{"id":241167,"date":"2025-03-05T23:33:34","date_gmt":"2025-03-05T18:03:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=241167"},"modified":"2025-03-22T12:57:00","modified_gmt":"2025-03-22T07:27:00","slug":"proactive-disclosure-of-information-government-accountability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/proactive-disclosure-of-information-government-accountability\/","title":{"rendered":"Proactive Disclosure Of Information & Government Accountability"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Wijayananda Jayaweera<\/a> –<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"

Wijayananda Jayaweera<\/p><\/div>\n

The following discussion paper was prepared by the writer few years ago as a preliminary draft for a comprehensive proactive disclosure policy, at the invitation of UNDP Colombo. Unfortunately, despite its potential to enhance transparency and accountability, the initiative faced significant resistance. Both politicians and officials, wary of increased transparency, demonstrated a lukewarm attitude toward proactive disclosure and showed little enthusiasm for developing a robust government policy on the matter.<\/p>\n

Now, with the NPP government in power, there is a renewed opportunity to take up this challenge and fulfill the long-overdue obligation to facilitate effective proactive disclosure of information held by public institutions. By embracing this initiative, the government can demonstrate its commitment to transparency and efficiency, empower citizens, and strengthen public trust in governance. The time to act is now.<\/p>\n

There are two ways by which information held by public authorities can be accessed by the public. The first is when members of the citizens receive information as a response to a request they have filed as prescribed by the Right to Information (RTI) Act no 12 of 2016. The second is when information is constantly made public at the initiative of the public body irrespective of such requests. While the first is known as reactive disclosure the proactive publication and updating of information held by a public authority is known as proactive disclosure. A public authority can achieve proactive disclosure using a variety of means ranging from publications, gazette notifications to notice boards, to radio and television announcements, to publishing on the Internet via a public institution\u2019s website.<\/p>\n

Essentially, proactive disclosure means the public authorities pushing all the possible information they hold out into the public without waiting for citizens to make formal requests to obtain such information in a piece meal manner through individual requests. The maximum possible disclosure of information in fact indicates the public authority\u2019s own commitment to openness, accountability and transparency, which in turn contributes to increase public confidence in the relevant public authority.<\/p>\n

Taking the que from the regulations pertaining to proactive disclosure of information gazetted under the Right to Information Act no 12 of 2016, I wish to discuss the need for the state to develop a well-articulated strategic approach to improve proactive disclosure of information across all the public authorities.<\/p>\n

The right to accesses Information held by the public authorities is a fundamental right of the citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution. The public authorities are the duty bearers of this right who should enable the citizen right holders to claim this right. Besides individual public authorities are bounded by this duty as prescribed in the Right to Information Act, the state as a whole has to respect, protect and fulfil the right holders claims to this right to access information held by the public authorities. To respect a right means refraining from interfering with the enjoyment of the right. To protect a right means to prevent other parties from interfering with the meaningful enjoyment of the right. This means adjudicating disputes between the information seeking right holders and duty bearing public authorities when latter refuse to fulfil a justifiable information request. In regard to the right to information this is normally a task oversighted by the statutorily independent Right to Information Commission.<\/p>\n

Elaborating key attributes of this right, the RTI Act underlines the Right to Information as a necessary condition to foster transparency and accountability of public authorities. Both transparency and accountability are unachievable without proactively sharing information with the public who are the key stakeholders of the services rendered and therefore to whom any public authority is ultimately accountable.<\/p>\n

To fulfil a right means, to take active steps to put in place, policies, institutions and procedures, including the allocation of resources, to enable people to fully enjoy that right. Reactive disclosure, which is about disclosing information as a response to an individual request, enables partial fulfilment of the right to information. It is only when proactive disclosure of information becomes the norm of transparency and accountability the citizens are able to fully enjoy their right to information. It is in that sense the state should introduce an overall strategy to improve the proactive disclosure across all public authorities.<\/p>\n

