The second round of the civil servant education in the Freedom of Information Non-Formal Educational Center was completed on 8 June, 2011. As a result, 200 graduate officials received state certificates for successful completion of the “Bases of Integrity, Freedom of Information and Ensuring Public Relations in the Governance System” training courses. Among the participants were civil servants from every ARM ministry, government adjunct body, regional administration, ARM Civil Service Council, ARM Central Electoral Commission, ARM Public Services Regulatory Commission, and from the ARM State Commission for the Protection of Economic Competition.
In the framework of these training courses civil servants are taught about the access of information right, the implementation practice of the ARM “Law on Freedom of Information”, the legal bases of the access to information right, the objects and subject for providing information, methods of receiving and providing information, bases for denying information, appeals and punishments for violating the access to information right, methods for information e-governance, as well as officials’ ethics, communication structure, methods for working with unsatisfied participants, serving citizens, types of interpersonal relations, supervisor-employee relations, and interpersonal relations in the workplace. The training consists of two parts – the bases of integrity in the civil service system, and freedom of information and ensuring public relations in the governance system. In the framework of the trainings about freedom of information the participant civil servants were offered to fill out two questionnaires about freedom of information (one in the beginning of the training and the other at the end), in order to determine the knowledge of the participant civil servants about freedom of information before and after the training. However, from 200 civil servants only 170 filled out the first questionnaire. From these 170 civil servants 107 (62%) have a work-duty to provide citizens or journalists with information.
Although the ARM “Law on Freedom of Information” was adopted in 2003, 25 (14%) out of 170 participants stated that they had firs heard of this law in 2000-2003, it is to say before the Law was adopted. 60 (36%) civil servants had first heard of the Law in 2003-2006, and 85 (50%) participants found out about the existence of the Law only in 2007-2011.
When trying to acquire information from state structure, problems mainly arise regarding the deadlines. To the question within what deadlines should an inquiry be answered from 170 civil servants 112 (66%) answered five days, 47 (27%) – 15 days, 11 (7%) chose the one-month answer. According to the article 9 of the ARM “Law on Freedom of Information”, a written information request must be answered within fived days after it has been received. Such information that requires extra work is provided within 30 days. So, before the training 66% of the civil servants knew about the five-day deadline for answering inquiries, which is good news. Whereas, same thing cannot be said about providing information with one’s own initiative. Before the training from 170 participants only 37 (21%) knew that state bodies must provide a certain set of information with their own initiative. 53 (31%) participants weren’t aware at all of this legal requirement, and 80 (48%) participants stated that they were partially aware of it. According to them, “such information is subject to mandatory publication, which s/he possesses and is authorized to provide,” as well as “information within the competence of the position”, “unclassified information”, “budgets”, “regarding his/her jurisdiction”, “annual reports”, “bill of entry of an official”, “information about vacancies”, “information about citizens’ reception regulations – days, times, etc.”, “name, surname, middle name, telephone number, e-mail address of an official,” etc.
In the beginning of the training only 70 (41%) participants stated that they knew on what bases they can deny an information request, 41 (24%) did not know, 59 (35%) were partially aware. As examples of bases for denying inquiries, the participants mentioned “personal data”, “state secrets”, “information containing service secrets, or state security military, trade secrets”.
The analysis of the questions shows that after this training the perceptions and knowledge of the civil servants about the access to information right dramatically changed. After the training the participants even suggested that the heads of state bodies also take these “Bases of Integrity, Freedom of Information and Ensuring Public Relations in the Governance System” training courses, which will allow to work openly and publicly.
In the end of the training the participants were asked to fill out another questionnaire, in order to find out what knowledge did the participant civil servants get about freedom of information. From 200 participants 185 answered the second questionnaire, and the result is as follows: from 185 civil servants 145 (78%) wrote that if a citizen turns to them for information, then they answer immediately. And 40 (22%) participants stated that they ask citizens to present a written request. None of the participants chose the variant in the questionnaire that says “we do nothing”.
To the question what should be done if a citizen presents a written request for confidential information, 35 (19%) participants stated “they should call and inform the citizen that the information s/he asks cannot be provided”. 143 (77%) participants chose the variant “the inquiry must be denied in written form”, and 7 (4%) participants answered “the inquiry must be left unanswered”. So, even after the training there were participants, who continued to think that a written inquiry can be answered by phone, or be left unanswered, which worries us. According to the ARM “Law on Freedom of Information”, even if a citizen requests for confidential information, the denial must be in written form.
Although according to the section 4 of the article 9 of the ARM “Law on Freedom of Information”, the inquirer does not have to explain the inquiry, 42 (24%) participants still think that the inquirer must still mention why s/he needs that information. From 185 civil servants only 141 (76%) thinks that the citizen does not have to mention why s/he needs that information. This is also concerning, because very often citizens encounter the problem of explaining the reasons of their inquiry.
In general, all the participants left the training with satisfaction, willing to be again trained in the FOI Non-Formal Educational Center. Many of the participants stated with satisfaction that “the training courses were very useful and that from now on they will not only implement the ARM “Law on Freedom of Information”, but will also use it, because many questions can be clarified thanks to this law.” They also mentioned that “if possible such training courses should be organized for the heads of state bodies. It is necessary for them,” “it is a useful initiative to leave the monotonous work and look at the world from another angle,” “it was interesting, I will try to use my knowledge in practice,” “this kind of discussions are really very necessary – the theoretical and cognitive knowledge promotes the broadening of information circles. It will be very useful in work and in everyday life.”
It is worth reminding that the first round of training courses in the FOI Non-Formal Educational Center took place from 22 November till 22 December, 2010, where 101 civil servants participated and received state certificates.
