Heads Up...Office of Privacy Commissioner

[oneoff]

THE FOLLOWING NOTICE/DECISION/RECOMMENDATION JUST RECEIVED

QUOTE
The Commissioner has asked me to forward you the attached Review Report regarding yourself and the R.M. of Enniskillen with respect to your request for review under section 44 of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP).



Section 45 of LA FOIP provides that within 30 days after receiving a Report of the Commissioner, the head of the R.M. of Enniskillen shall make a decision to follow the recommendations of the Commissioner or any other decision that the head considers appropriate and give written notice to my office and to you and to the third party.



Then, within 30 days of receiving the head’s decision, you will then have a right to appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to sections 46 and 47 of LA FOIP.



The office is planning to place this Review Report on its website on or after February 25, 2020. However, if you, the third party or the R.M. of Enniskillen releases the report to the media and there is media coverage before this time, we will post the report early.
A copy of this Report will also be provided to the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Government Relations.

UNQUOTE


AND HERE IS THE SUMMARY OF SOME 12 PAGES OF INVESTIGATION, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SHOULD/MAY BE OF SERIOUS CONCERN TO EVERYONE

REVIEW REPORT 156-2019, 006-2020
Rural Municipality of Enniskillen #3
February 21, 2020
Summary: The Applicant made an access to information request to the Rural Municipality of Enniskillen #3 (the R.M.) for certain information. The R.M. withheld information pursuant to subsection 18(1)(a), (b) and (c)(iii) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the R.M.’s response was not in compliance with section 7 of LA FOIP and that the R.M. did not meet the duty to assist. The Commissioner also found that subsections 18(1)(a), (b) and (c)(iii) of LA FOIP did not apply to the records, in part because the Third Party consented to their release. The Commissioner recommended that the R.M. release the responsive records, develop a written policy for responding to access to information requests and ask the Applicant to see if they are interested in other records.


..............................

WITH THE FINAL WORDS OF
QUOTE

[56] I recommend that the R.M. provide the responsive records to the Applicant in their entirety.
Dated at Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 21st day of February, 2020.
Ronald J. Kruzeniski, Q.C.


Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner

UNQUOTE

[bucket]

The reeve should resign along with the rest of the council that supports this....

Maybe the administrator as well....

Just for being phucktards about information ....

I don't know what you were asking àbout but if it is taxpayers dollars spending ..you have the right to know...

Same with federal politics...

[oneoff]

I've learned to try to condense complicated situations to as close to one line summaries as possible. Otherwise; it obviously overwhelms most readers who just tune out with the excuse that too many neurons are being tied up. Or its not worthy of consideration or some other convenient excuse to get back to their own pressing problems.

The details will be posted for the world to see in just three (or so) more sleeps. Maybe even sooner.

But for those who wish to get a sneak preview ( all from my perspective); I propose the information that was originally requested from the adopted minutes; concerns whether you consider such things as oil company surface lease survey plans (or any other public document that doesn't contain legitimate LAFOIP Exempted material).....which are submitted to (and then approved and adopted) an RM council for development permits/approval are actually "trade secrets" or "information provided by a government agency" or just none of anyone else's business, or is a legitimate coverup or something you can just refuse to produce for the public's information as is required by law and is necessary to be a more fully informed citizen etc etc.

Trust me; I feel all straws and arguments were advanced; presented; argued; and then considered in drafting the recommendations to be posted by Feb.25/2020 under the hand of the respected Q.C of the Privacy Commissioner's Office. I've taken care to use only the original words of the Report presented in the original post above.

And don't worry; the legal bill that it cost for the RM lawyer to make whatever municipal defense was shouldered by the taxpayers. And none of the above mess was necessary and all such information should have been freely available in the first place. Its also not the first (or even second) case of such an abuse in this (or other) provinces or countries.

[oneoff]

Here are a couple of random thoughts:
10 Will the pattern of behavior continue? What are the chances of the "head" following any of the Privacy Commissioner recommendations. Keen observers will remember that the same council and council members passed a resolution that none of the recommendations of the Ombudsman's office would be adhered to. Different case...set of circumstances...different allegations..... or is it really anything different?
2) Annual SARM convention coming up again as we approach spring road bans. Will any of the enablers attending have the courage to even bring up such matters? Perhaps the provincial government (who will certainly be attending ; in force will start to do what is necessary to address such problems. I'm holding my breath (Not)). Perhaps later. Likely not this year?

3) Is any personal Plan B going to effectively work? Is it even worth it to pursue such uninspiring abuses? Perhaps much better to wait until your own ox gets gored? Will there then be anyone even interested in assisting when it happens?
But; perhaps these examples involve your own ox...but it just wasn't known at the time?.

4)I'd rest this case on the words coming from a respected institution designed to protect the public interest :


Summary: The Applicant made an access to information request to the Rural Municipality of Enniskillen #3 (the R.M.) for certain information. The R.M. withheld information pursuant to subsection 18(1)(a), (b) and (c)(iii) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). The Commissioner found that the R.M.’s response was not in compliance with section 7 of LA FOIP and that the R.M. did not meet the duty to assist. The Commissioner also found that subsections 18(1)(a), (b) and (c)(iii) of LA FOIP did not apply to the records, in part because the Third Party consented to their release. The Commissioner recommended that the R.M. release the responsive records, develop a written policy for responding to access to information requests and ask the Applicant to see if they are interested in other records.

[sumdumguy]

Sounds like you have a little fiefdom going in your RM.