|
|
|
4. Methodology |
Several reasons led us to alter our initial idea of conducting an experiment. Instead, we opted for a methodologically more constricted solution, which proved to be more realistic. We organized the “experiment" with the goal of providing description of monitored cases, i.e. actual experiences of various categories of requesters. Also, we monitored consistencies experienced by each category of requester in communicating with government agencies and employees.
Our first methodological problem relates to actual lack of legal provisions regulating access to public information. Although both Yugoslav and Serbian constitutions prescribe transparency in the work of state institutions, existing legal provisions included in various laws at both federal and republic levels, are either not
sufficiently explicit or do not deal with the issue at all. Hence, it was not possible to measure the legal response time, as was our original intention. On the other hand, we asked representatives of various institutions what was the legal time limit for responding to public requests and inquiries.
There was no unified response: “we are in no obligation to respond" or “we are not certain what the legal time limit is, but in practice, we reply within 60 days." Therefore, we opted for a temporal framework of 30 days, which seems to be standard for countries where laws on access to public information are enforced (such as the US Freedom of Information Act from 1966, in the United States).
The experiment was conducted by sending a letter, fax or making a telephone call to various public institutions, on behalf of various types of requesters, in order to observe two basic variables:
a) type of response (no response, complete response, direction to another agency i.e. incomplete response) and,
b) response time.
The original draft was envisioned to follow the attitude of the agency, and analyze its public image, in particular the degree to which it was in accordance with the attitude conveyed in the response to the filed request.
A total of 25 requests were filed, out of which 13 were mailed or faxed, while the remaining 12 requests were filed through a telephone call or in person. This method of filing requests was determined by the existing practice of communicating with public servants, first and foremost by journalists and NGO representatives. In forms of communication where “paper trails" are not produced, such as officially filed requests, we decided to talk to representatives of this category of requests, and changed our approach to analyzing the obtained results.
Most requests were filed in the final third of July 2001. None of the requests involves a fabricated situation. In other words, individuals, organizations and firms who „lent" their name in the experiment were addressing intuitions relevant to their work, and the inquiry corresponded to real needs of the official requester.
Out of the total number of requests, information was requested from six Serbian and four Yugoslav ministries, a court, three city government agencies, and one municipal agency. Content of requests varied with requester/information user type. In each case, only information that was not classified was requested, and it was assumed that requests could have been misaddressed or incorrectly filed to incorrect agencies, which was accepted as equally likely in reality. On this level, the formal side of the experiment becomes more important, whether a misaddressed request was responded to with information and instructions on the appropriate institution to contact.
|
|
Top of page |
|
|
|
