Hmmm. That sounds familiar… #nlpoli

Premier Tom Marshall, in the House of Assembly, discussing what the provincial government can and cannot release:

There is nothing in the ATIPP legislation that prevents government, with the exception of some privacy information, from voluntarily releasing information that comes – we release reports all the time. The midwifery report, I think, and the bussing report, those reports were released and we will continue to do so.

Sounds familiar:

There’s nothing in the parts of ATIPPA that cover access to government information that “make it illegal under Bill 29” or any other part of the Act for the provincial cabinet to release information.

Cabinet can hand out an independent audit report, the papers on the FPI prosecution, anything they have on Muskrat Falls, or the recipe for Tom Marshall’s favourite cookies and sleep soundly at night that the release was legal. No one in cabinet will get a fine or go to jail.

-srbp-

Doing it exactly right #nlpoli

No one could have picked a better panel of three people to review the provincial government’s access to information law than the three announced by Premier Tom Marshall on Tuesday.

The panel will be chaired by former premier and retired chief justice Clyde Wells.  The other two panellists will be Doug Letto, a former producer at CBC television, and Jennifer Stoddart,  the federal privacy commissioner from 2003 to 2013.

The terms of reference – included with the release – are comprehensive and will allow the panel to review the operation of the provincial access law in all respects. 

D’oh! Telegram shags up Muskrat Falls access story #nlpoli

According to a major Telegram story on Monday morning, the provincial government won’t be able to release some information about Muskrat Falls because of the provincial access to information  laws.

There’s only one problem:  the Telegram got the whole thing wrong.

Doing it right #nlpoli

Premier Tom Marshall confirmed on Thursday that the provincial government will be doing the review of the provincial information and privacy law a year earlier than scheduled.

They will also be appointing three people to serve as the commission conducting the review.  The provincial government is also accepting nominations for commissioners.

While other details of the review aren’t public yet, the news so far is good.

Dunderdale’s Bill 29 “a dramatic step backwards” for transparency in NL #nlpoli

On Monday,  Premier Kathy Dunderdale blew off any questions in the House of Assembly about Bill 29 with the comment that the centre for Law and Democracy said the province was third in the country for transparency.

Well, as regular readers well know, the Premier is not usually right about many things and this is a fine example. 

Access denied: CFLCo and Hydro-Quebec version #nlpoli

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation tried but failed in 2012 in an effort to see hundreds of thousands of pages of confidential Hydro-Quebec documents on the 1969 Power Contract between CFLCo and Hydro-Quebec.

A decision by the Quebec access to information commissioner in November 2012 denied CF(L)Co access to the documents under a section of the provincial access to information law that excludes requests that are so large that answering them would interfere with  the normal operations of the public body.

Curiously enough that’s exactly the same ruling the Newfoundland and Labrador access commissioner made on a 2008 case involving a request for access to e-mails in the Premier’s Office. In his decision, filed in January 2009, the provincial access commissioner determined that:

the number of e-mails encompassed by the request was over 119,000. At a rate of 500 e-mails per day, it would take about 8 [sic] months to process the request. The Commissioner found that this was an unreasonable interference with the operations of Executive Council.

 

An Unwavering Commitment to Inaction, Indecision, and Extra Pork #nlpoli

In 2010, the provincial government appointed Captain Mark Turner to look at the “province’s offshore oil spill prevention and response capabilities.”

He produced the 273 page report and the provincial government dutifully released it along with a lovely news release.

Then-natural resources minister Shawn Skinner committed that the provincial government  would “study the report, and consult with the responsible stakeholders to ensure all recommendations are considered.”

Accessing more government information #nlpoli #cdnpoli

The Telegram editorial last Thursday (December 8), complained about the practice some government departments use of releasing access to information requests from one media outlet to all outlets.

The trigger for the editorial was a decision by Nalcor Energy to release salary details on it senior executives to all the local news media even though the initial request came from just one media outlet.

Part of the problem for media outlets is that – as the Telly notes – “access to information journalism is neither easy nor cheap. Requests take months to come to fruition and can cost hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of dollars.”

When the agency releases the information to everyone free of charge, the media outlet winds up taking a gigantic financial hit in addition to just getting scooped on a story.

It’s all true.

