Review of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit's Authority (IL0014)
Overview
At-a-Glance
Action Plan: Israel Action Plan 2015-2017
Action Plan Cycle: 2015
Status: Inactive
Institutions
Lead Institution: Governmental Freedom of Information Unit, Ministry of Justice
Support Institution(s): E-Government unit and the Ministry of Justice Counseling and Legislation Department
Policy Areas
Access to Information, Capacity Building, Right to InformationIRM Review
IRM Report: Israel End-of-Term Report 2015-2017, Israel Mid-Term Progress Report 2015-2017
Starred: No
Early Results: Did Not Change
Design i
Verifiable: No
Relevant to OGP Values: Access to Information
Implementation i
Description
Currently the authorities of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit are outlined in a Government Resolution rather than by law. Its authority is limited solely to government offices and only to those subjects covered by the Freedom of Information Law.
It was determined in the Government Resolution that two years from the establishment of the Governmental Unit, the Ministry of Justice would be required to examine the unit's methods of operation.
To increase the implementation and enforcement of the Freedom of Information Law. To adapt the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit's authorities to the enforcement challenges related to freedom of information.
IRM Midterm Status Summary
Commitment 1. Regularizing the Status and Authorities of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit (FOI Unit)
Commitment Text:
To adapt the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit's authorities to the enforcement challenges related to freedom of information.
Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed: Currently the authorities of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit are outlined in a Government Resolution rather than by law. Its authority is limited solely to government offices and only to those subjects covered by the Freedom of Information Law.
It was determined in the Government Resolution that two years from the establishment of the Governmental Unit, the Ministry of Justice would be required to examine the unit's methods of operation.
Main Objective : To increase the implementation and enforcement of the Freedom of Information Law
Milestones:
1.1 To have the Ministry of Justice determine a fundamental position on this subject.
1.2 To implement the steps needed to regularize the status of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit in accordance with the government’s position.
Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice
Supporting institution(s): NA
Start date: June 1, 2015 End date: October 1, 2017
Context and objectives
As indicated in the description of the Status Quo, the FOI Unit has limited authority. In addition, the Government had committed to review the FOI Unit’s mandate two years after its creation. However, to date, the government has failed to do so. The current Unit’s mandate greatly restricts its ability to promote the implementation of the FOI law. The Unit has no authority over local government and no authority to review officials’ refusals to release information on its merits (rather than on technicalities). See report on the objection by the interior ministry to allow the unit to supervise FOI matters in local authorities: Sharon Pulver, 'Interior Ministry Shock increasing transparency in local government' (15 Sept. 2016), http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/.premium-1.3068627.
Although increasing implementation and enforcement of the FOI law is a very important initiative and relevant to the OGP value of access to information, the commitment’s objective is vague. The commitment is to adapt the Unit's authority to 'the challenges related to FOI.' However, the commitment’s language does not determine the nature of these challenges. What kind of adaptation will be made? How will its impact be measured? Finally, the IRM researchers can only construe from the language that activities related to regularization will take place but without details of how, when or what the activity entails.
If the FOI Unit were given an adequate mandate and authority, it could have a substantial impact on implementing the access to information law. However, at this point, the commitment outlines a process to discuss regularization of the unit’s mandate. There is substantial distance between this general discussion to defining actual specific mandates, creating supporting regulations and then enforcing these laws; the potential impact of this commitment minor.
Completion
Researchers found very little evidence of the commitment’s implementation.
The first milestone is 'to have the Ministry of Justice determine a fundamental position on this subject.' The researchers question whether a general intention to determine a position is specific enough to assess. IRM researchers were informed by government officials of discussions going on within the ministry regarding its position on the matter. At the time of this report, there was no available draft of such a position presented to the public, nor could the researchers identify any evidence of such a draft through interviews with government officials. The only available testimony that IRM researchers were able to collect on this matter was a general comment made by the Director General of the Justice Ministry, in April 2016, about her intent to look into the matter in the coming year. Additionally, the Unit’s annual work plan includes the passage of a government resolution adding more authority to the Unit during Q4 2016. , http://www.justice.gov.il/Units/YechidatChofeshHameyda/Report2015/index.html.
