|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Submissions | |
|
||||
|
Report 10 - Access to Information Review Task Force
CONSTRUCTING A CULTURE OF ACCESS IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Access to Information and the Public Service Work Environment –
A Study Commissioned by the
Access to Information Review Task Force
III. A Culture of Access in the Public Service
1. Defining a Culture of Access
Mme. Andrée Delagrave, Chair of the Access to Information Review Task Force, has stated that one of the key issues of her mandate is to identify ways to create a culture of access, that is "a culture where providing information is seen as an integral and valued part of the job of every public servant" (Delagrave, 2001). In a culture of access, providing information is taken for granted as a legitimate part of the daily work routine of public servants; It becomes part of their work identity.
All three groups of public servants with whom we spoke, officers, managers and ADMs alike, have a very concrete idea of what a culture of access should look like. It means creating an "open and proactive approach to providing access to information," according to one ADM. "We take requests pretty seriously, and spend a lot of time trying to get it right," said an officer. The following quote from a manager emphasizes the legitimacy of an access culture (taking it "seriously"), underscoring its self-evident, taken-for-granted nature ("a fact of life"):
"Our department takes providing access quite seriously. It is discussed in management meetings, and training has been offered to staff, although we didn't force people to take it. Providing access is something known and understood, and a fact of life."
Constructing a culture of access in the Government of Canada depends upon formulating and legitimizing a set of principles, values, symbols and practices that will provide access to information to Canadians. It also means providing the necessary material culture in the form of tools to do the job well. Finally, constructing a culture of access involves fashioning organizational identities around the practice of access.
We begin to define a culture of access by examining how public servants' understand the values and driving principles of the access to information legislation. We then discuss the nature of access requests and the responses they generate, ending the section with an analysis of public servants' diverse experiences of Access, the tools they use to do the job, and the frustrations they encounter along the way.
i. Values and driving principles
All the government employees with whom we spoke, be they officers, managers or ADMs define the values and driving principles of access as those democratic ideals with which they wholeheartedly concur. They point out that the need for transparency, accountability, openness, honesty, and integrity of government, as well as the citizen's right to know lie at the heart of our democratic system. These underlying values and driving principles of access are worthy, necessary and must be protected. Not one person questioned the democratic necessity of access to information for Canadians. One manager explained:
"The senior level committee in our Department is there to have a consistent approach to how we treat requests for Access. They ensure that responses meet the departmental standards. We think the process is to do the job right. I've never met anyone that disagreed with access."
Public servants acknowledge that access to information is a necessary practice for safeguarding responsible government and the public trust. They consider it their professional and ethical duty to support the philosophy and core beliefs that underpin Access. In short, the values and principles of access to information for Canadian citizens are considered legitimate ones by public servants. Legitimating values and principles represents an important first step in constructing a culture of access.
ii. Diverse experiences of Access
When public servants get together to talk about their work environment it quickly becomes evident that there is a large diversity of organizational cultures within the Government of Canada. The variety of governmental departments, the range of departmental size, unique missions and diverse geographical locations (regions/Ottawa) are some of the many variables influencing the kind and volume of Access requests received. Moreover, different departments obtain requests from different sources and different types of requestors.
The range of experience with, and response to access also varies widely across departments, given parameters such as the volume of requests and the concomitant workload, training (or lack thereof) available to public servants, the quality of information management systems, managerial response to access, and the like. The volume of access requests, for example, varies from none, or very few demands, to 200 per year, to 100 per day! Access is described by some as a "low hum" in the daily life of the office. Considering training, some officers are satisfied with the amount and quality of their preparation for Access work, others complain of the lack of instruction, or the lack of time to take the training when it is available.
The material culture of access presents various challenges, for the tools to do the job are not always readily available. Some departments have efficient filing and information management systems, while others do not. A critical feature of an access culture, one which goes to the very heart of bureaucracy, is the keeping of records. Clearly, efficient and effective management of information fosters a culture of access. Where information systems are in order, officers are well prepared to respond to requests. One ADM explained,
"Our information and files are in good shape, and this has an impact on our ability to respond. Everything is well documented (e.g., phone conversations, meetings), and we know where the records are. The people in this office incorporate records management in their daily work."
