From Iraqi American Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Business Ethics
The Right to Information
By
Oct 3, 2003, 18:28

TI Source Book 2000

Chapter 24: The Right to Information--Information, Public Awareness and Public Records

Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes.
-- Panchantantra (c. 5^th century)

The public, it is often said, has a "right to know." But does it have such a right? And if it does,should it? If it should, how would such a right be recognised, protected and given effect?

The argument in favour of the public's right to know was succinctly put forth by James Madison,one of America's constitutional fathers: "A popular government without popular informationor the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governorsmust arm themselves with the power that knowledge brings."^[1]

The fight for information takes place between the public who want it and those in power whodo not want them to have it.^[2]Madison's philosophy suggests:

that secrecy impedes the political education of a community so that electoral choices are not fully informed;
that opportunities for individuals to respond meaningfully to political initiatives are blunted; and,
that a political climate is generated in which the citizen views government not with responsibility and trust, but with malevolence and distrust.

According to another observer, "Just as the middle and working classes sought power and weregiven the vote, so today's professional classes seek power and are given information. Theprocess is called participation, and the result is called accountability."^[3]The fight is, in manyways, a costly and unnecessary one for there are clear advantages to all concerned for anadministration being open with information:

a better informed public can better participate in the democratic process;
Parliament, press and public must be able properly to follow and scrutinise the actions of government and secrecy is a major impediment to this accountability;
public servants take important decisions which affect many people, and to be accountable the administration must provide greater flows of information about what they are doing;
better information flows produce more effective government and help towards the more flexible development of policy; and,
public cooperation with the government will be enhanced by more information being available. ^[4]

The right to know is linked inextricably to accountability, the central goal of any democraticsystem of government. Informed judgement and appraisal by public, press and Parliamentalike is a difficult, even fruitless task if government activities and the decision-making processare obscured from public scrutiny. Where secrecy prevails, major resource commitments canbe incurred, effectively closing the door to any future review and re-thinking in the light ofan informed public debate. There are, of course, other mechanisms within government such asthe Legislature, the courts or an Ombudsman that act as a check on the abuse of power by anExecutive. However, for these to be effective, their own access to information is an imperative.Given that such a right is worthy of recognition, how best can it be guaranteed?

A Freedom of Information Act?

If governments simply behaved in an open fashion, making information widely available tothe public and affected individuals, there would be no problem. This approach has been tried,most recently in the U.K., but has generally failed to make much headway. Providing informationthat reflects well on an administration presents little difficulty; however, when theinformation reflects the opposite, the voluntary approach is most vulnerable. Where the releaseof information is a matter of discretion, be it of politicians or of administrators, the temptationto give themselves the benefit of the doubt when the information is embarrassing is toooften irresistible.^[5]

That should not stop a government from making a concerted effort to encourage attitudinalchanges which would relax restrictions on disclosures and increase the accessibility of deci-sion-makers to press and public alike. But the problem with administrative guidelines willalways be that, at the end of the day, discretion remains. And discretion, it is argued, runscounter to the fundamental principle of natural justice--for the administration is the judge inits own cause. The same argument stipulates that any dispute over access to informationshould be determined by a third, and neutral party.

Legislation is therefore the only alternative.^[6]Hence the demand (which seems to be growing)for Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.^[7]Not only can FOI legislation establish a right ofreview (e.g., by the Ombudsman), it can also establish practices which must be observed, evenby those least willing to do so. It can reverse the usual presumption in favour of secrecy. Citizensare given the legal right of access to government documents without having to first provespecial interest, and the burden of justifying non-disclosure falls on the government administration.Time limits within which the administration must respond to requests can be imposedand an unimpeachable right of access to certain categories of information can be conferred.^[8]

The earliest legislation governing open records dates back to 1776 in Sweden.That country's present law^[9]is unique in that it is one of the four lawswhich together comprise the Constitution of the country. The law outlines themain principles of the open records scheme, but the detailed provisions arecontained in an ordinary Act, the Secrecy Law. Similar, but nowhere near asrigorous systems were introduced in Norway and Denmark in 1970, and inFinland in 1971. Since then, the concept of open records legislation hasstarted to emulate the Office of Ombudsman, and spread across the world.