Given that Milestone 1.1 has yet to be completed and the regularization process is yet to be formalized, this action was not started during the first year of implementation. The commitment overall is delayed in its implementation.
Early Results (if any)
The commitment has not begun to be implemented.
Next Steps
The IRM researchers recommend that during the second year of implementation, the government take steps to prioritize the process to determine its position on the matter.
To do this, the IRM researchers suggest the following:
- Invite the public to make comments on the Unit's scope of authority, while publishing government deliberations on this matter (including comments on draft proposals at the time of the formation of the Unit).
- The government could designate two to four months for public consultation and response to proposals on the unit’s authority and a subsequent draft resolution. The government would therefore be in a better position to vote on a resolution that either commits the unit to regulated authority or supports the unit.
For the next action plan, IRM researchers recommend the government consider following the widely accepted practice of an independent information commission outside of the governmental hierarchy. The benefits of such mechanisms are well documented. See Laura Nueman, Enforcement Models: Content and Context, Access to Information Working Paper Series (The World Bank, 2009). Such independent authority should have legal powers to regulate government activities in the course of opening itself up to public scrutiny.
IRM End of Term Status Summary
1. Regularizing the Status and Authorities of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit
Commitment Text:
To adapt the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit's authorities to the enforcement challenges related to freedom of information.
Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed: Currently the authorities of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit are outlined in a Government Resolution rather than by law. Its authority is limited solely to government offices and only to those subjects covered by the Freedom of Information Law.
It was determined in the Government Resolution that two years from the establishment of the Governmental Unit, the Ministry of Justice would be required to examine the unit's methods of operation.
Main Objective : To increase the implementation and enforcement of the Freedom of Information Law
Milestones:
1.1. To have the Ministry of Justice determine a fundamental position on this subject.
1.2. To implement the steps needed to regularize the status of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit in accordance with the government's position.
Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice
Supporting institution(s): NA
Start date: 1 June 2015
End date: 1 October 2017
Commitment Aim
This commitment aimed to increase the effectiveness of the governmental Freedom of Information (FOI) Unit in its efforts to promote proper implementation of the FOI law. The FOI Unit was created in 2011 to promote implementation of the FOI law, but was given limited authority. The Government committed to review the FOI Unit's mandate two years after its creation, but to date, it has failed to do so. The current Unit's mandate limits its ability to promote the implementation of the FOI law. For instance, the Unit has no authority over local government even though the FOI law covers local government. Also, if a government ministry determines to have 'substantial' reason to turn down an information request (i.e. for purposes of national security and commercial interests), the FOI Unit cannot review this ministry's decision. It can only exercise review where the ministry fails to meet deadlines set out in the law, or misinterprets the fees regulations, and other such technicalities. See report on the objection by the interior ministry to allow the Unit to supervise FOI matters in local authorities, http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/.premium-1.3068627 [in Hebrew]. This commitment calls on the Ministry of Justice to achieve this review of the Unit's methods and indicates that further authority would be given to the Unit.
Midterm: Not Started
At the time of writing the midterm report, the Ministry of Justice was still deliberating whether to expand the Unit's mandate, and there were no decisions to report. The Ministry's Director General informally expressed a commitment to conduct a review of the Unit's existing authority and to discuss the possibility of extending this authority. However, this commitment did not materialize in practice. For more information, see the IRM midterm report. Israel IRM Midterm Report, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Israel_MidTerm-Progress_2015-2017_ENG.pdf, pg. 24.