Proactive disclosure of information also increases the flow of information within the government and between different sectors and sections of the public services. There is lot of useful information residing within various government ministries, departments and agencies in silos. The opportunity to publicly share information contributes to a better clarification of the tasks assigned to an organisation and its different constituents in terms of the services offered to the public. Sharing information is a precondition for achieving organisation\u2019s overall mission and to combine the efforts of its different constituents to deliver as one. For instance, citizens cannot obtain an overall picture of the mission of a government ministry unless each organisation and department coming under the purview of the ministry publicly share their information justifying their existence within a particular ministry. Apart from increasing the internal flow of information proactive disclosure enables the organisations to relate to each other and to find common grounds to increase service efficiency.<\/p>\n

Proactive disclosure of information puts information into the public faster than the reactive disclosure where information is revealed only when there is a request. Addressing each information request separately takes a considerable time and a cost for both the requester and the provider. On the other hand, increased proactive disclosure reduces the time and resources spent in processing individual information requests because citizens are less likely to file induvial requests when the required information is already available in the public domain. Moreover, proactive disclosure makes information accessible to everyone as opposed to just the requester.<\/p>\n

While access to information in the public sector has been motivated largely by societal goals such as improving the transparency and accountability of institutions the availability of public sector information to freely reuse by the public for specific requirements could generates ancillary economic benefits. Public sector information is the information directly generated by public institutions, information and content held by the public-sector bodies, statistical agencies, cultural establishments, archives, and the any kind of information that is produced and\/or collected and held by a public authority as part of its public functions. Ranging ranging from demographic, economic and meteorological data to art works, historical documents with their immense economic value has the potentials to encourage entrepreneurial citizens to innovatively repackage the public-sector information for various educational and cultural purposes. The development of new products built directly on public sector information, repackaged data sets for research purposes and complementary products such as educational software and publications would enable the entrepreneurs to reuse information in a more meaningful manner with value added goods and information products which could become a major source of educational and cultural knowledge for wider population.<\/p>\n

Introduction of Open Government Licensing (OGL) System<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

To promote transparency and accessibility, the government should collaborate with the RTI Commission to introduce regulations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, establishing an Open Government Licensing (OGL) system. This system should be based on the following principles:<\/p>\n

A.<\/b>\u00a0Any information disclosed by a public authority under the RTI Act should be subject to a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, and non-exclusive license, allowing its reuse for any purpose, including commercial activities.<\/p>\n

B.<\/b>\u00a0The scope of reuse should include copying, publishing, translating, adapting, distributing, or using the information in any medium, format, or mode for lawful purposes.<\/p>\n

Benefits of Proactive Information Release<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Proactive disclosure of information offers numerous advantages:<\/p>\n

* Enhances the flow of information within the government and between citizens and public authorities.<\/p>\n

* Accelerates the dissemination of information to the public at a lower cost.<\/p>\n

* Reduces the time and resources spent on processing individual information requests.<\/p>\n

* Ensures information is accessible to all citizens, not just the requester.<\/p>\n

* Improves internal information flow and increases the visibility of public authorities.<\/p>\n

