Office of the Chief Information and Privacy Officer

ROUTINE DISCLOSURE/ACTIVE DISSEMINATION

(RD/AD)

A Joint Project of

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

and

The Corporate Freedom of Access and Privacy Office
Ministry of Government Services

April 1994

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the members of the working group for their time and effort in developing these practices. Without their views and experience, this paper could not have been written. Thank you to:

OVERVIEW

A major challenge for government organizations is meeting the public's growing need for information in a cost effective fashion. To satisfy this demand and foster open government, practices have been developed to encourage the routine disclosure/active dissemination of information. These practices are intended to provide advice to Freedom of Information and Privacy Co-ordinators on various options for encouraging greater access to government held information.

Routine disclosure and active dissemination are separate concepts. However, operationally they are not mutually exclusive. Although separate in definition, both activities are designed to achieve the same objective. The routine disclosure and active dissemination of information are ways of providing greater access to government information. Routine disclosure and active dissemination may be defined as follows:

Routine disclosure (RD): occurs when a request for a general record can be granted routinely either inside or outside of the formal access process prescribed by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the provincial Act) and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the municipal Act).

Active dissemination (AD): occurs when information or records are periodically released (without any request) pursuant to a specific strategy for release of information.

There are numerous advantages to government promoting RD/AD. Not only will the public be better-served and better-informed, but the practices of RD/AD will be cost effective for government organizations as well. Processing requests and appeals within the confines of the Acts is more expensive and time consuming than having predictable access to pre-identified categories of records.

In the long run, the practices of RD/AD can be labour saving. Classifying records as subject to RD/AD and ensuring that front line staff are aware of these classifications will make it easier for staff to provide information to the public in an efficient manner.

The establishment of RD/AD practices can be an important part of a government organization's commitment to an open exchange of information with the public that it serves. Government organizations are encouraged to be proactive in establishing practices that foster RD/AD. In the process of determining these practices, we recommend that the following principles be incorporated:

In the spirit of the Acts, unless there is a statutory requirement or reason not to release the documentation, RD/AD of general records should become the norm.

Good customer service should always be of primary importance whether requests for information are made formally or informally. The actual needs of the customer should be addressed to the extent possible. Anticipating the needs of the customer and making the information available in advance of a request is the ultimate objective for which government organizations should aim.

Although RD/AD are not specifically mandated by statute in Ontario, section 63(1) of the provincial Act and section 50(1) of the municipal Act both make provision for the disclosure of information outside the formal access process - for example, through oral requests or in the absence of requests.

In addition, section 63(2) of the provincial Act and section 50(2) of the municipal Act state that the Acts should not be applied to preclude access to general records to which access by the public was allowed by custom or practice which predated the legislation. Finally, section 10 of the provincial Act and section 4 of the municipal Act also encourage access to and disclosure of records to the extent possible.

Back to Table of Contents

PRACTICES

The following practices are intended as tools which can help you determine which records could be classified as subject to RD/AD.

According to the Acts, government organizations are required to have either a directory of records or a records listing. The directory of records and the records listing each represent a good starting position to implement the practices of RD/AD.

If you are a government organization just beginning to familiarize yourself with the principles of RD/AD, we encourage you to develop a records management system and a listing of types of records to enable you to implement the practices of RD/AD which are set out below.

Initially, classifying general records as subject to RD/AD will require time on the part of FOI Co- ordinators and front line staff. A well-organized classification system will, however, help you when responding to customer needs.

In this section of the report, a set of practices with suggestions and/or examples are provided. Once you begin classifying records, you may develop other approaches that could assist other FOI Co- ordinators and front line staff. We encourage you to share your ideas with the relevant personnel in other government organizations.

Develop a network. Talk to people to find out how they go about classifying their records. You may find that many of their records are similar to your records. Even if they are different, the principles used to determine a classification scheme may be applicable to your records.

When you begin to check with other organizations, it might be a good idea to create your own personal contact list. This could save you time in the future when classifying records. As your network grows, modify your list.

In order to keep informed and anticipate client needs, you may want to consider producing a circulation list. A circulation list would alert other internal and external front line staff of new records which have been classified as subject to RD/AD.

