The impact of the UK Freedom of Information Act on records management in the public sector
Minutes of PMB meeting 08/07/2008
A meeting of the Project Management Board took place on Tuesday 8th July 2008 at 1:30pm.
Present: Andrew Flinn, Robert Hazell (until 2pm), Susan Healy, Rudi Leoni, Vicki Lemieux, Elizabeth
Shepherd, Alice Stevenson, Steve Wood, and Ben Worthy
1. Introductions
ES advised members that their names were listed on the project website and enquired if this was
acceptable to members. The group agreed that this was fine.
2. Apologies – Maurice Frankel, Duncan Simpson, Sarah Holsen, Peter Sebina
Piers Cain, and Steve Bailey.
ES explained that Sarah Holsen and Peter Sebina would be acting as corresponding members as they
reside abroad.
3. Role of the Project Management Board
ES spoke to the PMB document circulated prior to the meeting outlining the roles and responsibilities of
the board.
(a) Membership of the board
RH expressed the view that as the research concerns local government it would be advisable to seek
further board members with experience in this sector. It was noted that only Rudi Leoni currently fitted
that description and he was asked to comment upon possible networks for finding such individuals. RL
explained that good established groups (e.g. London) were patchy and that no formal network existed.
However, RL noted that as part of the Audit Commission’s consultation (Amos and Simpson) there were
representatives across the country and that may be a start for finding practitioners. There was discussion
as to the representation of local government; whether members from a broader geographical range would
be beneficial to discussions. It was agreed that the primary factor would be size of the authority rather
than location.
Action: RL will investigate and provide names of people who may be willing to participate on the board
or would be happy to act as a consultant.
(b) Responsibilities
i. Overview of responsibilities
ii. Identification of possible risks
ES enquired whether the board would like a formal risk outline document drawn up, but the group felt
that this was not necessary as long as an potential risks were identified in meetings or communications.
(c) Communication between project team and Board
ES explained that board members would be kept up-to-date via email correspondence. The website would
also help the board to stay in contact with the project team. The possibility of setting up an online forum
or blog was discussed. AF advised that setting up forums and blogs could be labour intensive and it was
decided that it would be easier for this project to tap into existing forums and blogs.
(d) Supporting the project:
i. Publicity
ii. Dissemination suggestions
iii. Supporting the fieldwork
ES invited board members to suggest forums, blogs or conferences at which the project could be
advertised.
Action: SW advised that he would be visiting the Scottish ICO next week and the European ICO
conference in September so he will introduce the project there. RL invited ES and AS to the London
group of local authority record managers. SH will mention the project at the RMS meeting that evening.
VL will mention the project at a forthcoming conference in Canada.
The group agreed that they were all happy with PMB roles and responsibilities document as a working
document.
4. Progress Report
(a) Background to project and methodology
Board members were referred to the briefing paper (available at the project website).
(b) appointment of RA
ES thanked the board members for providing comments during the preparation of the job pack.
Interviews were held in March and Alice Stevenson was appointed to start on May 12. Due to alterations
in the UCL pay scales subsequent to the grant application, Alice’s contract will only be for under 11
months (until 30 March 2009), rather than the year as first intended.
(c) data collection
AS advised that 50 councils in the south west of England had been approached (excluding the GLA,
district councils and county boroughs). A very simple, 8-question online survey was used as a
mechanism to identify potential interviewees, and 11 individuals from a variety of councils had
expressed interest in participating. However, an additional 9 interviewees were required to meet the
research proposal.
Action: RL offered to encourage members from the London boroughs to participate.
The question of naming respondents was raised. ES explained that in general respondents will not be
named, nor specific authorities identified, in research outputs, and the consent forms will make that clear,
following UCL good practice. The problem of S.41 of the FOI Act was noted. Data Protection
registration and UCL Ethics Committee clearance have been obtained.
AS spoke to the interview schedule document, which had been circulated prior to the meeting (available
on the website), and explained how it was envisioned to be used.
ES noted that comments about the interview questions had been received from several members of the
board and these would be considered in the revision of the schedule. The length of the interview was
discussed, and it was agreed that participants should be asked for up to an hour of their time. It was
suggested that the interview question schedule ought to be sent to participants prior to meeting but the
feeling of group was that it was preferable just to outline the general areas of discussion to interviewees
rather than show them the full list of questions.
The idea of a group meeting to discuss preliminary results was considered and this will be returned to at
a future date.
There was discussion of how to identify users. RL recommended that the project team focus on local
media particularly as this group often send requests to several councils simultaneously. It was agreed that
it would be best to target types of users rather than individuals. Other avenues of identifying users were
mentioned, including examination of ICO decision notices. Utilizing contacts within local authorities to
get in touch with users was also discussed. SW was happy to take the proposal of putting a link on the
ICO website to the ICO policy committee for users.
Action: ES and AS will produce a few lines addressed to users to send to SW, which can, if approved, be
used on the ICO website.
5. Any other business
RL brought up the question of how the project team were defining ‘good’ or ‘bad’ records management
as was implied in the original project proposal. ES emphasized that there were unlikely to be any clear cut
answers hence the use of qualitative methods to discuss various scenarios and systems, and that what was
being sought was information on what records management systems and procedures had been identified
as helpful to FOI compliance.
6. Date of next meeting
The next meeting will take place at the beginning of October and will focus on the user phase of data
collection. Exact date tbc.
The impact of the UK Freedom of Information Act on records management in the public sector
UCL School of Library, Archive and Information Studies
University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT
Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 3232 Fax: +44 (0)20 7383 0557
e.shepherd@ucl.ac.uk / alice.stevenson@ucl.ac.uk
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/SLAIS/research/icarus/foi-impact/