To be frank, one of the reasons a government department or agency would release information like that is to take control of the story away from the particular news room.  By releasing the information generally, the department or agency can ensure its version of events, its side of the story, gets out there without the particular filter applied by the news room that originally pursued the story.

It’s not “petty revenge” as the editorial describes the practice.  It’s called protecting your interests and your reputation.  In dealing with  some “news” organizations, it would be called common sense.

There’s no news in reporting that government departments handle media and opposition party access to information requests differently from those from ordinary mortals.  There are even academic studies that show just exactly how some federal departments have done exactly that and the reasons behind it.

The Telly editorial writer finishes off with a worthwhile suggestion:

if releasing specific access claims is really an example of accountability, release them all, including information requested by private citizens, businesses, unions and law firms.

The Department of National Defence has been doing something like that for the last decade and then some.  The current DND web page on access to information requests goes back to 2006, but your humble e-scribbler has been using it, on and off, for a decade or more.

A chart of the web page lists the request number a description of the request and the outcome.  You can find released information by year and month.  All you’d have to do in order to receive the same information is contact the department and pay the costs of copying and mailing, just as you would have done if you’d asked for the information yourself.

Scan the list and you can see information requests that came from one newsroom or another.  You’ll see requests from private individuals, researchers and, in some instances, from companies providing temporary employees or other contract service to the department.

If you want to get a sense of the scope of the access to information challenge in a department like National Defence, you can check out a 2000 article by then Lieutenant Colonel Brett Boudreau in the Canadian Military Journal.  Boudreau notes that the number of access requests went from 67 in 1983-84 to more than 1,000 by 1998-1999. 

But within that number, one of the recent reports Boudreau mentions was a 35,000 page report that took six months to review and “sever” for information that had to be withheld under access laws.

Automatically releasing  - that is distributing - all access requests would be practically very difficult, even in an age of scanners, pdfs and the Internet.

But providing a list of access requests that are available?

That’s certainly possible.  More federal departments would probably consider it as a practical approach to the administrative demands of access to administration. 

That’s the federal government, though, where access to information is a well-established system.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, they’d have to accept the idea of public access to information in the first place.

- srbp -

‘Ethics and accountability’ report card

More than half not done despite 2003 commitment “to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence”

Of the 23 commitments made by the Progressive Conservative opposition on what a February 2003 news release termed “ethics and accountability”, 11 remain unfilled and in two instances, the action taken went against the stated commitment.

Amendments to the energy corporation act in 2008 and the research and development corporation act in 2009 both increased the restrictions on disclosure.

No action has been taken to impose six new, tougher restrictions on campaign financing.

No action has been taken to reduce restrictions on disclosure of cabinet confidences and no amendments that would “enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.”

Of the 10 commitments actually met, one to impose significant penalties for breaches of the lobbyist registration act turned out to be nothing more than a potential one year de-registration.

At least two significant lobbying efforts were never registered.  One involved a multi-million dollar fibre-optic deal.  in another instance, officials of a tourist project now in bankruptcy protection claimed publicly to have been lobbying but never registered their activities.

In two others where action was taken, nothing appears to have been done to implement the commitment until the House of Assembly spending scandal became public.  The commitments – for a code of conduct for members of the legislature and  new administrative procedures on allowances  - were implemented in 2007 as a result of recommendations by Chief Justice Derek Green following his inquiry.

The policy commitments were made by then-opposition leader Danny Williams.  Ironically, Williams was accompanied at the announcement by Ed Byrne, currently serving a prison sentence for fraud and corruption.
Williams’ words at the time proved to be prophetic:

We've invited you here today to address what I see as one of the greatest challenges facing elected governments today. As a result of recent developments at both the provincial and national level, I firmly believe that the public is losing confidence in their elected officials. 

We've seen blatant abuse of office and taxpayers' money, allegations concerning conflict of interest, questions of fundraising contributions, and suggestions of impropriety during leadership conventions. These are very serious issues that are eroding the people's confidence in government.

Now, we can either choose to ignore these issues and continue with the status quo or we can attempt to deal with them and restore the public's confidence. I'm saying that it's time to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence.

Public confidence likely took a further dip with the revelations of what occurred in the legislature between 1997 and 2006.

Here’s a list of the commitments and notes on the actions taken or not taken.  The complete news release is at the bottom of this post.

