Comments on: Freedom of Information: Designation of Additional Public Authorities

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:50:54 +0000

Goes back to the Q as to whether its better to have properly monitored / transparent services or none at all. Fair enough to pontificate in the abstract but i suspect most would rather have something than nothing.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:48:55 +0000

Yes, because these metrics could resolve valid concerns about the efficiency of these organisations.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:47:28 +0000

ORG’s specific interest will be in vendors of e.g. electronic voting and ‘database state’ hardware.

Also, collecting societies with de facto monopolies on administering copyrights?

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:39:32 +0000

All seem relevant. But how to balance - can we order them in some way?

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:38:40 +0000

Is it better that organisations provide public purpose but without transparency i.e. on trust alone or submit to burden that potentially prevents provision of service?

(I’m not sure i accept the question. What amounts are we actually talking about here i.e. what does it cost to establish a publication scheme?)

Yes, in principle, but depends how applied to the facts. If its used to keep bad practice and abuse of the public purse in the shadows then will need to be refined.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:32:55 +0000

Tough but important question.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:32:10 +0000

Anyone who is public-funded should be subject. However, a lack of public funding should not rule out obligations.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:29:22 +0000

Should there be additional factor tied in to the organisation’s own view of its activities; not conclusive (or non-acceptance would escape) but might work well for those who want to ‘opt-in’.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:22:00 +0000

Sounds about right - extend the Act when evidence clearly indicates benefits. Danger however is that this will involve delays.

Where can we look for evidence? Which other countries follow this approach? When you have a clear idea of questions, ask them of Maurice CFOI. And maybe Tom S too.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:18:57 +0000

Seems a better option to extend to those who obviously should be obliged - prisons (hospitals? schools? travel?) run by private contractors - than miss them out entirely because an equitable system cannot be made to work for the small guys (i.e. charities / voluntary organisations).