The purpose of this work is to provide empirical evidence as to how state level Freedom of Information or Access to Information and data protection regulator bodies in Mexico carry out their training tasks. We use different theoretical assumptions, particularly those that refer to the idea of “training in the public sector” regarding two aspects that allow to account, at least in part, about the referred training practices: first, the pedagogical model they declared to use; and second, the evaluations regarding trained public officials. FOI/ATI and regulator bodies in Mexico have a legal obligation to train and carry out professional development for public officials. This responsibility associated, with performance management—along with other purposes—and to guarantee the human right to information and data privacy for individuals, is in the hands of public officials that must have not only knowledge and skills but also values and attitudes regarding this fundamental right. These public authorities have several challenges to comply with ATI and data privacy laws; some relate to responding public information requests—that is, in a timely and adequate manner—or publishing the information mandate by law. ATI regulator bodies mitigate these multi-casual issues through training or development courses. Currently, public officials are trained to comply with the law and its implementation in the best possible way. Our main finding is that the local regulator bodies overall comply with their legal training mandate. That is, they do have and carry out training programs, although in an unprofessional and potentially deficient manner.

这项工作的目的是提供经验证据，证明墨西哥的州级信息自由或信息访问权和数据保护监管机构如何执行其培训任务。我们使用了不同的理论假设，特别是那些提到“公共部门培训”这一概念的假设，这些假设至少部分地考虑了所提到的培训实践：第一，他们宣布使用的教学模型；第二，对受过培训的公职人员的评估。墨西哥的 FOI/ATI 和监管机构有为公职人员培训和开展职业发展的法律义务。这种责任与绩效管理以及其他目的相关，并保证个人的信息和数据隐私权，掌握在公职人员的手中，他们不仅必须具备知识和技能，而且还必须具备有关这一基本权利的价值观和态度。这些公共机构在遵守 ATI 和数据隐私法方面面临若干挑战；有些涉及响应公共信息请求——即及时和适当的方式——或依法发布信息任务。ATI 监管机构通过培训或发展课程缓解这些多偶然性问题。目前，公职人员接受了培训，以尽可能最好地遵守法律及其实施。我们的主要发现是地方监管机构总体上遵守了他们的法律培训任务。也就是说，他们确实拥有并实施了培训计划，尽管其方式不专业且可能存在缺陷。