Serial	Commitment	Action
1	“We will legislate maximum donations to candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.”	No action taken.
2	“We will set out in legislation that the cash contribution to the party from an individual or corporation shall not exceed $10,000.”	No action taken.
3	“We will also legislate maximum expenditures by candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.”	No action taken.
4	“Furthermore, we will require the full public disclosure of all donations to, and expenditures by, candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.”	No action taken.
5	“With respect to Party leadership races, we will require that donations must be disclosed when they occur, and all expenditures must be independently audited and fully disclosed within three months after the election of a new leader.”	No action taken.
6	“We will also enact provisions governing the ownership of unused contributions donated to candidates in leadership races. These legislative provisions will ensure that all unused donations are returned to the donors”.	No action taken.
7	“We will amend the Elections Act to require that provincial elections be held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly.”	House of Assembly Act amendment, 2004
8	“The legislation will ensure that, if the Premier resigns or the Premier's office is vacated within the first three years of a term, an extraordinary election will be held within twelve months and a new government will be elected to a fixed four-year term.”	House of Assembly Act amendment, 2004
9	“We will also amend the Elections Act to require a by-election to be called within 60 days of a vacancy and held within 90 days of a vacancy, so as to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are appropriately represented in the legislature.”	House of Assembly Act amendment, 2004
10	“We will establish a new procedure to provide for the proper auditing and disclosure of the expenses of Members of the House of Assembly.”	Significant new procedures were not implemented until after the disclosure of the spending scandal and not until passage of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act in 2007.
11	“We will amend the Access to Information legislation to enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.”	Amendments to the Energy Corporation Act in 2008 and the research and development corporation act 2009 significantly reduced access to information related to these two bodies.  There have been no amendments to the ATIPPA to “enhance the transparency of government actions.”
12	“The Access to Information legislation proposed and passed by the Grimes government in 2001 (though it has not yet been proclaimed) allows the government to exclude a great deal of information from release to the public under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences". We will limit that exemption so more information that rightly belongs in the public domain will be accessible to the public.”	No action to limit the exemption. A request for disclosure of polling (specifically listed in the 2002 legislation as not being exempt from disclosure) was denied initially on the grounds it may disclose cabinet confidences.
13	“Also, the legislation will be changed so any information that continues to fall under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences" will be released earlier.”	No action taken
14	“We will enact changes to tighten up the exceptions to the release of information.”	Amendments to two other acts in 2008 and 2009 created new mandatory exemptions.
15	“We will remove provisions that allow the cabinet to override the legislative provisions of the Act by regulation at their discretion.”	No action taken.
16	“Finally, we will shorten the time lines for the release of information so information that rightly belongs in the public domain is available to the people of the province on a timely basis. Access delayed is sometimes access denied.”	No action taken.
17	“A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation directly or through a special committee of the House of Assembly to develop appropriate and strict legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this province.”	Consultation took place in 2004.
18	“The primary objective of the legislation will be to establish a registry so the public can see by whom their Members and their government are being lobbied.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
19	“The legislation will require that lobbyists report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004. Public office holders are not required to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
20	“The legislation may require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
21	“The legislation may differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.”	Lobbyist Registration Act, 2004.
22	“The legislation will impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.”	The only penalty that may be imposed is the cancellation of a registration or the refusal to register a lobbyist for period not to exceed one year in duration.
23	“We will also ask the legislature to adopt a strict code of conduct for all Members, to be enforced by the Commissioner of Members' Interests, emphasizing their accountability to the wider public interest and to their constituents, and the need for openness, honesty and integrity in their dealings with the public, constituents and lobbying organizations.”	A code of conduct for members of the House of Assembly was included in the House accountability act in 2007 on the recommendation of Chief Justice Derek Green. Prior to the disclosure of the House of Assembly spending scandal, no action appears to have been taken on this.

-30-

Williams announces policies regarding
ethics and government reform

ST. JOHN'S, February 5, 2003 — Danny Williams, Leader of the Opposition and MHA for Humber West, today announced a number of policies regarding ethics and government reform. His speaking notes follow:


Good afternoon, and thank you everyone for coming out today. Joining me is Ed Byrne, our House Leader, and Harvey Hodder, one of our longest-serving MHAs.

