Decision
Mr X and Citizens Information Board
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159088-B2M5D5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159088-B2M5D5
Published on
Whether the Citizens Information Board (the CIB) was justified in refusing access, effectively under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, to further records relating to the CIB’s decision to restructure it governance arrangements
22 September 2025
On 25 March 2025, the applicant requested access to minutes of decisions made by the CIB Board between 2014 and 2017 relating to the Board’s decision to restructure its governance arrangements. The applicant’s request was in six parts. Due to the nature of the issues arising and the arguments made during this review, I have set out the request in detail:
1. On 15 February 2025, replying to a parliamentary question, Minister Calleary told Deputy Mark Wall that “In 2017, following lengthy and extensive analysis, and a detailed consultation period with all stakeholders, the Board of CIB made the decision to restructure the governance arrangements of the then 42 CIS . . .” This is an FOI request for the minute of that decision, that is to say, confirmation of the words by which the decision referenced by the Minister was minuted.
2. On 14 September 2018, a meeting took place involving [named individuals] and myself at which was discussed (per the memorandum later circulated) “the Board’s decision to restructure the service delivery companies in funds”. This is an FOI request for the minute of that decision, that is to say, confirmation of the words by which the decision referenced in the memorandum was minuted and of the date.
3. The Department of Social Protection’s Secretary General John McKeon wrote to me on 30 January 2023 and Assistant General Secretary Niall Egan wrote to me on 25 September 2023: both letters report that “in November 2014, the Board of CIB decided to restructure the local CIS and MABS networks”. This is an FOI request for the minute of that decision of November 2014, that is to say, confirmation of the words by which the decision was minuted, as referenced in Secretary General McKeon’s and Assistant Secretary General Egan’s letters to myself.
4. On 18 September 2018, [a named CIB staff member] gave an interview … In the course of the interview, [the named staff member] says: “The decision to restructure was made at a meeting in October 2014 and I began to work there in November.” [emphasis added]. This is an FOI request for the minute of that decision of October 2014, that is to say, for confirmation of the words by which the decision referenced by [the named CIB staff member] was minuted.
5. Eight years ago, on 27 March 2017, a government motion put to the Dail in Private Members Time referred to “the decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB, on 15 February 2017, to restructure the governance arrangements…” That motion asked the Dáil to recognise “the decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB . . .” The Dail was further asked to vote its agreement that “the decision taken by the statutory board of the CIB [was] in keeping with successive strategic plans of the board, including the current strategic plan for the period 2015 to 2018, which in accordance with governing legislative provisions was submitted to, and approved by, the Minister for Social Protection, and subsequently noted by Government and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in January 2016 . . .” This is an FOI request for the minute of that decision; that is to say, for confirmation of the words by which the decision considered by the Dáil on 27 March 2017, was minuted.
6. Writing, in her capacity as Chair, in the introduction to CIB’s annual report for 2016, Ita Mangan indicates that the decision to restructure the corporate governance of the Citizens information Services was taken at the board’s October 2016 meeting. This narrative is, I think, supported by the minutes of the board’s meeting of February 2017. This is an FOI request for the minute of that decision of October 2016 that is to say, for confirmation of the words by which the decision referenced by Ms Mangan in the 2016 annual report, was minuted.
On 22 April 2025, the CIB issued its decision on the request, wherein it indicated that it had decided to grant the request. It granted access to the minutes of five CIB Board meetings. On 23 April 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of that decision. He said that none of the records released met his original request. He said that his request was aimed at identifying the moment when the decision to restructure was made by the CIB and that it failed to elicit that information. On 16 May 2025, the CIB affirmed its original decision, maintaining that the CIB had provided the records requested. It said that both the minutes of the meetings of 14 October 2014 and 19 November 2014 reference that it was a decision of the Board that change is necessary and that the Board wants to be leading on that change. On 19 May 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for review of the CIB’s decision.
