A right to know
The Cayman Islands joined over 80 countries around the word celebrating International Right to Know Day on Friday, 28th September. While the importance of openness and transparency is increasingly recognized and translated into Freedom of Information legislation around the world, the Cayman Islands remains one of the trail blazers in the Caribbean in this regard.
While there are at least 12 countries or territories in the Caribbean that have FOI Legislation at some stage of development and implementation – either as a draft, passed or dormant law – research shows that we in Cayman are amongst the most advanced in terms of the implementation and operation of our FOI Law. Recently our legislation has been copied by the Bahamas, and it has also serves as an example for Bermuda, but so far many FOI regimes in the Region remain in their infancy.
However, in Cayman we have now seen almost 4 years of a vibrant and active Freedom of Information Regime: a steady number of requests are being responded to by public authorities and the Information Commissioner’s Office is busily hearing appeals and monitoring compliance. Internal policies and procedures are in place within Government and the ICO to ensure that the objectives of the FOI Law are being upheld.
These objectives are stated in the Law itself, and are worth repeating. The FOI Law aims to reinforce and give further effect to certain fundamental principles underlying the system of constitutional democracy, namely – government accountability, transparency and public participation in decision making. This is achieved by granting to the public a general right of access to records held by public authorities, but there are also exemptions to disclosure which balance this right against the need to keep some records confidential for various reasons.
Although in practice finding the balance between the general right to access and legitimate exemptions under the Law can at times be complex, there can be no doubt that the FOI Law has positively changed, and continues to change the way both the general public and public officers view official records and information.
Recently in the UK the Justice Select Committee of Parliament completed a “post-legislative scrutiny” of the FOI Act 2000. A close parallel can be drawn between its findings and our experiences in Cayman, and it is worth summarizing some of these findings.
The Select Committee’s report calls the FOI Act “a significant enhancement of our democracy”, and agrees with most of the witnesses that the Act is working well, calling FOI a “constitutional right, a fact that can get lost in complaints about the operation of the FOI regime”. On the question of cost, the Committee concluded that “the cost to public authorities must be weighed against the greater accountability the right to access information brings”, since “there is evidence of both direct cost savings, where [an FOI] request has revealed erroneous public spending, and an indirect impact whereby public authorities know that they will be exposed to scrutiny.. . and use resources accordingly.”
The report reaches these further conclusions:
– Proactive publication is important in achieving openness and transparency. It also reduces the number of applications made;
– there should be no changes to the system of“requestor blindness”, since the focus of FOI is on whether disclosure is justified, not on the identity of the requestor. As well, it would be prohibitively expensive to police a system that requires each applicant to provide their real name;
– public authorities should continue to use existing exemptions to protectthe necessary “safe space” for high-level policy discussions. Research shows that the so-called “chilling effect” of FOI on such discussions is negligible;
– when public functions are outsourced to the private sector, contractual terms should clearly safeguard the public’s access rights.
As the new Constitution is about to come fully into force, we should all strive to uphold and promote the tenets of good governance. Therefore, we are delighted to boast that in the area of Freedom of Information we have made great strides over the last four years. We encourage the Public Sector, at all levels, to embrace a culture of openness and transparency, to support the proactive disclosure of information, and to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law. We encourage members of the public to embrace your right to know, and use the Law responsibly to assist you in being better informed citizens.
See more about FOI Below
Category: Viewpoint
One of the most common responses to foi requests is “information does not exist”. Translation = we don’t want to tell you.
Next step needs to be; real consequences for non-compliance and/or corruption and/or criminality. Including where officials claim "ignorance" of the law.
The general public are often reminded in courts that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
When Govt. officials, especially corrupt politicians face real consequences (such as arrest, prosecution, fines and imprisonment) then FOI will have more impact on "Good Governance"!
It is hypocrisy for Manderson to co-author this piece when the civil service he oversees has done so much to impeded the use of these information gathering powers. When he disciplines someone for not assisting on a request, then I will believe that he means what is in this article.
When I first saw the FOI law I was very skeptical of the outcome.
However, Jennifer Dilbert has clearly demonstrated that my skepticism was unfounded. Ms. Dilbert is an effective champion of FOI who has held the government accountable and firmly enforced the rule of law in a reasonable and practical manner.
Well done, Jennifer. Keep up the good work.
And yet, recently, Mrs Dilbert hammered Mr Manderson badly and very publicly for allegedly not running an interview process for Chief Officers properly and now they are buddy-buddy on the wonders of FOI as andministered by the FOI Commissioner's Office. Sigh. Only in the cosy cosa nostra type world of Cayman where we are all family or related by intense friendships of ours or our parents and often also of the church can this happen.
So because she criticised their handling of that they should be mortal enemies? What small-mindedness. Did you ever think that maybe Mr. Manderson learned something?
Baby steps are needed when non compliance is so ingrained in the culture. Give it time. The smartest will get it first and then the rest can learn from them.
What a joke piece of propoganda. What is the point of legislation when the public bodies have a culture of refusal, delay and non-compliance?
I see that four civil servants have learned to use the troll button.
No one every said that adoption of the FOI law would be easy.
Changing the culture you speak of will be a long and hard task; however, progress is being made.
Also include "disappearing evidence/records" and a total lack of accountability within Government, without which the entire process of Freedom of Information is utterly pointless and reduced to a farce.
I am not sure what the point of this article is, because Mr. Manderson and Ms Dilbert do not impress me with all this backslapping.
If they want to do something to prove the point of FOI, then the Government should implement legislation to punish those officials who are found to be wanting or non compliant.
Show us that they mean business and that the FOI law means something to the people of Cayman other than being a pointless piece of legislation designed to impress our neighbours/masters.
Arrrrrrrrgh
Be reasonable. Jennifer Dilbert is doing a great job. It's difficult to ask people to hand over documents after they have been ordered to shred them.
I am being reasonable, Jennifer Dilbert did not have to put her name to this sycophantic piece of self indulgent rubbish, unless she thought there was something to be gained from it.
Mr Manderson, being an Attorney, should have known better than to sign this nonsense, unless there was something political to be gained from its publication.
I see no worth in publishing this article, unless they hoped to profit from it, as it is meaningless and impresses nobody with its contents.
Why was this article published?