As you know, I filed a Municipal Freedom of Information Act Application to try and get documents from City Hall. When I received their answer, I was told that they estimated that they had over 50,000 pages of them that were responsive to my request, would need at least 10 months to find them all and wanted me to pay over $100,000 for them to do the work to assemble them all.
I protested the secrecy of course and asked for a waiver of the $100K payment. The City just rejected my request for a "fee waiver." I am in mediation now on the way to adjudication with the City respecting the rejection and have to prepare material to support my position.
I was shocked as you know about this. I had expected games-playing but I thought this was hilarious. A reader scolded me and asked why I was surprised. He said that the Act was the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He said I wanted the "Freedom of Information" part while the City clearly liked the "Protection of Privacy" part!
Well then we had the decision repecting the Canderel parking garage. So everything should be ok now right....the City would behave. (Or as Don McArthur in the Star wrote today: "It has already lost one appeal and been ordered to release information by the privacy commissioner. If it loses any more, city leaders will lose their credibility and taxpayers their faith and patience.)
Former Council candidate, Chris Schnurr, has a MFOIA application re the Canderel sub-tenants and the East End Arena. He should receive the information promptly now correct----Chris wrote in his BLOG http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/ :
- "Well, according to Chuck Scarpelli, the City’s Freedom of Information Officer, I should have received a response to my FOI request today.
And guess what? I did not. Unless I’m mistaken, today is November 30th - the day I was assured I would receive an answer. The Municipal Freedom of Information Act requires that the city respond to any request within 30 days of the request."
So actually I took comfort from that since it meant that the City was not opposing his request and therefore he ought to get a Commission order forcing the City to reveal all.
And then I remembered the recent Star story about Eddie and secrecy and knew why the City did not respond. Eddie really wants a delay as long as possible. He wants someone else to do the dirty work for him to support confidentiality if a circumstance requires it. He wants the Privacy Commissioner to take the fall, not him.
Our Mayor does not have the guts to stand up to anyone and make a decision for openness for taxpayers.
- "I think one of the easiest ways to deal with this is to put a provision into the agreements that we will follow the Freedom of Information Act rules and whatever the FOI rules, that will be the test."
Bizarre, he's the Mayor and he is "paralyzed" to act. He does not need the Privacy Commissioner to tell him to open up City files for heaven's sake. HE IS THE MAYOR!
Now I found it interesting that the Star did NOT put a tape of the Editorial Board meeting with him on its website as they did with Transport Minister Cansfield. And I found it interesting as well that the end of secrecy was announced via a secret session.
However, Eddie giveth with one hand and taketh with another. You see the calendar above...you see how long it takes for the Privacy Commission to make an order. 10 months for the Star. Another one in Windsor that has not yet been reported by the Star although it is on the Privacy Commissioner website was years in the making.
So Eddie is being very clever...something that is too hot to handle....graciously let the taxpayer file a MFOIA request, wait a year or two and by the time it is made public the matter is history.
I also liked this ridiculous statement in the circimstances:
- "Francis insisted he would prefer to have such agreements made public. "It's easier for me to have the information out there to prevent speculation and rumours, and that doesn't help us in any way; it doesn't help us when we're trying to attract business."
So what was the excuse with the Spitfires....did they have a choice? Where else were they going to play but in Eddie's East End arena! Eddie did not have to put in a confidentiality clause. Was it put in so that we would not learn how bad a deal the City made on the concessions, or the low ice time charges, or the upfront payments or who knows what that the City had to do to ensure that the Spits did not go to the Ice Track arena?
Then the piece de resistance for Secretary of War Francis who is in a fight with our "enemies," whoever they are, no matter what it costs taxpayers:
- "Francis gave conditional approval to the bill [Sarnia Mayor Bradley's Open Meeting Act], "as long as it creates a level playing field in a fair and equitable manner among municipalities and doesn't compromise taxpayers' interests" as in the case of the city's border strategy."
Yes sir, Commander-In-Chief, do not tell us what the border war is all about. Keep it to yourself. We are too stupid to understand that you know better than us what is good for us. In fact, even though we have spent millions on the Schwartz Report, certain Councillors have admitted it is dead. Clearly the City has no strategy so there should be nothing to hide! Maybe that is what Eddie is really hiding from us
Anyway, I do not take Eddie's remarks nor the star Editorial Board seriously on this issue. Remember what the Star wrote in its Editorial on December 1, 2003 as Eddie took office:
- "…it is absolutely imperative that elected officials be accountable for all of their decisions… there are two tools that councils can use to ensure accountability thrives -- recorded votes on all issues and a commitment to conduct business in open, public meetings…In Windsor, mayor-elect Eddie Francis has been a strong advocate of both those checks and balances and we think it's something every council in this area should endorse as their first order of business."
Finally, did you read the "Opinion" today from Don McArthur in the Star. In my opinion, he has no idea what he is talking about. A "non-confidentiality" clause is totally inconsistent with the concept of the Municipal Freedom of Information Act. That Act is only there because the Municipality wants to hide information. With non-confidentiality, the Act is irrelevant.
The Act states:
The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of institutions in accordance with the principles that,
(i) information should be available to the public,
(ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and specific
One is playing into Eddie's hands by buying into McArthur's concept:
- "A deal with the City of Windsor is a deal with its citizens and subject to their scrutiny under the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information Act, which protects legitimate business interests while promoting the public good."
It is all spin-doctoring and damage control by the Eminence Grise. Has the Star been suckered too?
Buy into the MFOIA concept. Let someone else do Eddie's dirty work. Let there be litigation with the Privacy Commision office for years. In this way , Eddie has his cake and can eat it: "Oh we put in a confidentiality clause to protect business but if the Privacy Commissioner says that we must reveal something, we will. After all, let them make the deciison to protect taxpayers. I am only the Mayor of a small town and CEO of the Corporation of the City of Windsor!"
What a great way to keep Eddie's "secrecy" issue quiet for the next year so that Eddie is not embarrassed when he runs for a Senior Level position. Check-mark!
No comments:
Post a Comment