Private use of social media advice provided to employees

James Smith made this Freedom of Information request to SA Department of State Development as part of a batch sent to 204 authorities

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by SA Department of State Development.

Dear SA Department of State Development,

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I request documents related to the ten most recent instances where an employee has sought information, advice, guidance, or opinion on their social media use in a private capacity.

I limit the scope of documents to:
- the original request from the employee
- the agency/department's response
- any follow-up questions and response
- only those sent to a relevant HR / conduct / social media (or similar) team (rather than managers across all areas of the organisation)
- where the original request was created in the last 2 years

Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

James Smith

DSD:FOI, SA Department of State Development

Good morning

As required under the South Australian Freedom of Information Act 1991, FOI applications must be accompanied by an application fee to
initiate the processing of requests.

Your request in its current form is not considered to be a valid FOI application.

To assist us to process your application, we ask that you complete the
FOI application form, which can be found on the link below, and email it to [email address].

https://www.archives.sa.gov.au/content/f...

Kind regards

Freedom of Information Team
Department of State Development
Email: [email address]
GPO Box 320 Adelaide SA 5000

The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, access to it is unauthorised and any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.

show quoted sections

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

Note 1: Mostly I classify a response like this one to say "clarification requested" because the agency has told the applicant that some more information (or money!) is needed before the request will be processed. This time, I have put the response in the category of "refused" because it is more than 1 year since the agency responded and the applicant has not made a follow-up. This does not mean that the agency will refuse the request when an application is made in the correct (required).

Note 2: Although an application under the Freedom of Information Act 1983 of the Commonwealth of Australia does not require an application fee, this is not the case with applications in the states and territories of Australia. Then an applicant must usually pay a fee, or the request is not valid. Also, the Commonwealth agencies might demand payment of a fee to cover extra processing costs. If the fee is not paid, the request will not be processed.

Note 2: It can be a problem when an applicant sends out a very large bulk request. Although it is convenient for the applicant, very often the application will not be valid. This is usually the fact when an applicant uses Right to Know to apply to an agency of a state or territory; see Note 2. When so many responses are received it is inconvenient to work out how to continue ... or even to classify the responses and often an applicant does not classify the responses so they create a backlog of unclassified responses on Right to Know.