Ombudsman chides public servants over FOI refusals

The Ombudsman is an independent office under the Constitution (Section 91) that investigates people’s complaints against any public agency for their act or omission to act.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2001 gives the public a general right of access to official information held by public bodies, and said a person denied such may after 21 days complain to the Ombudsman.

Despite a marked fall in requests for her to review State agencies’ handling of FOI requests, Stephenson said public officers need training in how to deal with such requests analytically and dispassionately.

“I have also observed that the responses given to applicants tend to be vague and do not provide any justification for the decision(s) taken by the public authority,” Stephenson said. “Additionally, I have noted that designated officers who may be seeking to restrict access to the information requested will refer to a section in the Act which is not applicable or relevant to the request(s) made by the applicant.” She wondered at such occurrences, as the FOI Act has existed since 2001.

“Individuals charged with the responsibility for treating with the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests should be more knowledgeable and be able to interpret in a meaningful way the provisions of the Act,” Stephenson urged.

“Secondly, public authorities are not diligent in keeping to the time-lines specified under the Act. Designated officers and, by extension public authorities, do not treat FOI requests received with the sense of urgency and priority which they ought to be given.” She said public bodies must recognise their statutory duty to address requests for information within 30 days.

Saying public servants are paid by the taxpayer, she urged them to practice the “golden rule” and to treat persons how they themselves would like to be treated.

“The public has a right to be treated fairly,” urged Stephenson.

“It is not right that someone who has travelled from Moruga to Port-of-Spain to enquire about his matter, which is being dealt with by a Government department, to be told to return the following day since the officer dealing with his matter did not turn up for work on that day.

“The officer’s absence ought not to be used by the department concerned to renege from its responsibility to provide the requested service to the individual.” While some bodies do not treat her letters as urgent, she said officers she have summoned under the Ombudsman Act have not challenged her authority but have produced satisfactory results.

Saying public officials should not fear her, Stephenson quoted a British author on public law urging public officials to view the Ombudsman as a friend who serves as a lightening rod for true grievances and spares public bodies from political storms in the long run.

She said her office builds trust between government and the public.

Her report said the Ombudsman’s five main issues are poor communication, poor service (including inability to reach a public servant, unfair treatment and unfair policies), unpredictable enforcement, faulty decision and unreasonable delay. The report gave details in several tables of data.

Her office had before it 2,767 complaints in 2015, made up of 1,293 new complaints and 1,474 old complaints brought forward from past years.

The 1,293 new complaints comprised of 763 queries against public bodies, seven matters under the FOI Act, 407 enquiries/referrals and 116 private/ invalid matters.

Of the 763 figure, the five top offenders were the National Insurance Board (175 complaints), Ministry of National Security (80 complaints), Ministry of Local Government (73 complaints) and Ministry of Social Development (64 complaints).