RTI requests should also relate to information which requires consultation with third parties (either other public authorities or private third parties), again to see how public authorities deal with this.
• Some RTI requests should be made in a way that demands that assistance be provided, for example because the information sought is not described clearly or because the requester either is or pretends to be illiterate.
• For at least some of the RTI requests, a specific format for provision of the information should be indicated, again to assess whether public authorities respect the rules on this.
Given that this is one of the most burdensome assessment tools to apply, in terms of the amount of time it takes, consideration should be given to trying to get interns or students to help with the process. This can also be helpful in terms of preventing the public authority from realising that the RTI request is part of a testing exercise.
This Protocol is designed just for making RTI requests and not following up with internal complaints or appeals to the oversight body. At the same time, it does not preclude following up with the PIO to see what is happening with the requests. If that is done, it should be recorded, along with the date, in the data on the RTI request (i.e. in the comments part of the table below).
Information about making the RTI request and how it was responded to should be recorded, ideally in a table along the lines of the one below (an excel form for recording these results has been prepared as part of the Methodology). A brief note on whether the response was legitimate (for example, whether the receipt was provided in time according to the rules in the law) should also be recorded. Where the Result might be legitimate (see below), a view as to whether it was in fact legitimate or not should be recorded. For example, in the case of a written refusal, the record should indicate whether it met the notice requirements under the law (i.e. by providing clear reasons for the refusal and notice about the right to appeal against the refusal) and also whether or not the grounds for the refusal seemed to be legitimate.
|
Date Request Submitted |
How Request was Filed |
Date, if any, of receipt |
Date, if any, of response |
Format in which information provided |
Fee charged, if any |
Result |
| Authority 1, Question 1 |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
| Authority 1, Question 2 |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
| Authority 2, Question 1 |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) |
(i) If you were unable to submit the request for any reason, this should be recorded under “Result”
(ii) Post, e-mail, fax, hand delivered, etc.
(iii) The date, if any, you receive a formal acknowledgement of the request
(iv) Electronic copy, hard copy, right to inspect, and so on
(v) This should indicate not only the fee but also the items (such as number of pages or disks or cost of postage) upon which the fee was based
(vi) See the list below
As noted in the main part of the methodology, two types of outcomes are used for scoring here. The first is a set of four “Processing” outcomes, namely: i) whether a receipt was provided and in time (according to the rules in the law); ii) whether the response was in time (again, according to the law); iii) whether the rules in the law regarding format in which the information was provided were respected; and iv) whether any fee charged was in line with the rules in the law.
The second in the main “Result” outcome (i.e. what the end outcome of the process was). The Result will be one of the following (explanations are provided below):
1. Oral Refusal
2. Written Refusal, in Whole or in Part
3. Transferred/Referred
4. Mute Refusal
5. Information Received
6. Incomplete Answer
7. Information Not Held
8. Unable to Submit
From among these Results, (5) is always a legitimate result, (2), (3) and (7) might be legitimate results and (1), (4), (6) and (8) are never legitimate.
In addition to recording information in the table, a short written report analysing the outcomes should be provided. Here, more details than can be easily recorded in the table can be provided, such as the exact reasons given for any written refusals. More explanation can also be given here of why a Result of (2), (3) or (7) is deemed to be legitimate or not. An explanation of whether or not assistance was provided when it should have been can also be given here.
1. Oral Refusal
This is where an official from the authority informs you orally (spoken word or telephone) that they refuse to provide the information. In this case, reasons for the refusal may or may not be given.
2. Written Refusal, in Whole or in Part
This is where a refusal to provide the information, in whole or in part, is given in any written form (for example in a letter, e-mail or fax). In the case of a partial refusal, information may be blacked-out or “severed” or you may be provided with only some of the relevant documents. In this case, notice should be provided for the information which is not provided.
3. Transferred/Referred
‘Transferred’ is where the authority transfers the RTI request to another authority, in which case the authority should inform you about the transfer and ideally also the reasons for it. “Referred’ is where the authority informs you that you should lodge the request with another authority (as opposed to transferring the request itself). Normally, a transfer/referral is legitimate normally only where the body does not hold the information.
4. Mute Refusal
This is where the authority simply fails to respond at all to an RTI request or where answers are provided which are so vague or irrelevant that they cannot be classified in any other category listed here. A mute refusal is deemed to apply when the period in the access to information law for responding to an RTI request has expired.
5. Information Received
This is where access is granted and relatively complete information which responds to an RTI request is provided.
6. Incomplete Answer
This is where information is provided but it is incomplete, irrelevant or in some other way unsatisfactory. This is different from Partial Access inasmuch as the authority is treating this as a complete response (even though it is not) and it has not indicated that it is refusing (all or part of the) information.
7. Information Not Held
This is where the authority responds claiming that it does not hold the information.
8. Unable to Submit
This is where, for whatever reason, it was simply not possible to get the authority to accept a request. For example, it may simply have refused to allow the requester to leave the request with it or even to let the requester in the door.