Posts by tag: Freedom of Information

Posted by on 17 January

City of Hamilton facing possible investigation by provincial information commissioner

Just when it seems Hamilton City Hall was clear of controversy having quickly settled the City Solicitor’s dust-up with provincial Ombudsman Andre Marin, sources are stating the city has drawn the attention of another transparency watchdog – the Provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner Dr. Ann Cavoukian.

Sources (who are not authorised to speak publicly) – both in Toronto and Hamilton – state Cavoukian’s office is investigating City Hall for violations of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) – specifically, the city’s destruction of records, violations of FIPPA requesters privacy, and the city’s methods of searching records.

This comes on the heels of the publication by Graham Crawford of his experience with the city’s freedom of information process.

Dr. Cavoukian responded to Crawford’s statement in a letter to the editor of The Spectator published three days later.

“As Ontario’s commissioner responsible for freedom of information (FOI) and access to government records, I was very disturbed at the account given by Graham Crawford in his article”, Cavoukian wrote.

She urged city staff and councillors to visit her website to read “Seven Fundamental Principles of Access by Design”

Soon after, Investigators interviewed Crawford and city staff – including the city’s access & privacy officer – about Crawford’s version of events and the city’s overall handling of MFIPPA.

Their fact-finding mission: determining if the commissioner should launch an investigation independent of any complainant due to the nature of the violations discovered.

All the sources state an expectation that a full investigation will be launched.

If launched, the investigation will look at current city MFIPPA practices, and provide recommendations to improve those practices.

0 2 17 January, 2012 more
Posted by on 08 January

Getting the City of Hamilton to release expense spending of elected officials and senior management

Do citizen’s have a right to know how their elected officials are spending public funds?

Should government provide citizens with that information?

Should citizens have to pay to learn how their money is being spent?

In the case of the City of Hamilton, the answer to those questions are, in order: maybe, no, and yes.

My latest battle with the City of Hamilton will be transparency for how elected officials and senior city staff expense taxpayers for travel, meals, travel cancellations, and per diem expenses.

After requesting this information voluntarily, I’ve been forced to file a freedom of information request.

Once I receive the information, I will post as an open data set. The City will likely respond by releasing the information to the public itself and continuing to do so in the future.

This is my goal — forcing the City to be transparent.

The FOI request: what’s the Mayor expensing?

I’ve made numerous requests for information related to the Mayor’s budget. The City did provide me the balance sheet that’s included in the audit statements for Mayor Fred Eisenberger’s overall spending – they refused my requests for details of spending. I eventually received a budget account spreadsheet of spending. The City continued to refuse to provide detailed itemization.

With the first year of Mayor Bob Bratina’s term complete, I’ve requested all expense records for the Mayor and Mayor’s office for the first year of Bratina’s term.

The request is simple and limited to the Mayor’s office due to the prohibitive fees the City of Hamilton charges to discourage citizens from requesting transparency in civic government.

It is my hope that by making the Mayor’s office expenses public and transparent as an open data set, the City will begin posting the expenses of elected officials. (Joining most levels of government that already engage in this basic and simple practice of transparency.)

Want public data to be public? Prepare to pay twice… dearly for it.

The City is charging their full FOI rate for this request.

The costs could be significant – the City archives expenses immediately and does not provide electronic financial records for the spending of elected officials. It will take many man-hours to search the City’s paper archives to find the expense files at a rate of $30/hr.

Each page of expense records will be reviewed and expenses that may be exempt from disclosure (in the City’s opinion – I will appeal any attempt to not release records) will be blacked-out and not released. This will be done at $1.00 per page. Further, the City will charge 20 cents per page for photocopying the expense records.

My request for this disclosure is presently with the City’s Finance Services division and I’m awaiting the City to provide an estimated cost to receive  this public information.

Past FOI battle: election transparency

This is not the first time I’ve been forced to petition with an FOI request for public information. In 2010, the City forced me to use FOI requests to receive a map of ward polling boundaries and candidate expenses disclosures.

Repeated requests for electoral information as basic as polling districts was denied. Ironically, once I made my FOI request, the City realised polling districts was public information and they handed over the information without charge. They were also kind enough to provide an electronic copy of the data.

Following the election, I requested candidate financial disclosure records. The City denied my request and forced me to engage the FOI process.

After I spent about fifty dollars to get the disclosures of seven candidates, and stated I would be uploading them to my website for public access, the City announced it would release all candidate disclosure in electronic format on March 31, 2011.

It was similar with livestreaming of City Council meeting. It was only after myself and other volunteers repeatedly provided a livestream of City Council meetings that the City prioritized the provision of its own livestreaming service.

Preparing a fundraiser to cover the costs of releasing public information

As most of my readers know, my work to increase public transparency is on my own dime and time. I’m not employed by any newsroom in Hamilton and do this because I believe journalists should work to increase the amount of information available to the public without access restrictions or controls.

The reason I’ve not requested the expenses for all elected officials and senior city managers is to keep costs manageable.

If the City continues pattern of response to my transparency efforts, the City will post expense information following my FOI request when I post the Mayor’s expenses without restriction for the public to see how their money is being spent.

This is exactly the response I’m hoping to see from the City – ongoing transparency.

Once I’m aware of the cost, I’ll publicize the amount and we’ll figure out how we – citizens – can raise the funds necessary to pay twice for public information.

0 1 08 January, 2012 more
Posted by on 31 March

McMaster goes to court to block release of president’s pay package

McMaster University is asking for a judicial review of a ruling by Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner instructing the university to fully disclose university president Peter George’s current contract.

RELATED CONTENT Who is Canada’s top paid academic? AND Academics compared to CEOs, politicians AND Update: Maybe David Naylor is a (relative) bargain AND Professor pay varies greatly by discipline 

In August 2006, The Hamilton Spectator made a request for “access to the current contract and terms of employment for [a named individual] as President of McMaster, including salary, benefits, pension and a list of all other entitlements (for example a list of allowable expenses such as housing, terms of travel whether first class, business class, memberships in clubs and associations and other perquisites and benefits).”

The university annually makes public the president’s basic pay and taxable benefits, as do all Ontario public bodies. Peter George received over $500,000 in salary and taxable benefits in 2007.

However, the university denied the request The Spectator’s request for additional details of the president’s compensation, citing exceptions under Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. By revealing the contract, George’s privacy would be violated, argued the university.

The Spectator appealed the university’s decision with Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner.

At the end of January, seventeen months after the original request was filed, the IPC ordered McMaster to disclose the president’s employment agreement. The university has appealed this ruling with the courts.

Ontario’s universities were previously exempt from freedom of information laws. This changed June 10, 2006. Universities now fall under the freedom of information act.

No court date has been set.

0 1 31 March, 2008 more
Posted by on 02 January

Access to Information Act

While, I have begun my first ever Access to Information Act request. The act seems simple enough and the information I needed for my request was easily available online. Now, I just have to wait for Wednesday when the Post Office opens on campus, get a five-dollar money order to The Receiver General of Canada and send my request to Ottawa via registered mail. Too simple.

I am pretty sure that I am going to have one hell of a fight on my hands to get the information that I am entitled to under the Act but I am sure that I will eventually get it. Of course, there are always consquences to exercising one’s rights in this country. At the very least, this is a good lesson for me in the mechanisms of the Government.

0 0 02 January, 2005 more