Access to information legislation provides citizens with a statutory "right toknow". In practice the specific provisions of the legislation will determine theextent to which citizens are able to obtain access to records of governmentactivities. The intention is to provide access whenever disclosure is in thepublic interest, not for public officials to use the legislation as a secrecy law.

Key points of freedom of information laws are that they:

confer legal rights on citizens that can be enforced;
seek to change the culture of secrecy within the civil service;
provide access to records not just information;
define exemptions; and,
define rights of appeal.

FOI laws can, but do not have to, be applied retrospectively. Many countries have adopted anon-retrospective law, adopting a progressive "rolling back" approach. This means that onlyrecords created after the date the Act becomes effective fall under the jurisdiction of the Act.Others, such as, South Africa, have adopted fully retrospective Acts.

Freedom of information legislation not only establishes the citizen's legal right of access toinformation, it also confers on government the obligation to facilitate access. The law shouldinclude provisions requiring agencies subject to the law to publish information relating to:

their structure, functions and operations;
the classes of records held by the body;
arrangements for access; and,
the internal procedures used by the agency in the conduct of its business.

Monitoring the extent of compliance with these requirements should be part of the remit ofthe Ombudsman. Governments should be required to actively inform citizens of the rights conferredon them by FOI and privacy legislation. This will demonstrate their real commitment toopenness and increased accountability.

The coverage of FOI legislation varies a great deal, and it needs to be determined by the structureof government in each country.^[10]In Ireland, as in some other countries, the Freedom ofInformation Act applies not only to the Executive but also to local government, companiesthat are more than 50 per cent state-owned and even to the records of private companies thatrelate to government contracts (the last particularly useful for a civil society group keen tomonitor a public procurement exercise). The rationale behind applying the provisions to astate-owned enterprise is that they are owned by the public and the "hybrid" nature of theirfunctions as well as their role in the community justify their inclusion in an FOI Act.

Whatever the scope of FOI legislation, there will always be arguments against it and forexemptions from it. The most frequent argument against FOI legislation isone of cost and efficiency. Some claim that it diverts resources and staff awayfrom programmes that could actually make an impact on public welfare. Yet,one must consider the costs of failing to provide such legislation, a costwhich includes a lack of accountability and transparency, and a fertile environmentfor corruption.

Defence, national security, foreign relations, law enforcement and personalprivacy and, to some extent, the internal deliberative processes of a governmentagency may each have legitimate claims to protection or exemptionfrom FOI legislation. The Swedish Secrecy Law, for example, has as many as250 exemptions, some defined by their relation to protected interests andothers by reference to categories of documents. Many exemptions contain atime limitation on the life of the exemption, which varies from as much as70 years to as little as two. Still other exemptions protect documents onlyuntil a particular event has occurred. The options are many and varied, butthe issue appears to be one of growing importance among civil societiesaround the world.

It is also said that too much openness can impede free and frank exchangesof opinion between public officials and that officials cannot operate efficientlyin a "goldfish bowl". This argument has some merit, but it must be weighed against thealternative: secrecy and a lack of accountability. Can anyone seriously argue that decision-makingwhich is not accountable is better than decision-making which is subject to scrutiny?

Perhaps the best known (but by no means the only) example of FOI legislation is that of theUnited States, where it has been demonstrated repeatedly that reports, studies and other documentscan be taken into the public domain by the press and by community groups, to thebenefit of public knowledge and understanding.

Equally remarkable as a demonstration of openness was the action of the Ugandan governmentin November, 1995, when it invited ten journalists to participate in (and report on) ameeting of its anti-corruption stakeholders, including senior law enforcement officials. Themeeting was held to review progress in implementing the country's national integrity actionplan. The exchanges at the meeting were open and crisp, and the eventual reporting was considerableand highly favourable.

Extraordinary, too, was the decision by President Mkapa of Tanzania to release the WariobaCommission Report to the press in 1996 before even his own cabinet had been able to see it--someof whom were named in the report as being complicit in corrupt activities. PresidentMkapa's decision was the more remarkable as his country had had, ever since independencein 1961, a culture of official secrecy and this was the first report of any significance to beshared with the public.^[11]

The international reach of freedom of information laws, too, can be considerable. Informationcensored in the United Kingdom, on occasion, becomes available to British investigative journalistswhen the same material is held in the United States and has been madeaccessible to the public at large there by the more liberal FOI United Stateslegislation. Increasingly, investigative journalists are learning where to go tofind the information that governments in their own countries deny them.

