at a glanceTrend to “oral government” undermining accountabilityLast September, the non-profit Freedom of Information and PrivacyAssociation complained to BC Information and Privacy CommissionerElizabeth Denham about a growing trend for public informationrequests to the provincial government tocome up empty. Denham investigated,and in March issued her report.The Commissioner verified that “noresponsive records” replies to Freedomof Information requests have dramaticallyincreased across the BC governmentfrom 13 percent in 2008/09 to 25 percentof all requests in 2011/12.“These increases coincide with government’scentralization of the processing ofaccess to information requests under IAO,” Elizabeth Denhamobserved Denham. “Information AccessOperations” is a specialized branch the BC Liberals created, ostensiblyto speed up FOI processing. Could this centralization actuallybe making political interference easier and more common? Denhamdid not speculate, but supplied suspicion-inducing factoids.Denham determined that in some cases, IAO actually found therecords applicants had asked for, but not exactly where the applicantshad asked them to search—IAO then claimed there were “noresponsive records.” In other cases, applicants were “helped” by IAOto narrow their requests so that they wouldn’t have to pay hugefees for mammoth amounts of documents—but the revised requeststhen resulted in “no responsive records” replies.And whose requests were consistently the most likely to turn upempty? The media’s, wrote Denham. Last year, for example, halfof all media requests for documents to the Office of the Premierturned up zilch. It seems our premier and cohorts are operating inwhat Denham described as “a records-free way.”“According to the Office of the Premier,” wrote Denham, “thegeneral practice of staff in that office is to communicate verbally andin person. We were informed that staff members do not usually useemail for substantive communication relating to business matters,and that most emails are ‘transitory’ in nature and are deleted…”So what exactly is a “transitory” email that has nothing to do withthe Office of the Premier’s taxpayer-funded “business”? Well, forexample, the premier’s former Deputy Chief of Staff Kim Haakstadtold Denham that all emails leading up to the mysterious, high-profileresignation of former Chief of Staff Ken Boessenkool last September“would have been transitory in nature and were deleted.”Denham then overviewed a 20-year history of federal and provincialinformation commissioners and other experts urging Canadiangovernments to create “duty to document” legislation. “Without alegislated duty to document, government can effectively avoid publicscrutiny,” wrote Denham, pointing out that “oral government” underminesaccountability, democratic processes, and historical knowledge.Indeed, this latter issue leads to what is, in some ways, the mostdisturbing revelation in her report. “[T]here is a serious problem withgovernment’s practice of archiving records,” wrote Denham. In 2003,BC Archives introduced a “fee for service” model. “Since the introductionof this fee for service model,” wrote Denham, “governmenthas not transferred any permanent records to BC Archives.”—Rob WipondFaux consultation on City budget?In 2010 the City of Victoria adopted an internationally recognizedset of seven rules for conducting so-called “public engagementprograms,” including public input into its annual budget developmentand approval process.So just how closely did council adhere to these rules as it developedits 2013 Operating and Capital Budget—a budget with aself-imposed target of capping any tax increase to 3.25 percent andcutting $6 million in costs within the next three years? Judging bythe minutes of seven closed-door meetings held from May throughNovember 2012, the answer is, hardly at all.For starters, consider that all seven meetings were conducted behindclosed doors and that the minutes of those meetings—even the censoredversions obtained through a Freedom of Information request—donot appear on the City’s website.While certain tidbits of information and preliminary decisions didwend their way into the public eye over six months, far more was hiddenfrom view as council wrestled with the question of how to meet theirown target and the $6 million in cuts required to achieve it.What we can tell, even with the minutes shorn of the actual discussionand voting record, however, is that this January, when the Cityfinally started “engaging” the public in this important and even gamechangingbudget process, virtually all the key decisions had alreadybeen ratified by council. This includes the overall tax cap of 3.25percent itself. (Why, one might ask, was the target not 0 percent, atleast for starters? The answer, it appears, is that the original recommendation—fromstaff, of course, not the public—exceeded 4 percent.)On the other hand, the Victoria City Police force (24 percent ofthe budget) was assured of an annual 2 percent budget increase forthe next three years, again behind closed doors and with the discussionremoved from the minutes.Or how about the decision on a staff recommendation to drop thepaper version of Connect (the City’s newsletter) and make it availableonline instead? That was rejected by council before we evenheard about it. Yet cutting back on the communications departmentbudget was a favourite at public meetings held by CouncillorLisa Helps last July.We can also see that council opted to hive off the most contentiousaspect of the cost-cutting side of the process—chiefly anything thatcould lead to significant staff reductions and/or salary changes, whichaccount for about 50 percent of total expenditures—and hand itoff to an outside consultant, thus leaving the public to quibble overthe $1 million in minor cost containment items, such as perennialsfor annuals on City boulevards and fewer City-sponsored events inCentennial Square that it had come up with by November.—Derry McDonellAnother fired drug researcher files suitA few developments and even more questions have arisen since lastmonth’s article in <strong>Focus</strong> on the firing spree at the BC Ministry of Health.Two weeks ago Bob Hart, a former director of data access, researchand stewardship with the ministry, filed his notice of claim in BC’sSupreme Court, making him the third Ministry of Health employeeto sue for being terminated without just cause around this case. Hissuit lists the ministry officials who led an extraordinary set ofKafkaesque interrogations last summer which resulted in six employeesfired and a seventh suing for constructive dismissal. One of the fired8 April 2013 • FOCUS
employees is now dead and the coroner isstill investigating.Hart’s suit alleges that Dale Samsonoff,Wendy Taylor and Sarah Brownlee were partof the investigative team that called him toa meeting on August 31 last year, confrontedhim with allegations of workplace misconduct,and suspended him without pay. Twoweeks later Deputy Minister GrahamWhitmarsh brought the hammer down andthe 58-year-old employee, with an unblemishedrecord of 27 years of service in theMinistry of Health, was canned.This kind of swift and lethal applicationof justice is highly unusual in both corporateand government worlds where strict protocols,allowing employees leeway to correctshortcomings, are common.So far Health Minister Margaret MacDiarmidhas said that the current imbroglio at the ministrydid not involve personalized data used for nonhealthrelated purposes. That seems to be thebiggest crime when it comes to data breaches,and it made me wonder, what does happen inbureaucracies when someone, for personalgain, breaches an individual’s privacy?The most high-profile breach of personalprivacy in Canada probably concerns CaptainSean Bruyea, a Canadian air force officerwho served in the Persian Gulf War in 1991.He had his personal medical and financialfiles distributed across a wide swath of seniorofficials in the Department of Veteran’s Affairs(without his knowledge or permission) andthey used this information against him becausehe had the temerity to criticize the government’streatment of disabled veterans. Thecase is more nuanced than what I can sayhere, but of the 54 people who had inappropriatelyaccessed Bruyea’s file, 36 receivedan “administrative memo,” nine were reprimandedand nine received one-day suspensions.Nobody was fired.Let’s put this in context: When governmentemployees have egregiously broken thelaw in accessing personal files, there are wristslaps all around. But in Victoria, we fire sevenemployees, people like Bob Hart, on the whiffof wrongdoing for which no one can producea single credible allegation.Increasingly it appears Bob Hart and hisfired colleagues are collateral damage fromsomeone calling in a drone strike on theBC Ministry of Health’s drug safety evaluationapparatus. And the pharma conspiracytheorists are having a field day.—Alan CasselsGENERAL CONTRACTING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CHARACTER RENOVATIONDavid Dare250-883-5763roadsend.cawww.focusonline.ca • April 20139
Change language