Several evaluations of right to information laws were discussed at a session Oct. 5 at the 7th International Conference of Information Commissioners in Ottawa, Canada.
Toby Mendel, executive director of the Centre for Law and Democracy, presented the Right to Information Rating (See previous FreedomInfo.org report) and the ratings from the six question campaign (See previous FreedomInfo.org report).
In addition, an ongoing Carter Center study on the “plumbing” for implementation was described, as was an effort to develop model language regarding national security information.
RTI Rating With 61 Indicators
Mendel described the recently released RTI rating tool that looks at the legal framework of access laws, not implementation or proactive disclosure, but which he said nevertheless correlates “very well with how a country actually does.”
The rating system, has 61 indicators in seven categories, weighted based on international best practice standards, he said. The seven categories are the right to access (6 points), scope category (30), requesting procedures (30), exceptions and refusals (30), appeals (30), sanctions and protections (8) and promotional materials (16).
For each indicator, countries earn points within a set range of scores (in most cases 0-2), depending on how well the legal framework delivers the indicator, for a possible total of 150 points.
There could be differences of opinion, he said, citing for example the rating system’s preference for oversight bodies with binding oversight powers. However, he defended the choices as “a rational and logical assessment of international standards that laws should have.”
He noted that some scores that have not yet been reviewed by local reviewers are not as reliable.
The ratings can be “a powerful advocacy tool,” he said, but hoped that they would be used mostly as an internal assessment measure.
Carter Center Working on Implementation Study
Laura Neuman, associate director of The Americas Program at the Carter Center, Atlanta, Ga., described its under-development “Implementation Assessment Tool.” Focusing on implementation of RTI laws, the Center hopes not only to identify where successful implementation is occurring, but also to create a comprehensive set of benchmarks for implementation.
The “so unsexy” tool, Neuman said, nicknamed the “plumbing” study, has 72 indictors about whether agencies have the necessary components and elements to implement a successful law. The study does not look at outputs, such as rates of responses or response quality. For example, it asks not if a commissioner is mandated by law, but whether one has been appointed, if they have sufficient seniority and have adequate resources.
Aiming to “keep it as simple as possible,” the Center wants the result to provide guidance to information offices and rankings are not planned.
It has been developed in part through a series of experts meetings, and cooperation with national officials, and pilot studies in three countries: Mexico, Bangladesh and South Africa. More pilots are planned.
Implementation is a broad category, Neuman said, and “there is lots more research to be done,” responding to a suggestion that there be an assessment of other structures at a national level, such as civil society’s role, which help to make this RTI laws work in practice. She noted other factors such as political leadership. “We are really just starting,” she said.
Mendel observed that what information gets out is “the ultimate metric.”
During the discussion period, Nevena Ruzic of the Serbian Information Commission said Serbia is developing a methodology to evaluate proactive dissemination of government information.
John McMillan, Australian information commissioner, said he was grappling with evaluating agency performance, but commented that he has “an uneasy feeling” that the RTI ratings methodologies have a bias based on their creation by civil society groups.
National Security Principles Under Development
Sandra Coliver, senior legal officer of the Open Society Justice Initiative, an effort to develop “practical and useful” standards around national security information.
Still looking for guidance on the principles as they are being drafted, Colliver highlighted draft “should” recommendations calling for creation of autonomous oversight bodies and for protections of good faith reasonable protections for information officers. She also outlined the draft proposals for declassification standards and requested input on the draft standards.
The latest draft is available here.
Filed under: What's New