During the course of the review, the CIB provided submissions to this Office outlining the details of the searches conducted for records relevant to the applicant’s request. The applicant was provided with details of those submissions and invited to make further submissions, which he duly did.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made to date by the applicant and to the submissions made by the CIB in support of its decision. I have also had regard to the contents of the records that were released to the applicant on foot of his request. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The CIB’s position is that it has released the records sought and that no further relevant records exist. This is, in essence, a refusal, pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to provide further relevant records on the ground that no further relevant records exist. This review is therefore concerned solely with whether the CIB was justified in refusing to grant access to any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Before I address the substantive issues arising, I wish to make some preliminary comments. Firstly, in correspondence with this Office, the applicant said that he was pursuing his FOI request in the public interest to ensure that decisions made by public bodies are clearly and statutorily mandated. He also said that he had submitted his request to elicit confirmation of the date on which the CIB Board’s decision to proceed with restructuring was taken. It is important to note that section 13(4) of the Act provides that, subject to the Act, in deciding whether to grant or refuse an FOI request, any reason that the requester gives for the request and any belief or opinion of the FOI body as to the reasons for the request shall be disregarded. Thus, while certain provisions of the Act implicitly render the motive of the requester relevant, as a general rule, the actual or perceived reasons for a request must be disregarded in deciding whether to grant or refuse an access request under the FOI Act.
Secondly, during the course of this review, the applicant referenced the recommendation by the May 2022 Periodic Critical Review of the Citizens Information Board that “the minutes of the meetings should clearly record the decisions and actions arising from each agenda item”. It is important to note that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints, or to adjudicate on how the CIB, or any FOI bodies, perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies.
Section 15(1)(a) of the Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. The role of this Office in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records.
As noted above, details of the CIB’s submissions were provided to the applicant. While I do not intend to repeat those details in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them, and to the submissions made by the applicant, for the purpose of this review.
In its submissions to this Office, the CIB said that in each part of his request, the applicant had sought the minutes of CIB Board decisions. It said that all decisions of the Board are recorded in the Board minutes, which is a defined and limited set of records, and that all Board minutes dating from 2016 onwards are available on the Citizens Information website, while minutes prior to 2016 are contained in bound hardcopy volumes in the CIB’s office. It said that it conducted searches of the CIB website and of the physical copies of Board minutes held at its office. It provided this Office with a link to the relevant page of the CIB website ( here ) which contains links to CIB Board Meeting minutes from July 2016 to 2025. The CIB said that in its view, all requested records were located and that none could have been misfiled or misplaced and that no discussions were needed with relevant individuals during the search process because all Board decisions are contained within the CIB Board minutes. The CIB also confirmed that no records were destroyed in accordance with a policy or otherwise.
The CIB provided the following specific submissions in response to the various parts of the applicant’s request.
Part 1: It is noted in the February 2017 minutes that there was a board vote taken relating to a committee report to proceed with implementation. The CIB found this to be the most relevant document for the applicant’s request, however all board minutes are available online for 2017.
Part 2: Minutes of the October 2014 meeting note it was a decision of the Board that change is necessary and that the Board wants to be leading on the change.
Part 3: The CIB board minutes are a defined and limited set of records The board minutes provided are the only board minutes from November 2014.
Part 4: Minutes of the October 2014 meeting note it was a decision of the Board that change is necessary and that the Board wants to be leading on the change.
Part 5: It is noted in the February 2017 minutes that there was a board vote taken relating to a committee report to proceed with implementation. The CIB found this to be the most relevant document for the applicant’s request, however all board minutes are available online for 2017.
Part 6: The CIB board minutes are a defined and limited set of records. The two board minutes provided are the only board minutes from October 2016.
In correspondence with this Office, the applicant explained the background to his request. He outlined how a decision was made to restructure the Citizens Information Services (CIS) which, though funded by the CIB, were originally local independent bodies, each with its own board. Following the restructuring process arising from this decision, the applicant says, the CIS became a part of the CIB as such. The applicant said that it was in an effort to establish the date and source of this decision that he had made his FOI request.
In his application to this Office and in subsequent correspondence, the applicant maintained that the records released to him do not contain the information he requested, i.e. confirmation of the date on which the decision was made to restructure the Citizens Information Services. The applicant submitted a number of documents in support of his claim. In substance, it is the applicant’s contention that, while the CIB Board minutes released to him refer to the CIS restructuring process, these minutes do not clearly show when the decision to restructure was made, and that they are in contradiction with one another and with statements on the public record, including statements made in the Dáil.