* Enables citizens to derive benefits from the reuse of information.<\/p>\n

Proactive Disclosure Requirements under Regulation No. 20<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The rules and regulations gazetted on 3 February 2017, particularly Regulation No. 20 titled\u00a0Proactive Disclosure of Information<\/i>, mandate that public authorities publish the following categories of information:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Institutional Information:<\/b>\u00a0Legal basis, internal regulations, functions, and powers of the institution.<\/li>\n
  2. Organizational Information:<\/b>\u00a0Organizational structure, personnel details, and contact information, remunerations, emoluments, and allowances of executive-grade officials.<\/li>\n
  3. Operational Information:<\/b>\u00a0Strategies, plans, policies, activities, procedures, reports, evaluations, and supporting documents used in decision-making.<\/li>\n
  4. Decisions and Acts:<\/b>\u00a0Formal decisions and acts affecting the public, including the data and documents used as their basis.<\/li>\n
  5. Public Services Information:<\/b>\u00a0Descriptions of services, guidance materials, forms, fees, and deadlines.<\/li>\n
  6. Budget Information:<\/b>\u00a0Projected budgets, actual income and expenditure, salary scales, and audit reports.<\/li>\n
  7. Open Meetings Information:<\/b>\u00a0Details of public meetings, including accessibility and attendance procedures.<\/li>\n
  8. Decision-Making & Public Participation:<\/b>\u00a0Mechanisms for consultations and public involvement in decision-making.<\/li>\n
  9. Subsidies Information:<\/b>\u00a0Beneficiaries, objectives, amounts, and implementation details of subsidies.<\/li>\n
  10. Public Procurement Information:<\/b>\u00a0Procurement processes, criteria, tender outcomes, contracts, and completion reports.<\/li>\n
  11. Lists, Registers, and Databases:<\/b>\u00a0Information on databases and registers maintained by the public body.<\/li>\n
  12. Accessibility of Lists and Databases:<\/b>\u00a0Availability of these resources online or for onsite access by the public.<\/li>\n
  13. Information About Information Held:<\/b>\u00a0An index or register of documents and databases maintained by the authority.<\/li>\n
  14. Publications Information:<\/b>\u00a0Details of publications issued, including pricing or availability free of charge.<\/li>\n
  15. Right to Information:<\/b>\u00a0Guidance on accessing information, including contact details of responsible officers.<\/li>\n
  16. Disclosed Information:<\/b>\u00a0Information released in response to requests that may be of broader public interest.<\/li>\n
  17. Supporting Facts for Policies and Decisions:<\/b>\u00a0All relevant facts considered in formulating policies or decisions affecting the public.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    Section 8 requires ministers to submit and publish prescribed information biannually to the RTI Commission. Section 9 mandates the advance publication of information related to new projects undertaken by ministries or their ancillary organizations. This requirement applies to foreign-funded projects exceeding $100,000 and locally funded projects costing over 500,000 rupees.<\/p>\n

    Proactive Disclosure as a Norm<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    While Sections 8 and 9 and Regulation No. 20 outline the minimum requirements for proactive disclosure, public authorities should strive to exceed these standards. Maximum disclosure of information should be the norm, with the quality and quantity of proactively released information serving as key indicators of institutional excellence. Public authorities should leverage their websites to maximize proactive disclosure.<\/p>\n

    The Role of the Internet in Proactive Disclosure<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    In the digital age, the internet is the most effective platform for proactive information disclosure. As of 2023, internet penetration in Sri Lanka stands at 66.7% of the population, with access increasingly facilitated through mobile phones. Notably, all pre-paid SIMs from major operators are data-enabled, allowing users to access the internet without specific data plans. Additionally, mainstream media increasingly rely on institutional websites as sources for reporting. Public authorities can further enhance transparency by automating their websites to send alerts to journalists whenever new updates are published.<\/p>\n

    Current State of Proactive Disclosure<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    While most public authorities maintain websites, their utilization for proactive disclosure varies significantly. A survey by Verit\u00e9 Research<\/span><\/a><\/span> across 55 public authorities highlighted this disparity. Below are some summarized findings from the report:<\/p>\n

    \u2026\u2026 the implementation of the online proactive disclosure section of the RTI act is overall limited and uneven across public bodies and categories of information. While the disclosure of budget information is high (67%) it could be made more user-friendly through an open budget portal. On the other hand, the disclosure of timely and detailed information on public projects is very low (13%) in the absence of a central project database and effective disclosure policy for projects. Minimal disclosures of information on categories such as Public Services <\/i>and Public Participation <\/i>can inhibit the ability of citizens to engage with government and access basic services. The disclosure of responses to information requests of general interest and the corresponding data does not yet happen.<\/p>\n

    The low levels of RTI-relevant information disclosed, such as Information Officer\u2019s and Designated Officer\u2019s contact information <\/i>and RTI requesting procedures <\/i>indicate the urgency to disclose critical <\/i>information for the effective implementation of the RTI Act. An assessment of adherence to <\/i>obligations under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, compared with Regulation No. 20, suggests <\/i>that public authorities were relatively more likely to disclose types of information emerging from <\/i>a statutory requirement. However, public authorities disclosed significantly more information <\/i>in subcategories emerging from section 8 of the RTI Act, than section 9 of the Act. Aside from <\/i>information pertaining to Detailed Project Costs<\/i>, hardly any information was disclosed under other <\/i>subcategories emerging from section 9 of the Act, such as Notification of Project Commencement<\/i>, and Terms and Conditions of Investment.<\/i><\/p>\n