We've invited you here today to address what I see as one of the greatest challenges facing elected governments today. As a result of recent developments at both the provincial and national level, I firmly believe that the public is losing confidence in their elected officials.

We've seen blatant abuse of office and taxpayers' money, allegations concerning conflict of interest, questions of fundraising contributions, and suggestions of impropriety during leadership conventions. These are very serious issues that are eroding the people's confidence in government.

Now, we can either choose to ignore these issues and continue with the status quo or we can attempt to deal with them and restore the public's confidence. I'm saying that it's time to deal with them and begin to restore the public's confidence.

To that effect, I am today announcing several policies to help modernize the electoral process and the day-to-day operations of the government in Newfoundland and Labrador. These policies concern three separate areas that can be classified under the following general headings: transparency in political fundraising, effective government, and regulation of lobbyists.

Each policy area was developed under the basic philosophy that the public has a legitimate right to be informed of their government's activities.

A. Transparency in Political Fundraising

Let's first look at transparency in political fundraising.

The Elections Act limits election campaign contributions and spending, and attempts to promote electoral fairness by allowing candidates to recover part of their campaign expenses from public funds.

However, the intent of the Act is undermined by loopholes that allow political parties to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money before an election is called, and permit unlimited contributions and spending on leadership contests.

A Progressive Conservative Government will amend the Elections Act to close those loopholes.

• We will legislate maximum donations to candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.
• We will set out in legislation that the cash contribution to the party from an individual or corporation shall not exceed $10,000.
• We will also legislate maximum expenditures by candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.
• Furthermore, we will require the full public disclosure of all donations to, and expenditures by, candidates in Party leadership contests, nominees in Party candidacy races, and candidates in general elections and by-elections.
• With respect to Party leadership races, we will require that donations must be disclosed when they occur, and all expenditures must be independently audited and fully disclosed within three months after the election of a new leader.
• We will also enact provisions governing the ownership of unused contributions donated to candidates in leadership races. These legislative provisions will ensure that all unused donations are returned to the donors.

The public is demanding transparency in the raising and spending of all funds related to the election of Party leaders, Party candidates and Members of the House of Assembly. It is our obligation and our commitment to deliver the transparency and accountability that the public is demanding.

B. Effective Government


We also have seen problems arise over timely elected representation. There have been numerous situations over the last few years in which the electorate has gone unreasonable periods of time without elected representatives. In fact, one district did not have representation for the entire Voisey's Bay debate, which was one of the most important debates that occurred in this province last year. We have an ongoing situation in which the Premier has governed the province for two full years despite the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not have the opportunity to elect him. And we have situations in which individuals are not able to obtain information from their government because of countless restrictions and excessive wait periods. This is wrong.

A Progressive Conservative Government will address these issues decisively.

• We will amend the Elections Act to require that provincial elections be held on a fixed date every four years, or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Assembly.
• The legislation will ensure that, if the Premier resigns or the Premier's office is vacated within the first three years of a term, an extraordinary election will be held within twelve months and a new government will be elected to a fixed four-year term.
• We will also amend the Elections Act to require a by-election to be called within 60 days of a vacancy and held within 90 days of a vacancy, so as to ensure that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are appropriately represented in the legislature.
• We will establish a new procedure to provide for the proper auditing and disclosure of the expenses of Members of the House of Assembly.
• We will amend the Access to Information legislation to enhance the transparency of government actions and decisions.
• Our legislative changes will clearly identify information that should be in the public domain, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the information to the public. The Access to Information legislation proposed and passed by the Grimes government in 2001 (though it has not yet been proclaimed) allows the government to exclude a great deal of information from release to the public under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences". We will limit that exemption so more information that rightly belongs in the public domain will be accessible to the public.
• Also, the legislation will be changed so any information that continues to fall under the umbrella of "cabinet confidences" will be released earlier.
• We will enact changes to tighten up the exceptions to the release of information.
• We will remove provisions that allow the cabinet to override the legislative provisions of the Act by regulation at their discretion.
• Finally, we will shorten the time lines for the release of information so information that rightly belongs in the public domain is available to the people of the province on a timely basis. Access delayed is sometimes access denied.