Requests for copies of official records

Under Freedom of Information laws, citizens usually have the right to requestcopies of documents, not just the information contained within them. ManyFOI laws provide that, where only a part of the information may be disclosed,agencies should provide a copy of the document excluding the exempt information rather thanrefusing access. Fees may be charged for the provision of information but they should notbe prohibitive.^[13]

Time limits for responding to requests and appeals should be set out in the FOI Act. These arelegally binding. Failure to comply with these should constitute grounds for appeal to the Act'sexternal monitors, as would the imposition of unreasonable charges.

Appeals against refusals

The right of appeal against adverse decisions is one of the most important provisions of a Freedomof Information Act. It protects against undue secrecy by providing a mechanism for theindependent review of decisions to deny people access to the information they need. Withoutthis safeguard, the effectiveness of any FOI is minimised.

Instances which should not constitute valid reasons for withholding information include thatits release:

would be inconvenient to the Minister (or the department);
might show the department in a bad light;
might embarrass the Minister politically;
is no business of the requester; or that it
might be misunderstood by the requester, or by the media, (in which case the wisest course may be to provide an explanation or material that will set the information in its proper context). ^[14]

Where access to records is denied, the agency concerned should be required by law to notifythe requester of the reasons for the refusal, citing the particular exemption that covers therecords requested. Sanctions for non-compliance should be provided for in the legislation.

Most Freedom of Information legislation provides for a two-stage appeal:

Firstly, there is an administrative appeal to the agency concerned. Citizens can lodge an appeal requiring the agency to conduct an internal review of the decision. This appeal should be heard at a more senior level than the original decision-maker. If the denial of access is upheld it is important that citizens then have recourse to an independent arbitrator.
The second stage of the appeal process under most existing FOI Acts is to an inde- pendent Ombudsman or Information Commissioner. ^[15]
Alternatively the second appeal stage could be for judicial review, as is the case in the US. ^[16] In some countries the Ombudsman could also take the complaint to the courts.

In New Zealand, the Danks Committee,^[17]when assessing the options, came down firmly on theside of the Ombudsman being the sole appeal authority:

We believe that ... there are convincing reasons not to give the courts ultimate authority in such a matter. The system we favour involves the weighing of broad considerations and the balancing of competing public interests against one another, and against individual interests. If the general power to determine finally whether there should be access to official information was given to the courts, they would have to rule on matters with strong policy and political implications. ^[18]

Whichever option is chosen, the key point is that there is an effective provision for impartialreview of contested decisions.

Privacy laws

FOI legislation should not, of course, be used to invade the personal privacy of individuals.Some Freedom of Information legislation incorporates provisions for accessing records held onindividuals. Alternatively this aspect may be dealt with separately in a Privacy Act, as is theplanned approach in South Africa.

Unlike the access provisions for general records of government in many FOI laws, access topersonal records held by government agencies is usually applied retrospectively. However legislationis structured, access to personal information is usually restricted to records held withina system of filing and are retrievable by a form of personal identifier, i.e. personal name, number,index, etc. Along with the right of access to these personal files, a key provision of privacylaws is that citizens have the right to have incorrect information amended.^[19]

A culture of secrecy

Many countries that have introduced FOI are seeking to replace the "culture of secrecy" thatprevails within their public service with a "culture of openness". FOI laws are intended to promoteaccountability and transparency in government by making the process of governmentdecision-making more open. Although some records may legitimately be exempt from disclosure,exemptions should be applied narrowly as the intention is to make disclosure the rule,rather than the exception.