    Public authorities scored relatively higher in terms of usability<\/b>, in comparison with content. Usability measures (a) language accessibility, (b) ease of access, and (c) format. Overall, 20% of public authorities scored in the \u2018moderately satisfactory\u2019 band. The majority (75%) of public authorities scored within the \u2018moderately unsatisfactory\u2019 band. 5% of public authorities received \u2018unsatisfactory\u2019 scores, which strongly limits effective access and the potential use and reuse of public sector information. The language in which most information was disclosed was English, followed by Sinhala and Tamil. Yet gaps in trilingual accessibility of information remain, as the highest language accessibility score was 50%.<\/p>\n

    In this context, I will use the remainder of this discussion paper to outline the essential elements that must be incorporated into a comprehensive strategic plan to enhance proactive disclosure effectively across public authorities. Presented as directives these elements are critical for ensuring transparency, accountability, and the successful implementation of proactive information disclosure practices.<\/p>\n

    DIRECTIVE 1: APPOINT A PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE STEERING COMMITTEE (PDSC)<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    Each Ministry and its affiliated public authorities must establish a Proactive Disclosure Steering Committee (PDSC). The committee should be chaired by the Secretary of the Ministry or the Head of the Organization, as appropriate. The PDSC\u2019s primary role is to promote and oversee the implementation of proactive information disclosure. It must ensure that effective structures, resources, and support systems are in place to facilitate this process.<\/p>\n

    The designated Information Officer of the Ministry\/Organization will serve as the Secretary of the PDSC. The committee\u2019s key responsibilities include:<\/p>\n

    1. Cultivating a culture of proactive information disclosure within the organization, ensuring it is embraced by all staff members.<\/p>\n

    2. Using proactive disclosure as a key performance indicator for departments, divisions, and sections.<\/p>\n

    3. Assessing the current state of proactive information disclosure within the organization.<\/p>\n

    4. Identifying information to be disclosed and determining the appropriate formats, prioritizing maximum disclosure and user relevance while adhering to exceptions outlined in Section 5 of the RTI Act.<\/p>\n

    5. Developing a comprehensive Publication Scheme outlining the categories of information to be proactively published.<\/p>\n

    6. Designating officials from each division\/section to oversee the proactive publication of information in line with the Publication Scheme.<\/p>\n

    7. Creating a plan for the incremental digitization of high-demand information currently unavailable in digital formats, allocating adequate resources, and ensuring timely execution.<\/p>\n

    8. Establishing and implementing a schedule for the periodic updating of disclosed information.<\/p>\n

    9. Conducting regular assessments of proactive disclosure practices and addressing any deficiencies.<\/p>\n

    10. Reporting to the Minister on progress in fulfilling obligations under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.<\/p>\n

    11. Taking additional measures as determined by the PDSC to enhance proactive disclosure.<\/p>\n

    The PDSC should meet as often as necessary to carry out its tasks, with a minimum of one meeting per month to review progress. The Information Officer must maintain minutes of these meetings. Heads of sections\/divisions are responsible for implementing PDSC decisions in consultation with the Information Officer.<\/p>\n

    DIRECTIVE 2: INSTILL PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE AS AN INSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    Proactive disclosure of information must be recognized as a core institutional responsibility supported by all staff members. Measures should be taken to ensure that all employees understand the benefits of proactive disclosure and their obligations under Section 23(3) of the RTI Act, which requires all officers to assist in fulfilling duties under the Act and its regulations.<\/p>\n

    While the Information Officer is responsible for determining the release of information, the PDSC must designate officials from each division\/section to handle the selection and processing of information for proactive disclosure. These designated officers should consult the Information Officer if they encounter uncertainties, with guidance provided based on the principle of maximum disclosure and the minimum standards outlined in Regulation No. 20 of the RTI Act.<\/p>\n