End of term: Limited
Implementation of this commitment at the end of term was limited. According to an interview with the head of the FOI Unit, the Minister of Justice decided not to grant the Unit any binding authorities or to expand the scope of authorities under its supervision due to objections from the Ministry of Interior. Interview with the head of the FOI Unit, Adv. Rivki Dvash, 7 September 2017. The head of the Unit also informed the IRM researcher that it was decided (but not implemented) that the Unit will be allowed to initiate its own investigations into alleged breaches of the FOI law in those limited procedural aspects which it has authority over (in contrast to the current situation where the Unit may only act upon a complaint received from an information requestor). The Ministry of Justice also decided to work with the Ministry of Interior to encourage it to supervise implementation of the law at the local level, but this is not to become part of the governmental Unit's authority.
Did It Open Government?
Access to Information: Did Not Change
The limited implementation of this commitment has yet to improve access to information. The commitment was designed to increase the effectiveness of the governmental FOI Unit on government authorities and to help it have a greater impact on its conduct. The failure to give the Unit any binding authorities or investigative tools, or to allow it to consider failures to disclose information when based on substantive reasons (rather than merely procedural) for shortcomings in the conduct of other government authorities restricts the potential to achieve its goals. However, as it eventually unfolded, there were only limited authorities granted to the Unit (to initiate investigations on procedural failures) and these did not have an impact on opening up government.
Carried Forward?
This commitment has not been carried forward to Israel's third action plan.
Commitments
-
Civic Participation Processes in Government
IL0023, 2017, Capacity Building
-
Resolution Implementation Reports
IL0024, 2017, E-Government
-
Action Plan Performance Indicators
IL0025, 2017, E-Government
-
Government Call Centers
IL0026, 2017, Marginalized Communities
-
National Legislation Database
IL0027, 2017, E-Government
-
National Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
IL0028, 2017, E-Government
-
Transparency Criteria
IL0029, 2017, Access to Information
-
Publication of Information Legislative Amendments
IL0030, 2017, Access to Information
-
Transparency, Participation, Accessibility of Information in Local Authorities and Ministry of the Interior
IL0031, 2017, E-Government
-
Publicly Accessible Databases
IL0032, 2017, Access to Information
-
Remotely Accessing Government Services
IL0033, 2017, Access to Justice
-
Paperless Government
IL0034, 2017, E-Government
-
Open-Source Code
IL0035, 2017, Access to Information
-
Evaluation of Open Government Plan
IL0036, 2017,
-
Contracting Between the Government and Private Sector
IL0016, 2015, Access to Information
-
Unified Website for Government Offices
IL0017, 2015,
-
Data.Gov
IL0018, 2015, Access to Information
-
Public's Satisfaction with Government Services
IL0019, 2015, Public Participation
-
ATI on Legislation
IL0020, 2015, Public Participation
-
Civic Participation Tools
IL0021, 2015, E-Government
-
Civic Participation
IL0022, 2015, Public Participation
-
Review of the Governmental Freedom of Information Unit's Authority
IL0014, 2015, Access to Information
-
Web for FOI
IL0015, 2015, Access to Information
-
Establishing a Cross-Sector Forum That Promotes Open Government Programs
IL0001, 2012, Public Participation
-
State Budget Information Accessibility
IL0002, 2012, Fiscal Openness
-
Publication of Work Plans in Government Offices
IL0003, 2012, E-Government
-
Establishing a System of Measurement and Review and Publicizing a Government Service Report to the Public
IL0004, 2012, Capacity Building
-
Cooperation Between the Government and the Public in Developing Online Applications
IL0005, 2012, Private Sector
-
Public Participation in Policymaking Processes
IL0006, 2012, Public Participation
-
Establishing a Freedom of Information Unit in the Ministry of Justice
IL0007, 2012, Access to Information
-
Developing Technology Infrastructure for Providing Government Services
IL0008, 2012, E-Government
-
Inter-Office Committee for Improving Business Processes
IL0009, 2012, E-Government
-
Creating a Government Contact Center (NAMAL - Meeting Point for Citizens)
IL0010, 2012, E-Government
-
Online Catalog of Government Services
IL0011, 2012, E-Government
-
Establishing a Unit for Government Service to the Public
IL0012, 2012,
-
Establishing a National Information Technology (IT) Unit Headed by a Government CIO
IL0013, 2012, E-Government