It is important to note at the outset that while the purpose of the Act is to enable members of the public to obtain access to information held by public bodies, the mechanism for doing so is by accessing records held by those bodies. In other words, a person wishing to obtain information from a public body must make a request for records that contain the information sought. In his request to the CIB for an internal review of its initial decision, the applicant said he was essentially seeking details of when the Board took the decision to proceed with restructuring the corporate governance of Citizens Information Services. However, in making his FOI request, he referenced six different sources, some of which appear to contradict each other in terms of when precisely the decision to restructure was taken. He sought access to the minute of the decision as referenced in each of those separate sources.
Part 1 of the request references a source which indicates that the decision to restructure was taken in 2017. Part 2 references a source which simply indicates that the decision was taken. Part 3 references a source which indicates that the decision was taken in November 2014. Part 4 references a source which indicates that the decision was taken in October 2014. Part 5 references a source which indicates that the decision was taken on 15 February 2017. Part 3 references a source which indicates that the decision was taken in October 2016.
It is clear that the decision to restructure could not have been taken on all of the dates referenced. Nevertheless, it seems to me that when processing the request, the CIB sought to provide copies of the minutes for the dates that were identified in the various parts of the applicant’s request, regardless of whether or not the decision to restructure was taken on those dates. I note that part 2 of the applicant’s request is the only part that does not identify a purported date of decision. In response to part 2, the CIB granted access to the minutes of the Board’s meeting of October 2014. Those minutes state that “It was the decision of the Board that change is necessary and that the Board wants to be leading the change”. The CIB also released a copy of the minutes of the Board’s meeting of November 2014, which indicate that the minutes of the meeting of October 2014 were amended to reflect that specific wording. The minutes indicate that this change was made on the basis that “the record needed to indicate that the Board had reached a decision that change is necessary and that it wants to be leading the change”. It would appear, therefore, that the CIB is of the view that the decision to restructure was taken in October 2014 and that the minutes reflect this decision.
The applicant is clearly of the view that none of the records provided contain the precise information he is seeking, namely the precise date on which the decision to restructure was taken. It is important to note that it is not a matter for this Office to determine precisely when the decision in question was taken. Rather, our role is confined to a consideration of whether the CIB has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of records that contain the information sought. On that point, the CIB’s position is that all of its decisions are contained in CIB minutes and that no other records that minute the decision taken exist.
The CIB provided the applicant with minutes of certain CIB Board meetings that occurred between October 2014 and February 2017, which was the timeframe indicated in the applicant’s request. I am satisfied that the released records correspond, at least broadly, to the criteria outlined in the applicant’s original request. The applicant indicated in his response to the CIB submissions that CIB minutes between June 2014 and October 2014 may be relevant to his request. The Investigating Officer put this to the CIB. The CIB responded to say that, as the applicant has asked for minutes of the decision in question, the CIB’s position is that the relevant record for the decision to restructure is the Board minutes from 14 October 2014, meaning that other meeting minutes not containing the decision are outside of the scope of his request.
The CIB provided a description of the steps it took to locate relevant records sought by the applicant. I am satisfied with the CIB’s explanation that minutes of all of its decisions are located either on its website or in hardcopy volumes in its office. I am also satisfied that the CIB’s description of searches undertaken shows that it has taken reasonable steps to locate the requested records and that this justifies its position that no further relevant records exist. I note that, in correspondence with this Office, the applicant mentioned that he had experienced difficulty accessing some of the CIB minutes located on the CIB website. I suggest to the applicant that, if he cannot access any of these documents, he should contact the CIB directly to try to resolve the issue.
I appreciate that it is the applicant’s position that the records released to him do not contain the information he has requested and that he will therefore be disappointed with my decision. It is not within the remit of this Office to examine whether the CIB has adequately complied with its obligations to minute decisions or whether its decisions are clearly recorded in its minutes. As I have outlined above, our role is confined to a consideration of whether the CIB has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and whether it has adequately explained why it considers that no further relevant records exist. In this case I am satisfied that it has.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the CIB’s decision. I find that the CIB was justified in refusing, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for further relevant records on the ground that no further records exist.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator