Coun. Jill Spearn’s motion for staff to prepare an estimate of the costs incurred by Coun. Laurie Charlton’s “excessive” Freedom of Information (FOI) requests passed in council on Monday night, but the issue is not as black-and-white as either Spearn or Charlton would make it out to be.
Spearn said “the correspondence between [Corporate Officer Tracey Butler] and Coun. Charlton in the last few months has been excessive.”
Coun. Kathy Wallace concurred: “Our staff are our greatest resources in this community. A significant portion of our tax dollars go into staff time. We have to make sure staff are able to function and get their work done.”
Charlton countered that the costs incurred are a measure of CAO Victor Kumar’s attempts to “harass and obstruct” him.
“I’m in favour of the motion,” Charlton said. “It should be expanded to include costs at the FOI commissioner’s office. All my requests have come about because the CAO has either refused or neglected my requests for documents.”
Charlton also noted that discussion of FOI requests must be held in-camera, but the mayor responded that the discussion was about the cost of FOI, not the requests themselves, so public discourse did not violate the community charter.
Some in council were neutral or undecided.
Coun. Hanne Smith said, “[Charlton] brings these things up and you have to think, is there something to this or not?”
Coun. Kathy Moore also took an even-handed approach, denying that there is any “nefarious” motive behind Charlton’s requests. “Other people do think that, since he is such a thorn in people’s sides. He does a lot of work and questions a lot of things. A lot of his requests are not unreasonable.”
Butler reported that, with two exceptions since 2004, the city has only received FOI requests from Charlton.
“Occasionally we get requests from other councillors,” Butler said, “but not in the detail and magnitude that he wants.”
There is a long history. For example, although Charlton was not in office from 2002 to 2005, he attended most council meetings and asked for lots of information through FOI. He made 21 FOI requests in 2005 alone. Currently, he has nine active FOI requests at City Hall.
Butler estimated, “I spend an average of four hours a week responding to either his FOIs or to the commissioner’s office [about his FOIs].”
Explaining why she doesn’t use FOI, Moore said, “I’ve asked for information, everybody asks for information. He’s asking for specific reports.”
Nevertheless, she added, “If a citizen wants information, it should be available. Government is supposed to be open and transparent.”
In a separate correspondence, FOI expert Dr. Mark Weiler said, “There’s a serious misconception that using FOI is somehow an act of antagonism or an afront to work relations. It gets construed as a method of last resort when it is more accurately a method of assured access.”
Weiler argued that FOI should be used more frequently, warning that informal access may allow implicit expectations to lurk under the surface between those who possess the information and those who want it.
No other councillors, however, have reported any difficulty getting the information they need just by asking for it.
“If I need something,” Spearn said, “first I ask that it’s sent on email, [not printed on paper,] and secondly, the threatening kind of tone that [Charlton] has is really inappropriate.”
“It would seem simpler for the city to give him what he wants and be done with it,” Moore said.
Butler contends that she has given him all the information she is able to provide for his various requests, or has directed him to the appropriate government offices.
For example, Charlton has requested “detailed” revenues, expenses, and the budget, and has made his dissatisfaction with the staff response very clear in council. Kumar said the detailed budget wasn’t ready but would be made available. The condensed budget made available for discussion of the five year plan is still very detailed and most of council was sufficient to set goals and priorities.
Moore said, “I don’t particularly want [the details] myself, I don’t need to know how many pencils the city has to buy.” But she saw no problem with Charlton getting the information.
Neither does Manager of Finance Deb Timm, who clarified, “I’m not prepared to give [the detailed version] to him right now because it’s not finalized. I’m getting prepared for the audit and am only just now compiling year-end information.”
Staff are gathering next Monday for a budget meeting from which Timm will assemble a binder for council that will include the detailed “line-by-line” revenues and expenses for 2008 to 2010, and the detailed 2011 budget.
Another example is Charlton’s request for notes and minutes from meetings and interviews, in addition to reports, memos, letters, emails, “etc.”, to or from the Museum Select Committee, and also between the city of Rossland and Teck regarding the museum or the adit.
The 44-page document the Rossland News received on repeating the request seems complete, although some people’s names were omitted - presumably for confidentiality - and, at Teck’s request, the package did not include the meeting notes between Teck and the city. Charlton was not satisfied and has taken the issue to the commissioner’s office.
Charlton’s FOIs regarding metered water and sewer billing calculations for 2009 and 2010 also went to the commissioner.
“I refused to give him that information because water meter accounts can be traced to individuals,” Butler said. The FOI commissioner settled the matter: Meter information is only available for commercial properties and businesses.
The commercial utility bill alone takes “about seven hours to put together for each year,” Butler estimated.
“Staff time should be used for the greater good of the community and not for petty personal requests,” Spearn said, suggesting that Charlton’s “severe ego” is at the root of the requests, perhaps referring to his FOI from Feb. 15:
“I wish to obtain copies of all memos, letters, reports, emails, text messages, notes and any and all other documents and/or records relating to the memo from Victor Kumar titled ‘Councillor Charlton’.”
Photocopy charges, included in Spearn’s original request for a cost estimate, have become a moot point.
Charlton didn’t want to pay photocopy charges, but the commissioner’s office confirmed that the city was entitled to charge. Charlton has since been charged for two sets of photocopies - something he called “harassment” - but city staff report that he still submitted an expense claim that was rejected.
When probed about section 43 in the FOI and Protection of Privacy Act, in which “the commissioner may authorize the public body to disregard requests...[that] unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body because of the repetitious or systematic nature of the requests [or] are frivolous or vexatious,” Butler allowed that it is an option.