|
I am copying this exchange to the mailing list because its expansion of
aspects touched upon in my posting yesterday may be of general interest. I
do so with Tom's permission. As usual, start reading at the bottom.
Tom
That is the way I have been pushing it. Three points:
* the exemption at section 21 is from both parts of the duty at
section 1, ie the duty to confirm and deny as well as the duty to provide. I
got our in-house lawyer (now sadly departed to another job) to consider this
and she took the view that the likelihood of information being held would
suffice to claim it, not the actuality, which would require verification
* the section 45 code makes explicit reference to provision of
catalogues and indexes as ways in which enquirers can be helped identify
where the information is - we got that inserted to cater for archives
* the publication scheme entry for archives could say something about
archives as specified in catalogues and indexes and available for public
research as indicated therein - it needs to be carefully worded so that you
don't find yourself inadvertently committed to opening archives that should
be closed because an exemption applies. Ditto finding aids - if you, like
us, keep some catalogue information out of the public domain then you need
to word your scheme entry accordingly so as to enable you to protect that
information
All in all, I believe it is reasonable to claim the section 21 exemption on
the basis of likelihood when you provide the means for the enquirer to delve
further in your finding aids.
I am considering putting together a form of words that people could use in
publication schemes for their archival holdings and finding aids. Would that
be useful?
Susan Healy
> ----------
> From: Tom Mayberry[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 April 2002 16:58
> To: 'Healy, Susan '
> Subject: RE: handling enquiries
>
> Susan
>
> Many thanks for a very helpful reply, and for warning of the importance of
> getting things into the Publication Scheme. What I continue to wonder is
> if
> an on-line catalogue, referred to in a Publication Scheme, records the
> existence and availability of, eg, an electoral register for a given date
> and constituency, can we claim an exemption under FoI if someone enquires
> whether that register contains a particular name or names. The great
> majority of research enquiries received in a record office are not
> answered
> by a catalogue entry alone: the catalogue is only a signpost.
>
> I suspect there may not be a clear answer to this yet (though I don't
> really
> know). I am very grateful for your clarifications.
>
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Healy, Susan
> To: 'Tom Mayberry'
> Sent: 15/04/02 15:46
> Subject: RE: handling enquiries
>
> Tom
>
> First issue is which records are covered by FOI? All records of local
> authorities and other public authorities and their predecessors. Also
> records of private origin that you own - but not those held on deposit
> where
> ownership remains with the private sector (non-public authority)
> depositor.
>
> Second issue is what you can charge for research - if you continue to do
> paid research.
>
> You will be able to take advantage of the exemption at s 21 where the
> archives are catalogued and available in a search room (as long as said
> catalogues and archives are entries in your authorities' publication
> scheme). That enables you to refuse to do research for people. I see
> that
> as the main survival strategy for archives offices. Of course, you will
> still need to deal with FOI requests re closed and uncatalogued records.
>
> Research in response to an FOI request is caught by the FOI Fees Order,
> ie
> you can recover only 10% of the cost of locating the information. So, on
> the
> face of it you could only charge a proportion of your £22.
>
> However, it seems to me that if you are claiming the s 21 exemption
> through
> your publication scheme, you could also then say you will charge the
> full
> cost of dealing with the enquiry for which the s 21 exemption has been
> claimed on the grounds that the enquiry is no longer an FOI request. I
> am
> not sure how the Commissioner would view this and intend to float it
> with
> them some time but it does seem worth trying. Try to get it in your
> local
> authority scheme and see what happens ...
>
> Susan Healy
>
> > ----------
> > From: Tom Mayberry[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 15 April 2002 15:01
> > To: 'Healy, Susan '
> > Subject: RE: handling enquiries
> >
> > Susan
> >
> > I would be most interested in your view of what FoI means for existing
> > Research Services. In the Somerset RO we have a self-financing
> service
> > charged at £22 an hour. Admittedly most of the research is based on
> > parish
> > records (which are not, I assume, caught by FoI, though fiche copies
> which
> > we own presumably are). What level of research will FoI imply? Will
> it
> > be
> > sufficient to say, eg, we have the registers for parish x at date y,
> or
> > will
> > more be demanded of us? In other words will a self-financing research
> > service be viable any more?