C. Regulation of Lobbyists


Another activity which must be brought forward for public review involves government lobbying. The governments of Canada and four provinces have enacted legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose their identities, their intentions and their activities. Since there is no such legislation in this province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not know which individuals and groups are lobbying their government to make decisions that will benefit the lobbyists or those they represent. Disclosure reassures the public that their representatives' arms are not being twisted behind the scenes.

• A Progressive Conservative government will commission a process of public consultation directly or through a special committee of the House of Assembly to develop appropriate and strict legislation for the registration of lobbyists operating in this province.
• The primary objective of the legislation will be to establish a registry so the public can see by whom their Members and their government are being lobbied. It will not be our intention to impede free and open access to government by individuals and groups, but we will strike the proper balance through transparency and disclosure.
• The legislation will require that lobbyists report their activities. It may also require those who hold public office to disclose circumstances in which they have been lobbied.
• The legislation may require lobbyists to file their general objectives and/or their specific lobbying activities.
• The legislation may differentiate between those who are paid to lobby government and those who represent volunteer or non-profit agencies.
• The legislation will impose significant penalties for those who violate these provisions.
• We will also ask the legislature to adopt a strict code of conduct for all Members, to be enforced by the Commissioner of Members' Interests, emphasizing their accountability to the wider public interest and to their constituents, and the need for openness, honesty and integrity in their dealings with the public, constituents and lobbying organizations.

Conclusion


In conclusion, I firmly believe that people are losing their confidence and trust in elected government, and that must change. Our Party is committed to that. It is our intention to begin to address these issues and restore public confidence with these policies.

Freedom from information: lack of briefing notes for minister called “bizarre” by senior government official

An unnamed senior public sector manager has termed a move by government to eliminate briefing notes for ministers “bizarre”.

The official is quoted in a post by Telegram blogger Geoff Meeker.  The unidentified official spoke only on condition of anonymity.

“I don't think it's possible to keep up to speed without a briefing book,” said the person, who has worked at some of the highest levels of the public service.

“It will make it very difficult to understand, in retrospect, why certain decisions were made - very dangerous for the staff who must execute them and very problematic if one needs to retrace and do a course-correction on something that's gone off the rails. Without briefing books, corporate memory is very much reduced and future government decisions rendered more difficult.”

The comment came after another Telegram story (not online) in which Joan Burke, government house leader and minister of a newly created child, youth and family services department, said that she had received no briefing notes when taking over her new portfolio. Burke told the Telegram’s Rob Antle that

“I didn’t want to be handed a binder with 500 to 1,000 sheets of paper to try to determine what’s important and what’s not, and what’s current and what I need on my radar.”

As Meeker points out, Burke’s attitude may have little to do with what she described as her desire to get down to work.

Burke was embroiled in a controversy last year over the hiring of a new president for Memorial University.  Details of the minister’s involvement became embarrassing when the Liberal opposition office obtained copies of government records through the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and provided them to local media.

The documents including e-mails and briefing notes that included questions for Burke to use during her screening interviews with the two finalists selected by the university’s hiring process.  Burke rejected both candidates.

Briefing notes have also proved embarrassing for other cabinet ministers.

A note prepared for Burke’s successor in November 2008 on financial implications of “autonomy” for Grenfell College from Memorial University, another controversial policy from Burke’s tenure in education, was virtually completed deleted before being released under the province’s open records laws.  While promised two years ago, there is still no sign of the enabling legislation.

During the Cameron inquiry into the hormone receptor scandal, health minister Ross Wiseman stated under oath that he had not read briefing notes on the issue when he took over the portfolio.  As CBC reported,

… Wiseman said he did not have the opportunity to read briefing notes about the cancer testing after he was sworn in as health minister, because he was busy tackling other pressing issues and preparing for the annual budget.

Opposition politicians have also claimed that ministers apparently no longer receive briefing notes to use in preparation for the House of Assembly.

Meeker’s public sector manager also described some of the concerns about the new policy which would see the elimination of any paper trail of documents and backgrounders for ministers. 

“Without briefing documents, the public can never really know what grounds decisions were made on - cutting the foundation out from under transparency and accountability, not to mention history - how will future generations understand the story of this government and this time without primary research sources?

“This puts a great burden on senior and mid-level public officials to keep good records in their own briefing books and black books. These would be accessible under ATIPP, but that leaves the paper trail with the officials, not the Minister. And if they don't keep good records, well - we all heard during the Cameron inquiry how difficult it is for these busy, busy people [cabinet ministers and political staff] to recall details from 6 or 12 months ago.”