It is one thing to confer a right to information on a citizen, and quite another when it comesto servicing his or her requests. In Tanzania, for example, every citizen has the right to beinformed, yet public servants have no obligation to provide information to them. The Constitutionof the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 states that^[20]:

Every citizen has the right to be informed at all times of various events in the country and in the world at large which are of importance to the lives and activities of the people and also of issues of importance to society. The rights and freedoms enumerated in Part III of the Constitution are considered basic rights and are arguable before the courts. ^[21]

However, Tanzania is just one of many countries where there are few institutionalised mechanismswhich require Government to facilitate the public's right to be informed. A Code ofEthics and Conduct for the Public Service Tanzania was issued by the Civil Service Departmentin June 1999. Section III, Part 5 of the Code addresses the issue of Disclosure of Information.It states that:

A Public Servant shall not use any official document or photocopy such as a letter or any other document or information obtained in the course of discharging his/her duties for personal ends;
Public Servants shall not communicate with the media on issues related to work or official policy without due permission;
Official information will be released to the media by officials who have been authorised to do so according to laid down procedures. ^[22]

Although the requirements laid out by the Code are reasonable, there is no corresponding obligationfor public servants to provide information. As a result, when citizens or their representativesask public servants for information, their questions are often met with a defensivereluctance to provide answers.^[23]

A culture of secrecy will not disappear overnight. Officials have to develop confidence in makinginformation available, and understand that all information should be accessible by thepublic--unless there are strong countervailing reasons why a particular piece of informationshould not. Too often, officials claim that journalists misuse information or use informationrecklessly, making this a pretext for refusing to cooperate with them. Yet, if journalists donot have access to reliable information, it can hardly be wondered that their stories will, fromtime to time, be at odds with the real position. This is more the fault of the official than ofthe journalist.

Government departments should, in their own interests, be open to the media and have staffwho are capable of handling requests in a cooperative manner and ensure that copies of majordocuments (e.g. reports to the Legislature) are printed in sufficient quantities so as to ensurethat the media has reasonable access to them. Even with good informal networks, some informationis still difficult if not impossible to obtain. In Tanzania the national accounts and theAuditor General's Report are common examples. There, although both documents are publishedfor the benefit of the Legislature, it is difficult to obtain a copy, even from the governmentprinting office. Budgetary information is perhaps the most sought after type of information.Civil society groups, too, need budgetary and financial information to assess governmentpriorities and determine which problems are being ignored or undervalued.^[24]

Protection of sources

In some countries the mere possession of confidential information is a criminal offence if theindividual is not authorised to have it. One illustration is the case of a part-time journalist,and small trader in Tanzania, who was found in possession of a confidential letter written bya Regional Commissioner. The letter contained instructions to refuse him a trading licence forspurious reasons. The journalist obtained this letter and took the Regional Commissioner tocourt on suspicion of corruption. However, because the document was classified, he wasarrested for being in possession of a confidential document!^[25]

Protection of sources is a core requirement for journalists to practise their profession freely.Journalists must know that they can print stories without risking fines or imprisonment forfailing to reveal their sources of information. Individuals who provide journalists withinformation on an off-the-record basis need to have assurances that the journalists they confidein will not be intimidated by public authorities into revealing their identities. These assurancesare essential if the media is to be an effective counterforce to the abuse of power bypublic officials.^[26]

Disclosure of sources and common law jurisdictions

If journalists cannot gather information on a confidential basis, their ability to carry informationto the public can be severely circumscribed. Thus laws providing for the protection oftheir sources assume particular relevance.

A "weak" privilege not to disclose the identity of sources at the discovery stage of a libel actionknown as the "newspaper rule" (as in Australia), has been recognised by the courts in somejurisdictions, but rejected in others.

For example, a case in Ontario^[27]clearly established that courts had a discretionary power,depending on all the circumstances, to refuse a request for disclosure during discovery, evenwhere the evidence would otherwise be relevant. In another case from Ontario^[28], however, disclosurewas ordered in the context of a highly uncomplimentary and admittedly false statementby the defendant about the plaintiff, a senior member of the Prime Minister's staff. Thenewspaper rule has been completely rejected in some provinces. The British Columbia Court ofAppeal, for example, held that the liberal discovery rules in that province were inconsistentwith such a privilege.

A limited privilege not to testify at a trial has also been recognised as part of the law of evidence.In Slavutych v. Baker, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that courts might recog-nise a qualified privilege not to testify where four criteria were satisfied:

the communication must originate in a confidence of non-disclosure;
this confidentiality must be essential to the ongoing relationship between the parties;
the relationship must be one which ought to be fostered; and
the injury to the relationship from disclosure must be greater than the benefit it would bring to the litigation.