When reviewing your records, look for trends in your requests. For example, a matter continually subject to public debate that would result in a number of requests may constitute a trend. Use these trends to help you identify other record categories that could be subject to RD/AD. As trends develop, you will find that the process of classifying records will become easier.

Each of these practices should also assist your organization to process access requests in a more cost effective fashion.

The practices set out below are separated into two categories: general records and personal information. According to section 2 of the Acts, personal information is defined as recorded information about an identifiable individual. Since there is no definition for general records in the Acts, for practical purposes, FOI practitioners identify general records as records which are not personal information banks.

Back to Table of Contents

General Records

To determine which types of general records are good candidates for RD/AD, the following practices should be considered:

(1) If disclosure is mandated by another piece of legislation, the record is to be released. Government organizations should refer to their own enabling legislation as well. (If you have any doubt, check with your legal counsel).

For example, the Assessment Act requires that certain assessment information be made available to the public. Other examples of legislation that mandate the release of certain types of information include the Education Act, the Labour Relations Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Rent Control Act, the Corporations Information Act, the Municipal Act, the Local Improvement Act, the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, the Planning Act, the Emergency Plans Act, the Police Services Act, the Highway Traffic Act, and the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

(2) Once a government organization has identified records which are subject to RD/AD, the authority to disclose these documents should be delegated, to the extent possible, to front line staff within the organization.

A list of records subject to RD/AD can be created, photocopied and distributed to all front line staff. This list can then be used as a reference source. When dealing with the public, staff can refer to the list to immediately determine whether the records sought are ones which could be subject to RD/AD.

When a list of records is prepared, front line staff can also provide feedback on the list by evaluating how useful it is and provide suggestions on how to improve it. Government organizations could then add this list to their own directory of records or records listing. This would assist in keeping the lists accurate and up-to-date.

(3) Any class of record which is released regularly, without exemption, should be reviewed to determine whether it should be subject to RD/AD.

For example, one government organization had numerous requests for building permit information. In order to save time, the organization created a special database which could be accessed by the public.(1) Members of the public could come to the organization, access the information by computer and leave with a print-out of the information contained in the database (see Appendix A).

(1) *Note: any personal information contained in this database would fall outside the ambit of Part II of the municipal Act as the information is maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public.

(4) All newly created records should be evaluated to determine if there might be public benefit/interest in their RD/AD.

When new records are created, a process should be developed so that the records are reviewed by the FOI Co-ordinator at an early stage to determine if they could be subject to RD/AD. This would eliminate having to classify the records in an ad hoc manner and, ultimately, save time.

(5) Where possible, standard records should be modified by removing segments that would be subject to mandatory exemptions thereby making the records subject to RD/AD.

If a record contains both general information and personal information, but the main purpose of the record is to provide general information, we suggest that you review the record to determine if the personal information in the record can either be removed or moved to a separate page. If the information is removed and the record is then modified, parts of the record could then become subject to RD/AD.

(6) Where a government organization decides that a record is not subject to RD/AD, the organization should consider whether parts of the record could be subject to RD/AD.

For example, one municipal organization regularly considers whether planning and/or property reports received at in-camera council meetings can be disclosed to the public and media, in the absence of any formal requests under the Act. If council determines that the report may be released, an amendment is passed at the council meeting to reflect that the report may be released (see Appendix B).

In the alternative, if council determines that the report itself cannot be released but the issue is one of public interest, the government organization will often put together a public information package.

(7) Records that are to be subject to RD/AD should be determined by the nature of the record and not by the identity of the requester or the use to which the record will be put.

(8) The list of records which are subject to RD/AD should be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure the list is accurate and up-to-date.

Back to Table of Contents

Personal Information

While the focus of this paper has been on assisting government organizations in classifying general records as subject to RD/AD, we recognize that FOI Co-ordinators also regularly deal with requests for personal information. A number of the practices suggested above can also be used to make the process of providing access to an individual's personal information a more routine and less time- consuming process, always bearing in mind the need to protect the privacy of other individuals.

For example, ensuring to the extent possible that records compiled in an individual's social assistance file contain only that individual's personal information would make giving access to the individual a routine matter.