59 Carden St.

Should be able to afford that...

Posted by Magda
Late last year, I asked the city for communication between the city and the county about Wellington Terrace -- a contentious file, given the county claims the city owes them $1.3 million, and the city disagrees. They said the information would cost me $397.20 -- 36 pages for 20 cents each, plus 13 hours of searching at $30 an hour. The search fee was so big, they said, becuase they had to go through tapes of emails sent by former city staff.

We didn't pay it. Instead I asked Wellington County for the same information.They want $45.80 -- 79 pages at 20 cents each, plus an hour of search time at $30 an hour.

We'll front that one. I'll keep you posted on what, if anything, there is of interest in those documents.

A fight over information

Posted by Magda
A battle brewing in Hamilton looks like it might be good news for the Mercury.

The Spectator asked for McMaster president's contract. McMaster said no; the Spec appealed; the privacy commissioner ordered Mac to release the contract; Mac appealed the decision.

Bob Spence, a spokesperson for the Information and Privacy Commissioner, told the Spectator late last month that an employment contract at an institution covered by the legislation "would normally be available under FOI."

I long ago requested the contracts for former finance director David Kennedy and former CAO Larry Kotseff. I was denied and appealed, and the commisioner is in the process of coming down with a decision. Here's hoping Spence's words ring true in Guelph.

Thud, part 2

Posted by Magda
I brought my kitchen scale to work today, to quantify how much the Ministry of Attorney General had to say about why they don't want to give me Sidney Robins' contract. It comes in at three pounds, five ounces -- just a couple of ounces less than the phone book. Now it's my turn to explain why they should release the information. Looks like I've got a big job ahead of me.

Thump

Posted by Magda
In August, the province announced it had appointed former justice Sydney Robins to determine how much,
if any, compensation Steven Truscott should get for his years unjustly served in prison.

I filed a freedom of information request with the Ministry of Attorney General, asking for Robins' contract and instructions to him. It was denied.

Now, I've received the ministry's explanation of why they don't want to give me the information. It's about three inches deep, in thick legalese.

Now it's my turn to reply. Not sure how I can fight a ministry of lawyers.

It'll be a year later...

Posted by Magda
April 30: Former CAO Larry Kotseff quit his city hall job.
May 7: I filed a formal freedom of information request to find out how much cash he got on his way out the door.
Mid-July: Former finance director David Kennedy mysteriously left his job.
July 17: I requested "emails, telephone records and memos related to, created by and received from David Kennedy from July 1 to July 17 realted to his retirement, his departure from the city and/or the termination of his employment."

Since then, I've been through various phases -- the initial request, the appeal, adjudication (which failed) and mediation.

Now, we're at the order-writing stage -- which means the province is going to make a decision about whether or not the information should be released.

ETA? April or May.

Shouldn't be harder for journalists

Posted by Magda
I've filed about a couple dozen freedom of information requests -- formal requests through which anyone, including journalists, can ask for information from government bodies.

I've been told many times by people who don't want to release information that it shouldn't be any easier for journalists to find things out than it is for anyone else.

I can accept that. But it also shouldn't be any harder.

I'm going through a lengthy appeals process right now as I try to get information on why Guelph's former finance director David Kennedy unexpectedly left his job last year. The city doesn't want me to know why they don't want the information released. In explaining to the arbitrator why those details should be kept under wraps, the city argued that "It is also reasonable to expect that . . . any personal information revealed within those representations would be published in the media."

This is true -- if we knew anything about Kennedy's departure, we would likely report it. But it's troubling to see that used as an argument for not releasing information. If it shouldn't be easier for a journalist to get information, it shouldn't be harder, either.

"We don't want you to know why we don't want you to know"

Posted by Magda
I called the privacy commissioner's office today to check into my attempts to find out whether former chief administrative officer Larry Kotseff got a compensation package when he left the city, and what happened to former finance manager David Kennedy.

There's a holdup in the Kotseff request, it turns out. The city and Kotseff himself have sent written submissions to the commissioner about why the information should not be released. That's normal procedure. Normally, I would then get a copy of their submissions, and respond explaning why I still think the information should be released. The commissioner's office would then make a decision.

In this case, though, one of the parties has said they don't want me to see a copy of their submission. This means not only do they not want me to know what, if anything, Kotseff got -- they also don't want me to know why they don't want me to know.

I need that, or at least the gist of it, to be able to reply. The commissioner's office is trying to work through that. Stay tuned.