These criteria are applicable to all confidential relationships and hence might assist journalistswishing to protect the identity of their sources. The relationship between journalists andconfidential sources would generally satisfy the first three conditions but satisfaction of thefourth would obviously turn on the circumstances of the case. In a subsequent case,^[29]theSupreme Court held that the appellant, a journalist, did not come within the Slavutych criteriain respect of her claim of a privilege not to testify regarding information she had given tocertain individuals. The fact that the information sought had passed from the journalist to the"source" rather than vice versa was clearly relevant, as disclosure would not have affected anyexpectation of confidentiality.

Judges may also have a general overriding discretion to exclude otherwise relevant evidence.In Crown Trust Co. v. Rosenberg, Saunders J. refused to force a journalist to disclose the identityof a source, requiring only disclosure of the substance of the communication. He basedthis holding on the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of sources and the fact thatit might be possible to obtain the information in other ways.^[30]

Protection of sources and civil law jurisdictions

In France, prior to 1993, the duty of professional secrecy did not apply to journalists, whocould be questioned regarding their confidential sources of information. However, in practice,at least in criminal cases, very few courts or investigative magistrats went so far as to requirejournalists to disclose their sources. Journalists are not entitled to any special protection incivil proceedings; the same law applies to all witnesses. In the few instances where disclosurewas ordered, journalists generally declined to answer, invoking professional custom; the courtsgenerally refrained from ordering sanctions. Journalists were sanctioned in only one or twocases in the decade leading up to 1993 when the criminal law was substantially revised.

In 1993 the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended, bringing legislation into line withaccepted practice, at least as far as criminal proceedings are concerned.

Article 109(2) now provides that:

Any journalist who appears as a witness concerning information gathered by him in thecourse of his journalistic activity is free not to disclose its source.

Several points are worth noting. First, the right not to reveal sources is absolute, not qualified.Second, the law applies only to journalists called as witnesses; accused persons always havean unqualified right to refuse to testify. Third, the Act defines neither a journalist nor journalisticactivity leaving areas of ambiguity.

In 1993, following the recommendation of the Committee of Enquiry in to the Press and Judiciaryof 1984, the protection of journalists' sources was further indirectly reinforced by a newclause relating to searches and seizures in media premises. Article 56.2 of the Code of CriminalProcedure now provides that the investigating judge or State prosecutor must be present toensure that investigations, "do not encroach on the free exercise of the journalist's profession."

French law offers considerable protection to journalists' sources. More significant than the letterof the law, perhaps, is the reluctance of the courts to sanction journalists who refuse to complywith an order to disclose their sources. This judicial rectitude perhaps reflects a wider consensusin the public at large that journalists should not be forced to divulge such information.^[31]

Libel (defamation) laws

Libel laws, too, can constitute a formidable barrier to the provision of information to the publicby the media, and libel laws are universal. The need for laws to protect individuals againstdefamation is not disputed. Many countries make a distinction under law between the treatmentby the press of holders of public office and the treatment of private citizens. Such distinctionsshould be made, as the public has a broader right to be informed on the actions ofpublic office holders rather than private citizens. At the same time, it is important to distinguishbetween the information made public and the type of person who has made it public.Libel matters should first and foremost focus on the information disseminated by the media.

People who are libelled in the press should have opportunities for redress under law. The courtsshould be the arbiters of the standards of privacy relative to the freedom of the press, and providea greater level of protection from the press for individuals who hold no public office, orare in no position to influence the lives of numerous other people. The penalties levelled bythe courts must be balanced: they must weigh the need to punish those in the media who actirresponsibly as against the rights of a society to be informed and a media whose freedom isnot curbed for fear of devastating libel judgements.

The United Kingdom laws of libel, which may be viewed as reasonable by many governmentsand lawyers, in fact tip the balance against freedom of the press. The American approach,which involves very explicit concepts of malicious intent, strongly favours the media. Findingthe right balance is difficult, but it is essential. Developing this balance is a challenge for thecourts and a further reason why only in a system with an independent judiciary can freedomof the press thrive. If the judiciary is the subject of political control, then public office holdersmay be tempted to use the threat of very substantial libel penalties as a means of intimidatingthe press and so undermining the ability of the media to keep the public informed.

