diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'todo.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | todo.txt | 68 |
1 files changed, 56 insertions, 12 deletions
@@ -12,23 +12,67 @@ s = IncomingMessage.find(2); text = s.get_main_body_text_internal; s.cached_main Public interest test ==================== -Send extra strong overdue email after 40 days? +Go through + waiting_response_very_overdue + waiting_response_overdue + date_response_required_by + the overdue email +and tighten wording + - Make sure it is clear when clarification was included -overdue -date_response_required_by -working_days_20_overdue? -waiting_response_overdue => waiting_response_slow, waiting_response_overdue +Check display for schools +Strip "normally" for Scotland -Remove working_days_20_overdue? - - -Go through waiting_response_very_overdue/waiting_response_overdue and tighten wording +Update FAQ (in #quickly_response simple version, #days full details) + - Talk about 40 day being upper limit under various guidances / laws + - Note that as well as Scottish act, the opposition Labour/Conservative + also opposed public interest extension + - Split #quickly_response into a 20 day and 40 day link? Send email at 40 days -models/request_mailer.rb self.alert_overdue_requests - - + models/request_mailer.rb self.alert_overdue_requests + models/request_mailer.rb overdue_alert + ./models/user_info_request_sent_alert.rb - add very_overdue_1 + +Table 12 here apparently justifies "delayed" wording + http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/freedomofinformationquarterly.htm + +The ICO's "Good Practice Guide 4" + Whilst the current version of the Section 45 Code of Practice makes no + reference to consideration of the public interest, our view is that public + authorities should aim to respond fully to all requests within 20 working days. + In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it + may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total + time exceed 40 working days. + Where any additional time beyond the initial 20 working days is required to + consider the public interest, the public authority must still serve a “refusal + notice” under section 17 of FOIA within 20 working days of a request even in + those cases where it is relying on a qualified exemption and has not yet + completed the public interest test. That notice must state the exemption(s) + being relied on and, if not apparent, why. The notice must include an + estimate of the time by which this decision will be made. If the final decision + is to withhold the information requested, a second notice must then be issued + providing the reasons for the decision on the public interest. No further notice + is required if the final decision is to disclose the information. +http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/foi_good_practice_guidance_4.pdf + +"add something to our help section on this that says that late shouldn't be +read as meaning "breaking the law": there are circumstances in which they can +legally take extra time, but the overriding test is still "promptly" so they +might be acceptably late or they might be unacceptably late, but that's a +subjective test we can't make." + +However, I do agree with the argument that if authorities didn't have +a longer period for the PIT then that would almost certainly lead to +information being withheld that might otherwise be released. Under +correct usage, this extension should only ever be triggered where a +body has decided that information falls under one of the exemptions +that would preclude disclosure, and this extra time is solely for +deciding whether or not the public interest outweighs that. So if (and +only if) a body has done the first part correctly, I don't think we +want to discourage them from taking time to properly decide whether or +not they can release the information after all. Environmental Information Regulations allow for an extension but not an indefinite extension: |