Evaluating the platforms used to manage freedom of information requests

AutorGregory Michener - Luiz Fernando Marrey Moncau - Rafael Velasco.
Ocupação do AutorAssociate Professor, Ebape/Fgv Director, Program for Public Transparency - Manager Center for Technology and Society (Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade), Fgv Direito Rio - Program Coordinator Program for Public Transparency, Fgv.
Páginas117-118
CHAPTER 7 EVALUATING THE PLATFORMS USED TO MANAGE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS
The evaluation of platforms involved identifying and assessing the tools pro-
vided to citizens, by which they can submit FOI requests to the courts via Internet.
This audit used the same criteria as the General Audit, namely: (i) the existence of a
platform dedicated specifically to the submission of FOI requests; (ii) confirmation
of receipt of the request and notification when the request is answered; (iii) the pos-
sibility of tracking the request; and (iv) a section for filing appeals.
Of the 40 courts analyzed, 33 of them (82.5%) were found to have no formal platform
to handle FOI requests; instead, this responsibility was transferred to the ombudsman.
In many cases, the ombudsman’s site makes available a list of options, such as
‘Complaints’, ‘Suggestions’, and ‘Talk to the Inspector’, but does not display an option
for ‘Access to Information’. We believe employing the ombudsman’s website for FOI
requests can generate considerable problems, which we outline in the following pages.
Law 12.527/11 stipulates specific rules in the procedures for requesting informa-
tion; procedures which are not observed by the ombudsman websites. An example
is the right to appeal decisions rejecting a FOI request. There is no specific tool for
filing appeals and the citizen has no alternative but to submit a new request. This
complicates the process and may confuse the user, who might then simply give up,
due to the lack of appropriate fields.
Many ombudsman’s sites have character limits, which can become barriers to
passive transparency. This is the case of the TJ-BA, TJ-RS, TJ-TO, and the Superior
Labor Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho), the TST.
Some platforms require the user to provide a telephone number. While this
might conceivably facilitate contact with a citizen, it might also represent an undue
requirement of the applicant, since Law 12.527/11 asks only for simple identification;
name and CPF number (similar to a social security number), or ID (Registro Geral or
RG). As we saw earlier in the case of the TJ-RN, the court rejected the request based
on the grounds that the telephone number provided was incorrect.

Para continuar a ler

PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT