Thanks, David. Patrice OpenTheGovernment.org 202.332.6736
-----Original Message----- From: David Goldberg [mailto:davgoldb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:35 AM To: Toby Mendel Cc: Patrice McDermott; Foianet Subject: Re: [foianet] call for information on ATI/FOIA compliance Dear Patrice and all, Section 53 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act is titled "Failure to comply with notice"... In a nutshell, failure to comply may be treated by a court as if it were a contempt of court. See <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/13/section/53> Has it been relied on? Not so far as I know... Best wishes, David On 16 April 2013 15:56, Toby Mendel <t...@law-democracy.org> wrote: > Right, so roughly similar situation as in Bulgaria, and that is why > both countries need an independent administrative oversight body (hope > you are listening, Sasho :) > > Toby > > ___________________________________ > Toby Mendel > Executive Director > > Centre for Law and Democracy > t...@law-democracy.org > Tel: +1 902 431-3688 > Fax: +1 902 431-3689 > www.law-democracy.org > > > > > On 16 Apr 2013, at 11:49, Patrice McDermott wrote: > > Thanks, Toby. Really helpful (as always). > > I agree about the strands & we are trying to pull the thread on agency > compliance with the requirements of the law - including permitted > delays, charging of fees, etc. All the stuff that agencies use to > make requestors go away -- and that they generally get away with for > the average requestor, and that wastes the time of all persons involved. > No one here is charged with calling them on it & enforcing the > language of the law. Indeed, our Justice Dept has weighed-in on the > side of agencies a couple of times recently in litigation where the > agencies were patently violating the letter of the statute. So, it is > highly unlikely DOJ would prosecute the willful obstruction; they would > probably defend it in court. > > > Patrice > OpenTheGovernment.org > 202.332.6736 > > From: Toby Mendel [mailto:t...@law-democracy.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:31 AM > To: Patrice McDermott > Cc: Foianet > Subject: Re: [foianet] call for information on ATI/FOIA compliance > > Hi Patrice, > > I think there are a few different strands to this: > > 1) In many countries, you can appeal against refusals to provide > information (or other failures to comply with the law) to an > administrative oversight body, let's call it an information > commission. This body can then order a public body to do various > things to repair the breach (assuming it finds one), such as providing > the information, reducing fees, etc. In most countries, these bodies > have at least formally binding powers while in some (such as Canada), they > can only make recommendations. > > 2) In most countries, including the US, it is an offence to wilfully > obstruct access to information in breach of the law. In most > countries, these offences are rarely if ever prosecuted. In some > countries, there are also administrative penalties for such breaches, > so that officials may be fined for this. This has been actively used in > India, for example. > > 3) In some countries, like India, oversight bodies have the power to > order public bodies to put in place structural measures, such as > better training programmes, to address more structural failures to > implement the law. And in a few, there is the possibility of fines > being imposed on public bodies for this (not sure how effective they > are; possibly not too much, as in Bulgaria). > > Basically, one of the main weaknesses of the US law compared to better > practice laws is the absence of any administrative oversight body > which can decide complaints without requesters needing to go to court. > > Best, Toby > > ___________________________________ > Toby Mendel > Executive Director > > Centre for Law and Democracy > t...@law-democracy.org > Tel: +1 902 431-3688 > Fax: +1 902 431-3689 > www.law-democracy.org > > > > > On 15 Apr 2013, at 15:06, Patrice McDermott wrote: > > > There is no entity in the U.S. federal government who has clear > authority (and willingness) to ensure that the federal agencies are > actually complying with the requirements of our FOIA statute. Reports > are provided, lots of #s given - but there are no repercussions (other > than occasionally losing in court & having to pay the requestor's > attorney fees) for failure to follow the law. We are starting to > discuss how this might most effectively and usefully be remedied in the US. > > How is compliance handled in other countries - both statutorily and in > actuality (i.e., does any agency/bureau/office ever suffer for failing > to follow the law and - if so - how?) What entity has responsibility > for ensuring compliance? > > Thanks, in advance. Please reply to the list, as I am presuming the > responses will be of interest more generally. We will compile and > report back. > > Best, > > Patrice > > Patrice McDermott, Executive Director > OpenTheGovernment.org > 202.332.6736 > > > > > -- "Ye canna get leave tae thrive for thrang", A Ramsay (ed) A collection of Scots Proverbs (1736)