Today, in numerous countries, libel penalties can be imposed by the courts that are so burdensomeas to ruin all but the wealthiest of journalists and publications.^[32]

The impact of the Internet

The Internet has greatly reduced the ability of governments to control what their people canor cannot access, and affords individuals and organisations unrivalled opportunities to carryinformation into the public arena."Official secrets" banned in one country, perhaps more for political than for security or publicinterest reasons, can be quick to find their way onto the web. A court order suppressing awell-known person's name in one country will quickly appear on a website outside it.

A country can, of course, continue to control people and web sites within itsborders. China is among those who have tried to stop web sites from "leakingstate secrets".

The Internet, too, has struck a blow in favour of access to information andagainst the domination of news dissemination by a small group of mediamagnates. However, at the same time it has posed genuine problems for governmentsstruggling to combat pornography and organised crime, whichhave been quick to seize on the opportunities the Internet presents for swifttransmission of encrypted messages which are virtually untraceable, particularlyif mobile telephones are used to establish links to service providers. Wecan therefore expect increasingly strenuous efforts by governments toenhance their ability to monitor transactions on the Internet.

The Internet has also opened up new possibilities for governments to interactwith their citizens. Malaysia is one country at the forefront of using theInternet to conduct as many of its transactions with its citizens as are possible,and is in the process of developing "electronic government". Obviously, this option is notopen to countries where access to the Internet is limited, but it would seem to be the shape ofthings to come.

Records management

Even legally enforceable rights of access to information are meaningless if government recordsare chaotic. Although information may be available in principle, if it cannot be found then itcannot be made available to citizens. Not only does this limit government accountability andits credibility in the eyes of citizens, but it also has a serious impact on the capacity of governmentto discharge its duties efficiently.

Records management issues must be addressed by a FOI law and improvements implementedprior to its introduction. One of the provisions of most FOI laws is that agencies must publishlists of the records series that they hold. Therefore series must be organised and capturedwithin a record keeping system.^[33]

A nation-wide government records management policy is essential--not just to provide citizenswith information but also to ensure that individual civil servants can be held accountablefor their actions. If there is no paper trail, chances of errant civil servants being identifiedand sanctioned are slight. Not only must the records exist, but they must also be readilyaccessible by those who need them. Records should not be simply kept in a capital city andmembers of the public be required to travel from rural areas if they want to consult them. Furthermore,documents of general interest should be prepared in a form understandable to thegeneral public, especially such major documents as those of the Auditor-General to the Legislature.These can also be placed on the Internet at little or no cost for the benefit of those withaccess to it.

A sound records management policy will vest an agency with over-all responsibility forrecords management, usually in the form of a national archive. Such a central agency will provideguidance to departments on the creation, maintenance and disposal of files, and will itselfserve as the ultimate custodian of documentation once it has ceased to be of use to a department.The national archive should conduct periodic records management audits of departmentsto ensure that the records management policy is being faithfully carried out.^[34]

Improved access to information will not of itself enhance public participation in decision-making.Not everyone has access to technology, but all have a right to contribute to decisionswhich affect them. This places a heavy burden on the mass media to include more investigationand interpretation of the actions of government than ever before. They will have accessto information on behalf of the public at large, and it is a central feature of the media's rolefor it to use this availability for the widest public benefit.

Some indicators as to the effectiveness of access to information

Is there a policy on the provision of information which favours access, unless the case against access in a particular instance meets prescribed and narrow grounds, justifying its being withheld?
Do rights of access to information extend to information held by local governments and state-owned enterprises? Does it include records of private companies that relate to government contracts?
Are there clear procedures and effective guarantees for citizens and journalists to access the official information they require?
If access to information is refused by a government department, is there a right of appeal or review? Is this independent of government?
Do courts award punitive sums in libel cases involving public figures? If so, do these serve as a deterrent to the media?
Do the courts give appropriate protection to journalists' sources?
Is training given to officials in the proper handling of records and the making of information available to the public?

Public sector records

Is there an official body with a legal duty for records maintenance (records tracking)?
Are there clear administrative instructions on the maintenance of public records? If so, are these generally observed?
Do citizens have a right of access to their personal files (other than those concerned with law enforcement) and the right to insist on corrections where these contain errors?
Do public officials or others seeking information experience difficulties in obtaining it? If they do, what are the problems?
What policies exist concerning the provision of information to the public (e.g. to service a complaint)?
Can officials provide credible and timely audited accounts, and information about personnel numbers, etc?
Does legislation cover the records of regions and districts (or their equivalents)?