    The PDSC should organize training programs for public officials on:<\/p>\n

    * Compliance with proactive disclosure rules.<\/p>\n

    * Preparing information for release.<\/p>\n

    * Applying exceptions appropriately.<\/p>\n

    * Effectively utilizing both ICT and traditional dissemination channels.<\/p>\n

    Additionally, the PDSC should raise public awareness about the availability and accessibility of proactively disclosed information during public events.<\/p>\n

    Monitoring and Evaluation<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    The PDSCs of Ministries must collect data on proactive disclosure levels from their affiliated public authorities. This will help identify organizations successfully implementing Publication Schemes, those facing challenges, and the underlying reasons for non-compliance.<\/p>\n

    The Ministry PDSC should:<\/p>\n

    * Receive regular reports on proactive disclosure from affiliated public authorities.<\/p>\n

    * Conduct ex officio investigations and review public complaints regarding websites, ensuring appropriate remedial actions are taken.<\/p>\n

    * Organize an annual competition to recognize the best website among its affiliated organizations.<\/p>\n

    Directive 3. Develop a strategic action plan for proactive disclosure<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    The regulation No. 21 issued under the RTI Act requires the Information Officers to develop an action plan to ensure proactive disclosure of information. The PDSC should review and approve the Action Plan and allocate resources to implement it. Among others, the Action Plan shall address the following issues:<\/p>\n

    a) Making a comprehensive assessment of the current states of proactive disclosure, including of the organisation\u2019s website. The assessment should evaluate both the content and the way they are published (i.e. in most cases presented on the website.)<\/span><\/p>\n

    b) Production of the organisation\u2019s Publication Scheme describing the categories of proactively disclosable information, projected timeline and resource allocation for processing and publishing that information. <\/span><\/p>\n

    c) Details and timeline for incremental digitisation of the information currently unavailable in digital formats, beginning from the most sought out information by the public. The Action plan should indicate the means, resources allocated and the time-line for accomplishing incremental digitisation of the information held by the public authority.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    d) The Action Plan should clearly indicate those who are responsible for accomplishing the listed tasks. <\/span><\/p>\n

    e) The plan should include a time line for production and distribution of printed publications of all types.<\/span><\/p>\n

    f) The PDSC should make periodical reviews of the implementation of the plan, update and revise as needed and take measures to rectify implementation deficiencies. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Directive 4. Assess the status of proactive disclosure of information and address the deficiencies<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    In addition to conducting internal assessments of existing proactive disclosure practices, public authorities should consider commissioning a comprehensive external evaluation by a competent third-party evaluator. This evaluation should focus on identifying deficiencies, particularly in the functionality and content of the organization\u2019s website. The assessment must cover both the presentation and the actual content of the information available on the website, ensuring it is accessible in all three languages: Sinhala, Tamil, and English.<\/p>\n

    It is important to note that Regulation No. 20, gazetted under the RTI Act, empowers citizens to lodge complaints with the Head of the public authority if the proactively disclosed information is found to be improper, false, or outdated. Furthermore, citizens can request the RTI Commission to intervene if the public authority fails to address these issues.<\/p>\n

    Key Areas for Assessment<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    The evaluation of proactive disclosure should, at a minimum, address the publication of information in each of the following categories. These categories are derived from the minimum information requirements outlined in Regulation No. 20 and Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. When assessing each category, evaluators should consider the quality, usability, and timeliness of the content. Below are some suggestive evaluation questions to guide the assessment:<\/p>\n

    1. <\/span><\/strong>Institutional Information:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    <\/i>a) Identification: Is the name, the logo and opening hours of the institution is clearly identifiable in the frontpage of the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>b) Location of the Institution: Does the location of the Institution made available and identifiable in the Google Map on the website? <\/i><\/p>\n

    c) Mandate: Is the mandate of the organisation prominently displayed the front page of the website? (broad vision and mission statements are acceptable)<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>d) Functions and powers: Are the functions and powers of public authority listed clearly comprehensibly on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>e) Sitemap: Is the sitemap of the website is accessible from the frontpage? <\/i><\/p>\n