That last point is particularly cogent:  at one point during the inquiry, an exasperated commissioner Justice Margaret Cameron commented that many of the witnesses seemed to have difficulty recalling anything at all. 

The premier's chief of staff, Brian Crawley, was sent an e-mail in July, 2005 that warned of a major story about to break involving breast cancer testing mistakes.

But Crawley testified he can't remember getting the e-mail or even talking to anyone in the premier's office — including the premier — about it.

"I really don't remember anything about those early days at all," he said.

Judge Margaret Cameron asked Crawley whether he remembered any of the events of July and he responded, "No."

"You don't remember seeing anything about this until the story broke in the Independent [Newfoundland & Labrador Independent newspaper] and you don't even really remember reading the Independent story," she said.

Crawley was not alone and that exchange prompted an angry premier Danny Williams to criticise Cameron over the remark, as cbc.ca/nl reported:

When Crawley answered one question about what he would have done in a situation, Cameron replied, "Well, I'm getting a lot of that, 'This is what I would've done,' but nobody ever remembers seemingly having done much."

On Friday, Williams fired back.

"I have to say I was disappointed. I was disappointed as I watched Madame Justice Cameron show disdain for a professional witness who was before her, giving testimony, honestly, forthright, under oath, to the best of his or her ability," Williams told reporters.

Meeker’s post and the comments by the unnamed official echo concerns identified in Donald Savoie’s recent book on the erosion of accountability at White hall and in Ottawa.

In Court government: the collapse of accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom, Savoie documents a similar practice of eliminating briefing notes and other official written documents in order to avoid the access to information laws.

In addition to the move to eliminate a paper trail, Savoie also notes concerns among politicians with whistleblower legislation as part of a larger trend away from government openness and internal and external accountability.

Savoie also points to the appearance of unofficial practices within the administration of government that are also designed to avoid disclosure under access to information laws.  For example, one study cited by Savoie found that requests from politicians and the media took longer to process than those from others even though there did not appear to be any particular difference in one request from another.   

Similar efforts by officials to skirt open records laws have already been noted in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For example, officials have invented a concept called non-responsive records to refer to documents which are apparently covered by an access request but which are not  released. One of the Burke e-mails on Memorial University, for example, includes a deletion marked “non-responsive” rather than use the official requirement to cite a specific section of the access law under which a deletion is made.

Perhaps the most notorious example was a claim that records did not exist even though the Premier and other officials acknowledged that they did.

In another case, access to documents was denied on the grounds that the review was ongoing.  The request had not been for a final report but for documents relating to the study and an accounting of its costs.

Officials have also been able to avoid disclosure based on questionable claims about the scope of the request.

-srbp-

Lessons not learned, Part II: health department may have breached privacy law

Unless they’ve got written consent for the disclosure, the province’s health department violated several sections of the province’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

A report by independent consultants on the location of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device includes the home address and telephone number of one of the consultants as well as complete curricula vitae of the three consultants.

The original news release directed interested people to contact the department’s communications director for a copy of the report. The release issued Tuesday contained a link to the complete report, with the attached CVs.

The report was received on February 28 and released on June 2, in violation of a supposed government policy requiring reports to be released within 30 days of being received. 

Under section 30 of the Act, government must refuse to disclose personal information unless there is written consent. A similar provision is contained in section 39.

-srbp-

Sectional Update:  The ever eagle-eyed among you noticed that since this document wasn’t released under the access to information bit of the legislation, section 30 doesn’t apply.

Correct.

Section 39 does and that confusion is purely mine in the way the post was quickly written.

The act covers requests for information PLUS privacy protection.  The privacy part containing s. 39 covers what government may do with personal information.  One of the things is not release it without permission.

It all comes out to the same thing.

s.39 of the ATIPPA applies in this case.  Without permission, they weren’t suppose to publish personal information.

Freedom from Information: NL gov’t keeps lid slammed tight

The province’s score on public access to government records is boosted by the performance of municipalities across the province. But that’s not the same as the provincial government.

Its record of openness  - on the other hand  - is nowhere near as good Saturday’s news suggests. 

Of six requests for information under open records laws during a recent survey by the Canadian Newspaper Association, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did not fully disclose in response to any of the requests.

