On March 9th C. Hives accompanied Assoc. VP A.E. McClean to a meeting in Victoria to discuss the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act with representatives from the four BC universities. In the morning the participants discussed briefly the Barry Jones report which will provide the foundation upon which the extended FOI legislation will be based. The report suggests that there will be a single piece of legislation that will cover both the public bodies at the provincial level as well as the public bodies at the local level. The target date for implementation of the latter is scheduled for October 1994.
The report appeared to downplay the difficulties of implementing FOI. Citing Ontario experiences, the report seemed to suggest that preparation for and number of requests actually made under the legislation would not impact significantly on operations. The report also suggested that the legislation may simplify the requirements for the directory of records. There are, however, no specifics on how this would be possible.
The report made very little mention of the second thrust of the legislation -- privacy. It seems that this might be the "sleeping giant" particularly as it relates to universities. In the past universities have often taken a rather cavalier attitude towards personal information, particularly in the areas of student files outside the Registrar's Office. One could, in fact, challenge the rights of academic departments and other offices to maintain personal information about students who are no longer enroled at the institution. Bill 50 states that:
No personal information may be collected by or for a public body unless:
That information relates directly to and is necessary for an operating program or activities of that public body.
We might well have a difficult time arguing that the maintenance of personal information files for students who have long since left UBC is necessary for the ongoing activity of the institution. Does the ability to provide references offset the perceived violation of privacy as various offices around campus open, maintain and provide access to student information without the explicit consent of the student? At the very least we have to develop very clear guidelines as to what type of information can be placed in student files, for what purposes that information can be used, and, finally, who has access to that information. We must remember that under the terms of the legislation the students will have access to all personal information about them on campus. Such requests will require staff time to locate and review the contents of files and severe any third party information that may be included.
In addition to student records, the privacy issues will also have a profound impact on the collection of donor information. In relation to the collection of personal information, Bill 50 states that:
A public body must collect personal information directly from the individual the information is about.
This would seem to suggest that a prospective donor would have to be contacted and agree to allow the University to collect personal information about them.
The privacy stipulations of Bill 50 also suggest that many of the forms currently used by the University for the collection of personal information will have to be modified. The Bill states that:
A public body must tell an individual from whom it collects personal information
the purpose for collecting it,
the legal authority for collecting it, and
the name, title, business address and business telephone number of an officer or employee of the public body who can answer the individual's question about the collection.
Suffice it to say that this privacy issue could well rival the access concerns and it will force the universities to review very carefully past practices vis-à-vis the collection of personal information. This is bound to generate a great deal of discussion with the approach of the new legislation.
During the meeting we also talked in very general terms about implementing FOI. The first step involves the creation of a directory of records which lists all of the records generated and maintained by the institution. UBC is slightly ahead of the other universities in that we have completed a survey of our records and this will provide data from which to construct our directory.
Each institution will need to develop a centralized procedure for dealing with FOI requests. Incoming requests for information should be funnelled through a single individual or office and that same individual or office should undertake the work of reviewing information. This will ensure a consistency in the application of the legislation. Also we should be careful where ever possible to encourage people to continue (where appropriate) to provide information through informal means. Formal requests should be a last resort to obtaining information.
The whole concept of providing efficient access to information is predicated on the ability to locate the required information. Those at the meeting recognized the importance of meeting the challenges of FOI legislation within a broader context of records/information management. In this regard it will be necessary to develop and adopt records classifications systems and disposal schedules for university records. Each of the University Archives programs has now or is in the process of proposing records management programs to their institutions. The Jones Report pointed out the value of records management particularly as it relates to the need to meet the 30 day time limit for responding to requests for information. It is estimated that information must be located and retrieved within four days in order to carry out the other processes involved in the provision of access. In addition, it is also necessary to provide requesters with information about the cost of providing access and therefore, very early on in the process we must have some idea of the scope and extent of the request.
The participants acknowledged the important issues of education, training and public awareness that must be carried out in the areas of records management and the FOI legislation.
In the afternoon we met with representatives from the Information and Privacy Branch who indicated that if necessary they might be able to provide some support to us particularly in the areas of records management advice and training. In fact, they are working on a series of "training the trainers" modules.
ACTION: Chris will contact the Information and Privacy Branch to get copies of the Jones Report for all the members of the Advisory Committee.
Erwin Wodarczak made a brief presentation based on the major findings of the report and discussed its recommendations. A thorough discussion ensued which focused particularly on the proposed retention periods. Ruth Patrick thanked Erwin for his excellent work on the survey.
Action: Erwin will revise the document based on the discussion and prepare and distribute a final report for March 22nd .
Terry Eastwood distributed copies of an advertised position for an Archivist/Records Manager at the University of Victoria. Both UVIC and SFU now have more professional staff than the University Archives at UBC.
April 21st - Librarian's Office, 9:00 - 10:30
Back to "University Archives and Records Management Advisory Committee"