Making Access Easier: Responsible Right to Information Simplification

We seem to be in a moment of regulatory simplification. Can the right to information (RTI) benefit from simplification too?

By Toby Mendel, with Joseph Foti

Governments across Europe are pursuing “simplification agendas.” In essence, this means cutting unnecessary red tape and streamlining regulation, often with a focus on business growth. A simplification agenda, carried out responsibly, should not weaken public protections or distort the playing field. Instead, it should help people interact with governments more quickly and effectively. In turn, simplification should also free up public officials to spend less time on bureaucracy and more on advancing actual public needs.

Right to information (RTI) laws, which give individuals a right to access government information, are a cornerstone of open government. They too can benefit from simplification, just like any government endeavor. RTI laws in many countries are overly complex, creating hurdles for both requestors and officials.

The question, then, isn’t whether to simplify, but how to do it without undermining the right itself. This article builds on research by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) on the right to information and aims to point readers towards a number of good simplification options.

Options for Simplification

User-Friendly RTI Procedures

Clear and simple rules for making and processing requests benefit both requestors and administrators alike. According to CLD’s analysis, in countries like Germany, Morocco and Nepal, the law sets up unnecessary hurdles by limiting its scope to information relating to the work of public authorities. By contrast, Serbia’s law requires only a simple written request, with no requirement for it to be on an official form. Additionally, if the request is deficient, the authority helps the requestor fix it.

Some common examples of complexity that raise the cost for everyone include:

• Requiring legal IDs costs governments money, as they need some system to validate this, and interferes with the intent of the law.
• Providing information in non-machine-readable formats wastes officials’ time (especially when the information was not created that way) and is not user friendly for recipients.
• Requirements to justify requests are an additional burden for requestors and have been shown to create a risk of government agencies “managing” requests they deem to be “troublesome”.
• Unclear fee structures increase uncertainty, requiring responders to spend time calculating fees and increasing the risk of appeals. In addition, charging fees for a smaller number of photocopies is likely to be “revenue-negative” (i.e. cost more than it recoups).

Having in place a central platform for lodging requests is a massive efficiency for all involved. A good platform simplifies request procedures by walking both requestors and administrators through the process, by retaining a clear record of communications and by making transfers of requests to other public authorities rapid and seamless. Such platforms can also make it easier to narrow requests that have been drafted too broadly, as long as care is taken not thereby to exclude information the requestor actually wants.

Exceptions

Clear and appropriate exceptions are much easier for officials to apply than vague, overbroad ones, which are also much more likely to generate appeals. Sunset clauses (presumptive time limits on the applicability of exceptions, such as 20 or 30 years) significantly simplify the processing of historical records, while well-defined, mandatory public interest overrides (a rule which overrides exceptions where the release of information is in the overall public interest) are much easier to apply than general, discretionary ones.

Countries like Mexico, Albania, and Liberia do very well in terms of exceptions, according to CLD data, while the Philippines, Belarus, and Costa Rica lie at the other end of the spectrum.

Artificial Intelligence and Request Processing

AI presents many opportunities to improve the processing of requests for information, as set out in the inaugural article in this blog. The technology is changing constantly and other ways AI could enhance public access to information have already started to emerge.

An assuredly incomplete list of such opportunities includes:

• Improved requests: AI can help requestors present more refined, focused requests, whether it is engaged directly by requestors or via optional suggestions generated through online requesting platforms. This would help reduce time spent finding and providing unwanted information.
• Automated triage: Chatbots can help route requests for information that is already public to its location, single out requests which appear to be unclear or vague (for future human review), and help identify information that is responsive to a request.
• Redaction assistance: AI can be trained and deployed to suggest reasonable redactions, where warranted. This will require human review, but it can expedite the process of redacting, identifying inconsistencies, and detecting patterns of practice that may not match the spirit of the law. AI-driven redaction is proving to be particularly effective in the area of private information.
• Proactive disclosure: Proactive disclosure is inherently much more efficient in getting information out to the public. Automated tools can significantly streamline the process of identifying information for proactive disclosure, as well as preparing it for uploading.

The use of AI will always require constant updating and review. Where legal or quasi-legal decisions are involved, a human being will still need to approve the final decision. The use of AI also requires robust guardrails including transparency about when it is being used. But AI holds great potential for both requestors and administrators. As such, this will remain an area for further exploration and experimentation.

Maximizing Wins and Avoiding Potential Pitfalls

Simplification efforts should withstand a simple test: they should lower barriers without compromising the right of access. They also should not lower standards of disclosure or create shortcuts which lead to unjustified denials to disclose. But where they lower barriers and create efficiencies, that is a clear victory that we should celebrate.

Respecting rights and streamlining administration are not necessarily in tension. Active and critical engagement are needed to identify true win-win scenarios.