------------------------
got this mail from an e-mail id not known to me . maybe for the very
first time . there has been much discussion on the topic.with
diversified views.
one thing that has emerged out of the preparations for these pcrf
awards is that we have a sampling data that is being relied by the
media and is being quoted more as official data . whether this data
is a representative data or not , is a question of debate and this
debate is continuously going on.
in this regard i had expressed my point of view way back and stand
with it that instead of these awards , the time n need is to
strengthen rti in india. but the only positive thing that comes out of
the pcrf study is that we have a data that is giving a wider publicity
to rti in india. since some media houses r media partner they r
publisizing it with much more emphasis n rti is being talked at tea
shops also.
with names like amir khan n narayanmurti being associated with it rti
is getting another class in india so to this extent pcrf efforts are
commendable.
every positive has some negative n every negative has some positives .
this is my thinking n experience .
some points about the working of the ics are given below . these
should have also been considered ->
1. Date of establishment of the SIC – Whether within the date / period
prescribed by the RTI Act or not. (Say for example, the SIC in Uttar
Pradesh was established very late, beyond the statutory limit
prescribed by the Act.)
2. How much is the CIC / SIC equipped to handle and dispose of the
cases? Say in terms of infrastructure and manpower support.
3. Does the CIC / SIC follow the suo-moto disclosures as prescribed in
Section 4 of the act? If yes to what extent?
4. Cases filed (say upto a cut-off date)
5. Cases disposed (upto cut-off date)
6. Percentage of cases heard and disposed
7. Average time taken to dispose off a case
8. Fines levied : Extent and in how many cases
9. How many cases are disposed in favour of the applicants?
10. How many cases were not in favour of the applicants?
11. What are the general pleas taken on record by the CIC / SIC to
deny information?
12. Does the CIC / SIC levy penalty as a deterrent for concealing
information? So that other A/PIO feel the pinch.
13. Commentary on any landmark order by CIC / SIC that has a long term
impact on the future of RTI in India.
14. Any blot (negative order) that is likely to be a hamper in the
path of RTI in India.
15. Major grievances of people / applicant against the CIC / SIC.
16. Does the SIC has a website
17. Is the website regularly updated by the commission
18. Does the website provide details of cases coming up for hearing,
cases pending, cases disposed and the decisions of the commissions?
there r many more points that have already been suggested by many
activists.i shall request arvindji to keep all these points at one
place for future use.
i am optimistic that in future , if any agency in india goes for any
survey shall first consult all rti activists to have OPTIMUM no. of
inputs to make survey more representative n scientific.
healty criticism makes us KUNDAN .
best regards.
urvashi sharma
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RTI Prekshak <rtiprekshak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:02:36 +0530
Subject: Awards for Information Commissioners
To: RTI Prekshak <rtiprekshak@gmail.com>
PCRF,- a Delhi based organization,- has stated that it intends to give
awards to Information Commissioners. This is an ill-advised move and would
not be appropriate, since it would be like giving awards to judges.
Evaluating Information Commissioners is a laudable objective but it seems to
have been done in so simplistic a manner, that it reduces the exercise to a
farce. The writer is giving some of the reasons and hopes that the
organization will withdraw its report. Since it has the support of media,
its flawed findings are being touted as gospel truth, without realizing that
the basis of the evaluation is completely flawed because of its methodology.
Let us consider the four criterion on which it claims to rate the
Commissioners:
1. Pro-disclosure Commissioners: The report looks at the percentage of
decisions asking the PIO to disclose the information. This criterion appears
to assume that a good Commissioner is one who passes orders favouring
appellants without any application of mind- irrespective of whether the
'information' sought is covered by the Act or not, Commissioners are
expected to support its disclosure. This would be like declaring that an
examiner who passes all students is a good examiner and should be emulated!
2. Deterrence: This again takes a percentile approach and celebrates the
Goa Commissioner as being amongst the top five though he has penalized only
two officers even though he has only heard 40 cases.
3. The other criterion which have been declared are based on perception
which is a very subjective matter. This is based on the perception of about
6000 appellants according to PCRF. Since they have evaluated over 60
Commissioners it means that the average appellants/interview respondents are
about 100 per Commissioner. It can be reasonably assumed that the
appellants/interview respondents for any one Commissioner will certainly be
less than 300. Thus based on responses of less than 300 appellants/interview
respondents' perception, an evaluation of the working of the Commissioners
is sought to be justified! Also the perceptions of different sets of
people,- who in some cases may be a mere 50 or 60 and in other cases a
maximum of 300 are equated, to arrive at an evaluation of the effectiveness
and the Overall Public Satisfaction of the performance of the Information
Commissioners.
Whereas most Commissions do send back appeals and complaints on 'Technical'
grounds, PCRF has obtained this data for only about six to ten
Commissioners. Thus even by the flawed method by which it looks at the
numbers, the figures cannot be considered comparable. It is necessary to
have the data on the 'Technical' rejections of all the Commissioners to
consider the data as comparable.
Another interesting fact which emerges because of the simplistic method of
trying to evaluate performance is that Commissioners who do very little work
emerge as the good Commissioners in the lists. Activists have been pushing
Commissioners to perform reasonably so that citizens do not have to wait
endlessly for decisions by the Commissions. Generally activists have been
demanding that an Information Commissioner must deliver atleast over 2000
cases annually. If this is not done soon, the Information Commissions will
become worse than our Courts in terms of pending backlogs. This will
effectively drive away the common man from Right to Information and see its
end. Most of the Commissioners who come out as the top performers in the
PCRF list are those who deliver less than 500 orders in a year. In the
pro-disclosure category all the five Commissioners delivered less than 500
orders; the Deterrence and Effectiveness categories see 3 out of 6
Commissioners delivering less than 500. In the Overall Public Satisfaction
perception 4 of the top 6 Commissioners ranked by PCRF are the laggards who
have decided less than 500 orders. The flawed methods of evaluation adopted
by this study will result in celebrating and giving accolades to
Commissioners who are laggards.
The PCRF methodology is flawed and Citizens and the jury would be well
advised not to accept this as any reasonable evaluation. It is too
simplistic, and lacks rationality and objectivity.
Attached an excel sheet giving the lists of PCRF's ranking of the 'top' and
'bottom' Commissioners viewed from the lens of PCRF.
The detailed reports can be accessed at www.rtiawards.org
--
RTIprekshak
-----------------------
@i$#w@ry@!
No comments:
Post a Comment