In this example, the culture of access is facilitated by incorporating records management into the daily office routine.
On the other hand, "shoddy" record keeping makes it difficult and time-consuming to answer requests. Officers working with substandard filing systems are frustrated by time wasted looking for documents that are either lost or misfiled. Moreover, e-mail traffic and telephone messages render the situation "quite onerous", says one ADM. "It would be helpful to have records management systems that are up to the task!"
The problem of record management is exacerbated by the lack of a shared understanding of what constitutes a record under the Act. "E-mail, black books, notes, etc. -- are they records?" asks an ADM. Definitional ambiguity coupled with inadequate guidance for record disposal make it "exceptionally difficult to know what to keep and what not to keep." Such ambiguity is hardly propitious for constructing a culture of access. The personal computer adds an ironic twist to the story. Intended to facilitate record keeping, the machine often complicates the process, since it exponentially multiplies the amount of information generated, and everyone has their own method of storing information. Moreover, the personal computer also raises questions about the nature of information itself. "Is information generated on my computer government property or my own personal intellectual property?" asks the public servant. Government employees want guidelines for filing and information management. Furthermore, one manager advised: "Fix the e-mail system!"
The focus groups made it clear that the equipment available for public servants to do access work is not adequate for the job. The material culture does not support the ideational one. Lack of proper tools leads to resentment, wasted time and frustration on the part of employees; not a propitious situation for constructing a culture of access. Deficient material culture, however, is not the only source of frustration regarding access; others are generated by the descriptions public servants use to classify requests for information.
iii. Nature of Access requests and the responses they generate
A major theme woven through the discussions concerns public servants' interpretations of requests for access to information. In the first instance, public servants identify "requests from Canadian citizens", described as honest and straight-forward requests for information concerning some aspect of government business. These requests are categorized as "legitimate." They correspond to the taken-for-granted values of a democratic society that include "the citizen's right to know."
Public servants express a desire to respond to such requests with the professionalism enshrined in public service values. Providing information is seen as an "integral and valued part of the job of public servants." It must be said, however, that public servants also express varying degrees of frustration concerning their ability to respond. The main problem centres around the quality and availability of the material culture with which one can work, that is the files and information management systems needed to expeditiously respond to access requests.
A second set of requests, labelled "frivolous requests", generates a very different dynamic. Frivolous requests are perceived as unanticipated and unintended by the Access to Information Act. Frivolous requests include demands for information that simply does not exist, or requests from those with no real interest in the data solicited. Motives imputed to "frivolous requests/requestors" assume the objective is to tie up the workings of government departments. If officers are busy searching for files, and if managers are occupied overseeing the investigation, it is clear that ("real" and "visible") office work will not get done.
A third type of request comes from those on "fishing expeditions", which involve sweeping requests for all sorts of information. It is obvious (to the public servant) that requestors are casting a "fishnet" to see what kinds of information they can catch. Requestors "troll", casting their nets wide in the hopes of finding something of interest, that is, information that could embarrass the Government of Canada in general or a department or minister in particular. The requestor on the fishing expedition might also be seeking a competitive advantage in business undertakings with the government.
Responses to frivolous and "trolling" requests range from frustration to anger, to fear. Public servants feel that they are being "abused" by these requests, which are a "burden" on both the officer and the department. Moreover, frivolous requests and "fishing expeditions" seriously interfere with public servants' "real work." "It is an intrusion on our daily work life," explains one officer. Since such requests themselves are not valued by public servant, neither is responding to them. This is not legitimate work. Rather, responding to such requests constitutes invisible work, work outside the job description, devalued work, underpaid work, a waste of time and resources. Officers are offended when they compare the $5.00 access fee to the amount of working time they spend (away from their "real" job) responding to the request. "We wind up being paid minimum wage for access work!" exclaimed one officer. A manager summed up the issue of the value of access work in his Department:
"No one wants to be in a position of judging good or frivolous requests. There should be a way for an individual to recognize the amount of time required to find the information and then there should be a commensurate charge to reflect the value of this work to find and prepare the information. Someone has to pay for the supplementary cost of time and resources. It's not that we want to prevent people from having access to this information, but there is a cost."