> >
> > There may be no answer to this yet, but I (and I suspect others) would
> > welcome an informed opinion.
> >
> >
> > Tom Mayberry
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Healy, Susan
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: 15/04/02 13:39
> > Subject: Re: handling enquiries
> >
> > David raises some interesting points here, especially as those of us
> in
> > the
> > public sector move towards implementation of FOI and revised
> > Environmental
> > Information Regulations.
> >
> > Any system for handling written enquiries (letters and emails) should
> > conform to the FOI Act section 45 code of practice. This is available
> in
> > draft on the LCD website - here is a link
> >
> > http://www.lcd.gov.uk/foi/dftcp00.htm
> >
> > The system should also take account of archives offices' needs (1) to
> be
> > able to track progress in dealing with these enquiries so as to ensure
> > the
> > deadline of 20 working days is met, and (2) to keep a record of action
> > in
> > the event of a complaint or appeal concerning handling of the enquiry
> or
> > its
> > outcome.
> >
> > In considering fees for doing research for enquirers, bear in mind not
> > only
> > obligations under FOI (to confirm or deny information is held unless
> an
> > exemption applies) but also the FOI Fees Order which will affect how
> > much
> > can be charged. Here is a link to the draft Regulations:
> >
> > http://www.lcd.gov.uk/foi/secleg.htm
> >
> > The Environmental Information Regulations introduce two complicating
> > factors: (1) they will come into operation before January 2005 and (2)
> > they
> > will apply to oral as well as written enquiries. They derive from the
> > Aarhus
> > Convention and apply to archives as well as current information - here
> > is a
> > link to the Convention:
> >
> > http://www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf
> >
> > In summary, look now at what you will need for life after
> implementation
> > of
> > FOI, taking account also of the EI Regulations.
> >
> > Susan Healy
> > PRO
> >
> >
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: David Bishop[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Reply To: David Bishop
> > > Sent: 15 April 2002 13:21
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Databases and enquiries
> > >
> > > Afternoon all,
> > >
> > > Two things: first off, we're currently rethinking our policy towards
> > > answering
> > > postal, email and telephone enquiries. In the past, we've restricted
> > our
> > > research to half an hour, and after this point have recommended that
> > the
> > > reader
> > > either visits the archive themselves, or employs a researcher to
> carry
> > out
> > > the
> > > work on their behalf. Recently, we've had some problems with this
> > system,
> > > most
> > > especially from particularly persistent readers who contact us
> > repeatedly
> > > in a
> > > short space of time with several quite detailed enquiries. I'd be
> > > interested to
> > > know what policies and/or systems of charging other record offices
> > have on
> > > this
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Second, we're also thinking about changing our database system. CALM
> > is
> > > obviously one of the first we thought of, and we're going to arrange
> a
> > > visit
> > > from them. However, I'd be interested to know what other systems
> > record
> > > offices
> > > are currently using, and whether they were put together in-house or
> by
> > > outside
> > > firms.
> > >
> > > If anyone wants feedback on either of the above, I'd be happy to
> > provide
> > > it. And
> > > apologies that this email contains no reference to either
> professional
> > > ethics,
> > > or what the fashion-conscious archivist is wearing these days...
> > >
> > > David Bishop
> > > Acting Senior Archivist
> > > Birmingham City Archive
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> **********************************************************************
> > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify
> > > the system manager.
> > >
> > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by
> > > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> > >
> > > www.mimesweeper.com
> > >
> **********************************************************************
> > >
> >
> >
> > This communication is intended solely for the person (s) or
> organisation
> > to
> > whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential
> > information and if you are not the intended recipient (s), you must
> not
> > copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have
> > received
> > this e-mail in error please notify the sender and copy the message to
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
>
>
> This communication is intended solely for the person (s) or organisation
> to
> whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential
> information and if you are not the intended recipient (s), you must not
> copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have
> received
> this e-mail in error please notify the sender and copy the message to
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
