Translated material
Unavailability code
The Law on Information Transparency does not make government more open
Russian officials do not seem to intend to follow the lead of their few colleagues, who want to force them to work in conditions of maximum possible openness to society. Vremya Novostey has at its disposal the text of the bill “On ensuring access to information on the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies,” recently submitted by the government to the State Duma after lengthy approvals. Certain provisions of the bill, which, among other things, is considered as one of the effective measures to combat corruption, raise serious doubts that it will fulfill its objectives.In the ministries and departments, where the document was “re-agreed” for a year and a half (!) after being approved by the government in June 2005, they did their best. Using reference norms to the maximum, officials reserved the right to decide which aspects of their activities fellow citizens can know about, and which will remain a secret behind seven seals (and we are not talking about state or official secrets).
Formally, a step forward towards information openness of the authorities has been made. After all, even the very attempt to remove the labor of the domestic state apparatus from the shadow sector in Russian conditions is almost a feat. The timing of the passage of the 40-page bill through the government (it was developed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade back in 2003) indicates precisely this.
During the preparation of the document, its developers emphasized that for the first time, at the legislative level, a unified procedure was established for state bodies and local authorities to provide information about their activities, and the principle of presumption of openness of information about the activities of government bodies was introduced, with the exception of information related to state or official secrets. However, judging by the text of the bill, the order is, to put it mildly, not entirely uniform.
Article 9 of the bill “On ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies” contains a list of information that government bodies can post on information and telecommunication networks, including on the Internet. The list involves the publication of important and useful information - from telephone numbers and addresses of government agencies to statistical data, draft regulations, data on placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for federal needs, etc.
However, the catch is that the law does not oblige the publication of all this information. Such publication will become mandatory only after the development of other lists. These lists are approved by the president (for government agencies over which he leads, that is, law enforcement agencies) and the prime minister. The Federation Council and the State Duma must approve their own lists. The procedure for approving lists of state bodies of the constituent entities of the federation will have to be developed in the subjects themselves, and for local government bodies - by the municipalities themselves.
In other words, a situation may well arise in which, say, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, as a supporter of the law, will submit for signature to the head of government the most complete list of information about its activities for posting on the Internet, and some other department will submit only its address and contact telephone number , which you will never get through to. The State Duma will decide to inform about one thing, and the Federation Council - about something completely different. The same applies to municipalities. In a word, a unified order does not emerge.
Questions also arise regarding the time limits for posting information on the Internet about the activities of government agencies and local governments. According to the bill, such information must be posted within a time frame that “ensures the timely implementation and protection by information users of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.” Agree, the wording is not very binding. According to this logic, you can post it in a day, or in a year.
The bill also envisages the creation of an effective mechanism for informing organizations and citizens about the work of government agencies by responding to their requests. Moreover, for improper performance of these duties, officials face a fine of up to 3 thousand rubles. (fines are supposed to be introduced by amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses). A written request is subject to mandatory registration within three days, and a response to it must be given no later than a month from the date of registration. If it was not possible to collect the necessary information for objective reasons, then the period for responding to the request is extended by another 15 days. Refusal to provide information must be clearly justified.
At the same time, the provisions regarding the mechanism for working with requests contain obvious inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, in Art. 22, among the reasons excluding a response to a request, is the discrepancy between the content of the request and the scope of activity of the government agency or local government body where it was received. However, in Art. 19 it is written in black and white that if the request relates to the activities of another government agency, then it must be sent there within five days after registration where it was originally received. Moreover, the author must also be notified of the forwarding of the request within five days. Another example: according to the same Art. 22 the basis for failure to provide information upon request may be the fact that the requested information was published in the media or posted on the Internet. Meanwhile Art. 20 obliges the official to inform the author of the request that the information he is interested in has already been posted in the media or on the Internet. In this case, in the response to the request it is necessary to indicate the date, issue number and name of the media or the address of the site where the information required by the author of the request is posted.
The bill obliges government agencies and municipalities to “ensure the possibility” of the presence of citizens and representatives of organizations at meetings of their collegial bodies “when they consider issues affecting the rights and legitimate interests of these citizens and organizations.” It is clear that the participation of citizens in a meeting of, say, a board of a federal ministry is an incredibly big step forward on the path to openness of government. However, not everything is simple here either. The fact is that the procedure for the presence of citizens and representatives of organizations at meetings of collegial bodies is determined by the regulations of the collegial bodies themselves, that is, by officials and employees of municipalities. It will depend on them whether outsiders will be allowed into the meeting. And finally, who will determine whether the issues of a meeting of a collegial body affect the “rights and legitimate interests” of citizens and organizations? Apparently, also officials and employees of municipalities.
The highest barrier to open government may be government officials. According to the bill, it is the cabinet of ministers who has the right to establish the volume of free information about the activities of the government, as well as the level of payment for the provision of paid information. The fee is for “making copies of the document and/or postage” associated with sending the information. With postage costs everything is more or less clear; postal rates are known. But how much you will need to pay, say, for copying a page of a document in excess of the limit (and the limit can be set to one page) - here everything is in the power of government officials. Who will guarantee that the price will be similar to that quite acceptable for citizens at which numerous private offices make photocopies?
However, the main paradox is that the law, the purpose of which is to improve the information of Russians about the activities of government agencies, worsens the conditions for obtaining relevant information by the media. But in a democratic society they are the main tool for informing citizens about the actions of the authorities. The developers of the law want to equate the media with citizens and other organizations, that is, to force them to wait for a response to a request not a week, as the media law requires today, but a month. Corresponding amendments to the law on media have also been submitted to the State Duma.
In a word, during the finalization of the bill, deputies will have to work hard so that it really becomes a law on ensuring, and not on restricting access to information about the activities of state bodies and local governments. Moreover, they will have much less time for this work than the government has allocated for itself to prepare the law. After all, the law should come into force on July 1, 2007.