Fearing intentions to embarrass the government, to gain an unfair advantage in negotiations, and/or to procure low-cost research data at the taxpayer's expense, public servants balk at the job of responding to requests they consider to be illegitimate, and look for ways to protect information within their purview. Responding to requests judged to be frivolous or "fishing expeditions" offends government workers' sense of serving the public interest. In their eyes, it runs contrary to public service values and affronts the identity they prize as public servants, namely, government employees serving the public interest.
Public servants embrace the values and driving principles of Access, regardless of their experience with requests. They differentiate between "legitimate" requests coming from "citizens", frivolous requests, and trolling expeditions resulting in a good deal of (what they define as) wasted time. Nonetheless, public servants at all three levels of officer, manager and ADM recognize and embrace their roles and responsibilities, aspects of the job that contribute to their identity as public employees serving the public good. It is to the articulation of these roles and responsibilities that we now turn.
2. Roles and Responsibilities of Public Servants
The discussions concerning roles and responsibilities of public servants with respect to access were directed to three broad topics, namely, information management, processing access requests, and proactive provisions of information to Canadians.
i) Information management
Officers, managers and ADMs have different but complementary roles concerning information management. Officers see their role as efficiently managing information, channelling it, tracking it and properly filing it. "Managing the paper trail" is one way they describe their work. Officers try to ensure that records meets a standard of quality that "could be printed in the Ottawa Citizen". They are also responsible for the proper filing of this information, considered a sizable problem by many. Some officers are aware of the possibility of tension between protecting the minister and/or the department, and serving the public when dealing with access to information issues.
Managers, for their part, take information management one step further, overseeing employees engaged in the task. Explains one manager: "We do our best. We play the role of gate-keeper of information between what comes into the system and what goes out." Managers ensure the integrity of information as well as its appropriate retention, recording, and filing. They consider information management a serious responsibility, and problems that arise generate anxiety and concern, which "weigh very heavily" upon them. One manager describes a problematic situation in her Department.
"Information management weighs very heavily on me because it is done very badly in my organization, and we have not been successful in changing it. If the information has not gone through the formal "sign-off" process, there is probably no record in our files. If it hasn't gone to DG or ADM, if there is no really formal memo or formal letter from someone important, it may not be filed. Officers send letters everyday, which go into their personal file. There is a big mistrust of the filing system, for they only service you through certain hours. Individuals have individual working files which they feel belong to them rather than the organization. There are lots of day-to-day transactions, there are not enough records. As a manager, it my responsibility to manage right but it weighs on me to manage all this. The filing isn't good."
Among their responsibilities for information management, managers consider coaching to an important task. They encourage their staff to write information in a professional manner, and coach their employees on the standards of quality to be met in government records.
ADMs consider "traffic management" as part of their Access responsibilities, making the information available and "getting the stuff out." Moreover, they take to heart the important leadership role of "setting the tone for a culture of openness." One ADM explains:
"A big part of my job is to set the tone for the culture. I can validate some values and discourage others. I can reinforce the values and principles of the ATI Act, and encourage people not to fight the legislation. It is an important part of the accountability system."
A culture of openness begins and ends with a political will to legitimate the process, and ADMs embrace Access as a responsibility integral to their mandate.
All three groups (officers, managers and ADMs) include "educating others about Access" as an important part of their roles and responsibilities concerning information management. This educating function represents an important part of socialization into the organizational culture, as well as a significant element in the process of organizational identity formation.
ii. Processing Access requests
When it comes to processing Access requests, a range of issues were raised by public servants. At one end of the continuum, the discourse reflects the spirit of a culture of access. For example, one manager explains his role in processing Access requests.
"I see my job as making it administratively as simple as possible, identifying who in the unit has access to the information pertinent to the request. If there is a problem with the question, I push it back for clarification. If I believe a certain area of the Department has pertinent information, and I see that they have not been asked to search for it, I will feed that back to the ATIP unit. If staff identifies material to be exempted, I challenge them on it, checking to see if it was tried before and did not fly. My engagement is to go as far as we can in giving information. Sometimes staff thinks it is appropriate to use an exemption, but I may say I don't know why we should do that."