    2.<\/strong> <\/span>Organisational Information:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    a) Organisational structure: Is the organisation chart provided in the website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>b) Names and contact information: Are the contact details of the organisation, its divisions and branches and of executive grade public officials available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>c) Salary information of the executive grade officials: Is the disaggregated payment information pertaining to annual remunerations; emoluments; and allowances of executive grade public officials available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    3. <\/span><\/strong>Operational Information and Decision-making Processes:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    <\/i>a) Internal rules, regulations and instructions: Are the internal rules, regulations and written instructions used for decision making listed and accessible on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>b) Strategic plan: Is the strategic plan available and accessible on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    c) Project and activity reports: Are the reports on completed\/ongoing projects listed and made available on the website. <\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>d) Decision-making procedures:\u00a0 <\/span>Are the decision-making procedures described on the website in a meaningful manner? <\/i><\/p>\n

    4. <\/span>Public Services:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    <\/i>a) Description of services offered to the public:\u00a0 <\/span>Are the services offered to the public listed on the website? (e.g. flow charts)<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>b) Accessing public services: Is the information on how to access a service is published on the website, including necessary application forms and instruction manuals in usable formats?<\/i><\/p>\n

    5. <\/span>Public Policy, Legislation and Regulation:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    <\/i>a) Circulars and regulations: Are the<\/i> circulars and regulations which are applicable to the organisation listed and accessible on website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>b) Legislation: Are the legislations under which the organisation discharge its functions listed on and accessible from the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    c) Policy memoranda and draft legislation: Are the draft policy documents and legislations listed on and accessible from the website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

    d) Defining judgements and judicial interpretations: Are determinations made by the Supreme Court concerning relevant policies and legislations listed and available on the website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

    6. <\/span>Public Participation<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    <\/i>a) Details regarding public meetings and consultations: Are the dates and information from past meetings and consultations; information on forthcoming public meetings available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>b) Online discussion forums: Do the website provide information\u00a0 <\/span>on any online discussion forums and chats concerning significant issues dealt by the organisation?<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>c) Response to public queries: Does the website provide facilities to receive public queries and to provide organisation\u2019s responses.<\/i><\/p>\n

    <\/i>d) Follow-up facilities: Does the website provide facilities for users to follow up updates through automatic email messages?<\/i><\/p>\n

    7. <\/span>Public Procurement and Subsidies<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    <\/i>a) Publication of tenders:\u00a0 <\/span>Are the tenders, conditions and closing dates listed on website?<\/i><\/p>\n

    b) Publication of tender applications and documents: Are the tender applications, tender papers with relevant specifications available and accessible on the website?<\/p>\n

    <\/i>c) Successful awards and publication of award: Is the successful contract awards are listed in the website with the following information clearly discernible? <\/i><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. description of the items\/Works for which bids were invited;<\/li>\n
    2. total number of bids received;<\/li>\n
    3. name of the successful bidder\/s;<\/li>\n
    4. amount at which the contract\/s were awarded;<\/li>\n
    5. copy of the signed contract;<\/li>\n
    6. dates of commencement and completion of the work\/services<\/li>\n
    7. in the case of a contract awarded to a foreign principal the details of the local agent.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      d) Information on subsidies: Is the availability and criteria for any subsidies and how to benefit from it clearly explained in the website?<\/p>\n

      e) Beneficiary information: Is the list of beneficiaries accessible on the website?<\/p>\n

      f) Targets: Are the target population and timeline for covering them described on the website.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      8. <\/span>Budgets, Expenditure and Finances<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      <\/i>a) Projected budget for the current year: Is the projected budget and any budget revision for the current year is itemised and made available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

      <\/i>b) Disbursements in the previous year:\u00a0 <\/span>Is the itemised disbursements in the previous year made available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

      9. <\/span>Categorisation of, and Systems for, Accessing Information<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      <\/i>a) Information index: is the index of documents, reports, lists, and databases held or produced by the organisation published on the website with information on the format in which they are available?<\/i><\/p>\n

      b) Hyperlinks from the index: Are the hyperlinks from the index to relevant publication and databases indicated, if they are available in electronic form?<\/i><\/p>\n

      c) Information held and maintained as required by the law: Is the list of registers required by law and how to access them is clearly mentioned in the web?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      <\/i>d) The metadata of information held: Is metadata, such as keywords, author, publication date etc, by which<\/i> documents can be made discoverable through search engines imbedded in the information documents?<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

