Improve the PATI process

PATI information retrieval is woefully inefficient.

Observation: The information retrieval skill level of the numerous Information Officers is likely unequal and limited. Based on the Information Officer (IO) list posted on the ICO website, there appears to be an insufficient number of IOs assigned and about 13 Authorities without a designated IO. Two IOs are assigned to at least 14 and 15 Authorities, respectively. The role of an IO is on an as-needed basis, not a full-time position. Processing PATI requests takes away time from the IO’s regular Government duties. It has an adverse downstream ripple effect on others in the Government waiting for that regular output to complete assigned duties and, on the public, often the final receiver of the Government’s output.

Public Access To Information Regulations 2014 p. 9 Delegation of functions 18. (1) An information officer may delegate to an officer such of his functions as he thinks necessary or expedient but shall remain accountable for the discharge of those functions

Sharing of information officers 19. A public authority may agree with one or more other public authorities to appoint one information officer.

Suggestion: Centralize the information retrieval process from Government systems as much as possible. Ministries contribute to funding what I would call an Information Retrieval Specialist (IRS) who at a minimum, processes the Government systems data retrieval requests such as email records. The IO submits an information retrieval request to the IRS instead of struggling to remember where to find the information, who to contact, and how to retrieve it.

The IRS would also be responsible for creating and maintaining the indexing of all records on Government systems. From my experience, such an index does not exist. An index dramatically speeds up the information search. Once established, every document, file, and email would automatically be scanned, and every word searchable.

For example, a search for records containing Person A’s email address would not have to scan through hundreds of thousands of emails as the index immediately points to the relevant records. As a neutral party, the IRS would not have a problem searching for information across Authorities and not be worried about stepping on anyone’s toes – thus performing a more thorough records search.

From my own PATI experience, a thorough record search was not performed to avoid stepping on toes. The IO reviews the information collected by the IRS and decides what is appropriate to send to the requestor per the PATI Act.

Benefits: This new resource frees up valuable time for the IOs to perform their regular duties. It minimizes the adverse ripple effect on the Government and the public. There would be a cost-saving to each Authority and the Government, such as:

a. Not spending time and money to train IO replacements on retrieval technology applications.

b. Not spending time and money on technology refresher training.

c. Not spending time and money on new technology training.

From the ICO website list, it appears that 15 IOs cover 71 Authorities and 124 IOs cover 124 Authorities. 13 of the 124 currently have no designated IO. In theory, centralizing the information retrieval portion of PATI would decrease the workload for 139 (15 + 124) people. The 139 does not include the cost of alternate IO’s to fill in when the primary IO is unavailable for whatever reason like taking 2-3 weeks of vacation.

The Government always finds money for consultants. Or perhaps the Department of Information & Digital Technologies (IDT) hires someone whose primary duties are information retrieval and government records management. Or trains an IDT employee such as the Database Administrator (DBA) for the role.

In any case, the cost of the IRS is spread proportionally amongst the Authorities on an agreed-upon formula and/or an hourly charge-back rate. There should also be an alternate IRS to fill in when the primary IRS is unavailable for any reason such as vacation, illness, etc.