The provincial score is boosted by the responses by municipalities across the province, all of which applied both the spirit and the letter of the access to information law to a greater extent than did the provincial government.

Provincial government departments and agencies received six requests.  Of those half met the response that no records existed.  Another was denied in full, while another was deemed a denial of access by the researchers.  Only one request was answered with a partial disclosure.

The responses fit the pattern of apparently inaccurate or false responses found recently by the Telegram. 

In one notorious case, the Executive Council claimed it had no records on so-called “purple files” even though the Telegram had an e-mail from the Premier’s Office – a record within the Executive Council under the access to information law – and the reporter saw such a file during an interview.

The responses to the CNA survey are astonishing and in some cases laughable:

1.  Vehicles: No records/Not my department.  The request for a “list of vehicles (including make, model, and year) available for transportation of members of cabinet and senior public servants. As well, please provide a copy of your policy on the idling of vehicles.” made to the Executive Council – the central government agency that vets all access requests yielded this answer:

Newfoundland and Labrador said it didn’t have any records on such vehicles, although the executive council office suggested filing a request to another department for an idling policy.

That’s right, rather than respond to the request and provide the information, the Executive Council told the researcher to file another access request with a line department.  And that’s after the central agency that co-ordinates all government activity claimed it had no records on vehicles available for the use of cabinet ministers senior public servants.

It took 20 days to get those responses.

2.  Road paving:  A request for information on road paving work in the province got a ludicrous response.  Specifically, the researchers asked for “[a]n electronic list of highway construction contracts including fields for the contractor,
contract value, date contract awarded and description of the work, for contracts of $100,000 or more awarded during the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Please provide the data in Microsoft Excel, Access or delimited text format.”

Provincial government departments use Excel and certainly maintain records electronically, i.e. on computers.  The department’s response, therefore,  is laughable: 

The letter from the Transportation and Public Works department in Newfoundland stated that the information “does not exist in electronic form within this department,” even though the record released was a computer printout.

The government is known to maintain detailed records on road paving  - by provincial electoral district - and political staff in the Premier’s Office have a hand in determining how much money goes to what district in the highly politicized system.  Someone has the records and likely keeps them electronically rather than with quill pen.

3.  Tasers:  A request to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for policy on use of tasers by police did not receive any decision and was recorded as a refusal in full.

4. A request for briefing notes for the finance minister on carbon tax was denied in full.

5.  A request for  any audit conducted of physicians’ billings under the provincial medical plan earned a response of “no records.”

-srbp-

Freedom From Information: Ministerial claims now on line

Just before Christmas, the provincial government released a batch of expense claims for provincial cabinet ministers in a policy supposedly aimed at fulfilling the government’s commitment to transparency.

The claims reports will be issued twice, yearly, covering six months of the calendar year. (January to June and July to December) As such, the reports don’t match the government’s own fiscal reporting year (April to March) and they only cover claims paid during the period. Any claims made in December 2008, for example, won’t be included unless they were paid before the report was issued before month-end. As such, any claims made for December won’t be revealed to the public until June 2009.

The government accounting system is much more flexible than this and would easily allow government to report on the quarterly basis already used by the federal government for its proactive disclosure. The feds also reveal any contracts let by departments on a quarterly basis and include expense claims for senior political staff. The federal reports thus provide considerably more disclosure and are considerably more transparent than the provincial ones.

Any more detailed information on the claims would require an access to information act request with all the associated fees and charges, delays and censoring. As your humble e-scribbler discovered last year, Executive Council is so vigorous in discouraging requests for information that it doesn’t even apply its own policies as posted on the government website.

Informal requests are non-existent - at least when it comes to the central hub controlling government information - and the office will only start processing a request once a form has been completed and a fee submitted. That isn’t what the policy states:

Before you make a request using the legislation, you may wish to try other, informal means to obtain the records you are seeking. Contact the public body (Access and Privacy Coordinators) which you believe has the records. Often, you can get the information you want in this informal way, without using the legislation. This route will often be faster for you and less expensive for public bodies to administer.

This new expense claim disclosure policy is a baby step in the right direction but there’s a long way to go before people who believe in government transparency and in access to information will stop referring to current provincial government policy as freedom from information rather than freedom of information.

-srbp-