      <\/i>e) Printed publications: Is the information on printed publications, including the titles and year of publication, whether they are free of charge or for sale and available online to down load in accessible formats, is available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

      <\/i>f) RTI requesting procedures: Are the instructions on lodging and processing RTI requests and appeals to the public authority listed on website and model application forms provided?<\/i><\/p>\n

      g) Information Officer\u2019s and Designated Officer\u2019s contact information: Is the contact information of the Information Officer and the Designated Officer is prominently made available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

      h) Fee schedule: Are the charges for obtaining information based on RTI regulations published on the website? <\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      <\/i>i) Minister\u2019s report as per Section 8 of the RTI Act: Is the Minister\u2019s report required under the Section 8 of the RTI Act electronically published and made available on the website?<\/i><\/p>\n

      10. <\/span>Prior Disclosures of Information<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      <\/i>a) Publication of information supplied under RTI: Does the website proactively publish information supplied under RTI as a response to a citizen\u2019s request, which is likely to be of interest to others.?<\/i><\/p>\n

      11. <\/span>Prior Disclosures of Public Investments under section 9 of RTI Act<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      (for projects above USD 100,000 (foreign-funded) or LKR 500,000 (locally-funded):<\/p>\n

      a) Notification of project commencement: Is the project justification published on website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      b) Project location and affected population: Is the location and the population affected by the project is described on the website, if applicable?<\/p>\n

      c) Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies of projects: Are the pre-feasibility, feasibility studies and other project reports are listed and accessible on the website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      d) Terms and conditions of investment (including expected costs, benefits and rate of return): Are the terms and condition of investment published on the website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      c) Detailed project costs (including disaggregated budgets): Are the details of the project costs published on website?<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      <\/i>e) Monitoring and evaluation reports: Are the monitoring and evaluation reports published on website in accordance with requirements under section 9 of the RTI Act? <\/i><\/p>\n

      DIRECTIVE 5: ENABLE INFORMATION REUSE AND MANAGE EXEMPTED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

      1. Facilitating Information Reuse\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

      The public should have the right to reuse information proactively published by public authorities. Regulation No. 19 of the RTI Act stipulates that any information disclosed by a public authority must be subject to a royalty-free, perpetual, and non-exclusive license, allowing its reuse for any lawful purpose. This includes copying, publishing, translating, adapting, distributing, or using the information in any medium, format, or mode.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Public sector information\u2014ranging from demographic, economic, and meteorological data to artwork, historical documents, and books in shareable formats\u2014holds significant potential to unlock economic value. By encouraging citizens, particularly entrepreneurs, to reuse this information, public authorities can foster innovation and economic growth. For instance, the repackaging of public sector information into value-added goods and products can serve as a major source of educational and cultural knowledge while promoting the work of the organization.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      To facilitate reuse, the terms and conditions for reusing proactively disclosed information should be clearly outlined in the organization\u2019s Publication Scheme, as specified in Regulation No. 19. However, this does not apply to third-party copyrighted material published with the copyright holder\u2019s permission.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      2. Handling Exempted and Third-Party Information\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

      The legal provisions governing RTI requests for exempted and third-party information, as outlined in Sections 5 and 29 of the RTI Act, respectively, also apply to proactive disclosure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Exempted Information:\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

      While certain information may fall under exceptions specified in Section 5, public authorities can proactively disclose such information if the Proactive Disclosure Steering Committee (PDSC) determines that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the potential harm (as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act). Additionally, public authorities can sever exempted information from a record and release the remaining non-exempted portion. Any method that ensures the non-retrieval of the severed information by third parties may be used. This principle of severability applies to all forms of records held by public authorities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      Third-Party Information:\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u00a0 <\/span>Officials responsible for proactive disclosure must carefully review records to identify any information provided by or related to a third party that has been treated as confidential. If the initial assessment suggests that disclosure is in the public interest, the Information Officer must follow the procedure outlined in Section 29 of the RTI Act. This involves issuing a written notice to the third party, inviting them to make representations for or against disclosure within seven days of receiving the notice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n