A culture of access involves what officers refer to as a "mind-set" of releasing documents in accordance with the law. The notion of a "mind-set" is significant here, for it depicts the internalized, self-evident nature of culture. One manager explained, "I take the classification of 'public servant' very literally. If a citizen calls requesting information that I have, by all means give him the information."
At the other end of the continuum is a "policing" culture, or a control culture. For those who operate in this protective mode, the response to access requests is guarded. "The first thing I do is ask myself: What can I protect?" said an officer. The responsibility in this case is to consider carefully what and how information is being written to avoid "getting the Department in trouble" or inadvertently "embarrassing the Minister."
Responses to access can be found at all points along the continuum, for public servants are well acquainted with the tension between a legal responsibility to release and a duty to protect. What they most want to do, however, is to "get it right." "We take requests pretty seriously; we spend a lot of time trying to get it right."
iii) Proactive provision of information to Canadians
The proactive provision of information to Canadians contributes to a culture of access, for as one officer commented, "It is my job to be proactive." Public servants at all levels of the hierarchy offered some effective examples of providing information proactively to Canadians. Officers describe how they post information on the departmental web-site, eliminating the necessity of requests for the material. Informally responding to requests for information is another effective tactic. Such action must be supported and encouraged by one's superiors, of course.
Managers identify proactive provision of information to Canadians in terms of time devoted to outreach and discussion with their client base. Another proactive measure involves posting results of performance measure studies on departmental web-sites. At the ADM level, a proactive practice regarding the provision of information includes "constantly educating people and encouraging each programme to be more proactive in terms of providing information to Canadians."
There appears, however, to be a contradiction here between proactive provision of information to Canadians and the problem of providing access as invisible work. Read on.
3. Providing Access as "Invisible Work"
"People should be reminded they are here in the employ of the Federal government to serve. But we have a lot of turnover, and when we recruit we gild the lily, describing the great job and responsibilities they will have. But we never mention ATIP. Once on board, they ask, 'What is this [Access work]?' We sell the nice part of the job but we don't talk about ATIP. It's not really mentioned in the job description."
Here is a very good example of the invisible nature of access work, as described to us by an officer. Access work is not specified in the job description, and when confronted with it, public servants are surprised and become resentful. They feel cheated and duped into doing a job that they did not sign on to do. One officer explained: "Pulling documents is not time consuming, but analysing them takes an enormous amount of time and requires full knowledge of the Act. That is not why I have been hired." Another commented: "Providing access is having heard everyone say, at least once: 'I've been hired to do a job and responding to Access requests is not it!'"
Given these scenarios, it is not surprising that public servants begrudge the task of responding to access requests. Particularly when requests are not considered legitimate, access work is described as a "burden", a burden on individuals, on departments and on the system. One manager summed up the situation in his office:
"It is a lot of work and really, there are no resources in the unit. On a bad day it really is a burden. We have to drop other things to do it : 1) because of the legal time-frame and 2) because it does have the attention of senior management."
To cut to the chase, the problem for officers is that providing access is often "invisible work" outside of their control, for which they have few resources and inadequate tools. Requests come in and officers must drop what they are doing to respond. Many express the concern that, "Providing access takes me away from my real job."
Three important issues are involved here. One is the pressure of dual demands. Time spent responding to Access requests is time that must be recuperated to do their "real" job. Access work needs be done, but the regular job demands must also be met. Public servants are required to deliver on both, and there is no relief. A second significant problem raised by Access demands is that of control, or rather the lack of it. "It takes me away", says the officer. It is Access that has the power in this instance, not the worker. The third issue questions the legitimacy of access work. Since this work takes the officer away from his/her "real" job, the sub-text here is that access work is not real work, not valued work. As one manager explained, "I would value access work more if a discreet group with proper resources had the primary function of ATI. Otherwise, it is very hard."
Another problem needing attention is the pressure of mixed messages and dual demands surrounding Access. One officer described a "catch-22" situation. While the Minister and his entourage were in a certain region "making an important announcement," the Department was instructed to respond to a request for information. Since he could not be in two places at once, that is, in the region with the Minister, and at the office in Ottawa processing the Access request, the officer explained the situation as an example of the mixed message of access: "It is important but not do-able."
