Transparency on the cheap sidelines code's principles

Wednesday 31 July 2013.

It was the day of a vote that was meant to usher in a new era of transparency – and a cultural shift in the way the States goes about its business.

In opening debate on the new access to public information policy, then Chief Minister Peter Harwood said: 'Transparency encourages scrutiny; it forces governments to think about what they are doing and how they are doing it; it helps to increase the understanding of the process of governance of the people that it serves; and, consequently, it maintains and develops greater trust in Government.'

They were fine words, neatly setting out why real openness is required.

But now nearly four years on we have been told that, bar a few administrative tweaks, there is no need to strengthen the information code that should be driving this – for Policy & Resources it is effectively job done and on to the next topic.

It should not be, because at the moment the States is trying to do transparency on the cheap and the results reflect that.

It is worth looking back on what the States agreed to in the summer of 2013, because once you delve into one pretty mundane-looking aspect you start to unravel a major stumbling block to improvement.

The fifth guiding principle that the States agreed to was effective record management.

As Deputy Harwood said: 'It must be recognised that in order to publish information, either proactively or reactively, it is necessary to find that information to collate it and prepare for publication quickly and cost-effectively.

'Where this process is slow, it inevitably inhibits transparency; where it may take too long to find and collect information, it is less likely to be published. Therefore to encourage openness, the availability of information needs to be looked at in a holistic manner and we must recognise that this will include the development of technology to improve the storage, retention and retrieval of information.'

What the States has not done in the last four years is ensure that effective record management is in place.

In his letter to deputies outlining why P&R opposed further reform, president Gavin St Pier made some comments that so far have not made the headlines, but belie a deep malaise.

He was speaking about why a rule to automatically make records available after 30 years was not going ahead.

'Island Archives preserves public and private records of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. The manner in which services across the States of Guernsey sends records to Island Archives is disparate and void of corporate policy.'

In more blunt words, it is the Wild West when it comes to States records, each committee doing its own thing, potentially destroying what should not be destroyed and no doubt retaining a lot of dross that is not needed, creating yet more expense.

Deputy St Pier speaks about it being difficult to retrospectively fit new rules as each document would need to be reviewed to ensure there were no data protection problems in releasing the information.

When the code was introduced, it was for some about buying time, buying time for the States to get its house in order should it then move to a stronger law.

In very simple terms, it should be able to easily put its hands on information and it appears that it cannot, and worse still cannot guarantee that important records aren't being put in the shredder by a work experience student.

If, four years ago, it had instigated a record-keeping standard properly, it could be four years into having documents prepared for automatic release after a set period of time.

Deputy St Pier says there is a draft Document Management, Retention and Destruction policy that includes concepts such as the seven- and 30-year rule similar to those in other jurisdictions.

'While the policy in general has been accepted, the implementation of a policy has significant resource implications, especially if this were to be applied retrospectively.'

When Scrutiny investigates access to information, it should investigate why this guiding principle agreed by the States has been sidelined.

But there is hope.

It looks like good housekeeping is finally likely to be forced on the States when the new data protection updates come into play, expected to be by May 2018 –

this is up for debate at the next States meeting. If the States is to comply with the regulation it is promoting as so important, it will need a document management policy.

In the independent report that was the prelude to the information code, Belinda Crowe said that: 'Excellent information practices can be transformational, but they are not achieved overnight. Nor are they achieved without effort, rigorous oversight and resources. The foundations of organisational culture, systems and processes must be laid and 'baked' into the way Guernsey's public authorities work to create real transformation.'

She spoke about efficiencies being made through streamlining practices – saving staff time is not an easily identifiable cost but it is exactly what the States has been talking about recently, working smarter.

A robust document management policy would help transform how the States deals with and accesses information, helping with the baking.