No, I can't think of a reason not to.
I think it's in everyone's best interest to have the requests
centralized. Especially f there is a policy or statute that covers
response time.. I used to work for a municipality and we had 10 days to
respond to the request. Not necessarily produce the requested
information but just to respond. Since we had a time limit, there was a
process we followed to ensure the deadline was met:
1. We logged in the request with name, date, person requesting ,
brief desc. Of request & date due. (This was an electronic form) We
also set up a tickler to remind us of the deadline. Plus, each of the
following steps we entered into the log so we knew what had happened &
where in the process it was. That way, anyone could answer a question,
if need be.
2. We forwarded the request on to the department that had the info
mentioning it needed to be returned to us in 7 days (since the
deadline was 10 days) along with a form stating info was attached or,
they had no info in regards to that request. They (the dep't)
needed to sign and date the form as well
3. They sent us the info along with signed form
4. We answered the request.
If the tickler reminded us that we had received the info back yet we
called to inquire why. If they needed more time to get the info
together, we informed the requestor.
It seems like a tedious process but you never lose where you're at in
the process and it can be easily tracked for stat's. The main thing is
that requestor had someone specific to go to. That way they don't get
the "run around" as they see it.
Steve Morgan
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Chris Graves
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FOI request process in Higher Education
>
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:12:06 -0400
> From: "Piotrowski, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: FOI request process in Higher Education
>
> When I was RM at UCSC we centralized FOI requests and Subpoenas in the
> Chancellor's Office under the Assistant Chancellor. It was still up to
> the departments to dig for the information and affirm that they were
> completely responsive and route the material to the Chancellor's
Office.
Hi Chuck,
Yes this is a similar scenario that I will be facing. But how to ensure
that all phone requests are properly identified as "requests for
information" that falls under this category? Training is one thing but
it seems to be an on-the-fly decision. Same with email.
I guess my real question is how best to cover the various bases. I agree
with your other point further down: ""it is our
> practice not to accept requests at this office, please make all
> requests through the Chancellor's Office, please contact them at....""
in which case many of your other points fall in line: centralizing the
prcess; ensuring consistency; timeliness; etc.
Well, let me phrase the question differently:
Can anyone think of a good reason to *not* centralize the request
process as much as possible (assuming the digging is left to the
de-centralized offices)?
If I can rule out objections, I can move forward with this idea.
That's not to say there aren't any in a highly decentralized academic
environment. I just can't think of any good enough reasons not to
centralize it at this point. That's what brings me to ask others more
experienced than I in the field.
Thanks in advance,
-Chris
>
> This was mostly to (not in any order here):
> 1. Prevent staff un-knowledgeable in the rules of protecting personal
> information from giving out protected personal information.
> 1a. It liberated the front-line staff from awkward conflicts and
> unnecessary work when they could say to the requesting public "it is
> our practice not to accept requests at this office, please make all
> requests through the Chancellor's Office, please contact them at...."
> 2. to ensure that the Campus replied to all requests in a consistent
> manner 3. to track the timetable for responding and ensure that we met
> the deadlines for responding 4. provide one point of contact for the
> requestor and one point of contact for answering the request within
> the campus.
> 5. California's Public Records Act requires that institutional public
> record officers act as reference librarians. If someone asked for
> "Everything on dorm construction" we couldn't just say the request was
> too broad and ignore it, we had to work with the requestor to help
> them to ask for the information they wanted. We felt (as
> pseudo-librarians and central records keepers) that we were better
> prepared to do this than the dozens of department employees with 0
reference skills.
> 6. to measure, and then put a budget figure on, the cost of responding
> to requests.
> 7. As residents of the Chancellor's Office we could speak as a campus
> wide authority in a way that showed that the campus took FOIA
seriously.
> (Our Asst Chancellor was officially the office of record for FOIA
> requests and responses.) 8. As residents of the Chancellor's office we
> had an above the silo view that allowed us to see where information
> was throughout the entire campus. This allowed us to be completely
> responsive as a campus.
>
> It seems that UCSC may have modified this process and it is no longer
> available on the www, but the subpoena process is similar and you may
> wish to review the following web page:
> http://iam.ucsc.edu/IP-Staff/Memo%20to%20Campus.htm
>
>
> Chuck Piotrowski
> CVPS
> www.cvps.com
> This computer runs on Cow Power!
>
>
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
