ROTHENBURGER: We shouldn’t have to pay for civic politicians to give us FOI records

When it comes to mayor and council, one might ask what costs there are to recover. There’s no legislation that says the City must charge for their time but it chooses to do so.

Mayor and council don’t have employment contracts or defined hours of work, aren’t paid by the hour and don’t receive overtime. FOI fees go to the City, not to them. Responding to FOI applications doesn’t affect their other work.

They’re paid a stipend in recognition of their public service — part of that public service is providing information to the public.

I made that argument in an FOI application last December.

On Dec. 14, I requested access to messages between council members and between CAO David Trawin and City managers “regarding the mayor’s interaction with ASK Wellness and the Kamloops branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association, and regarding the legislated authority of the mayor, covering the period between Dec. 2 and Dec. 13 inclusively.”

(Dec. 6 was the day Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson recused himself from an entire council meeting.)

The City’s FOI office estimated the cost would be $1,934.65, including 14 hours of staff time and 16 hours of council members’ time, the latter to be billed at $30 an hour. Under FOI rules, the first three hours are free, leaving a bill of $1,589.80, with a required deposit of $794.90.

I clarified that I was asking only for council’s and Trawin’s records, not those from managers. The City accepted that as a narrowed application and re-assessed its fee estimate to $952.40, minus the first three hours, leaving a charge of $385.52, half of which was required as a deposit.

However, when I filed a detailed appeal making a case for waiving of fees, the City didn’t budge. I based my appeal on the application being in the public interest and suggesting I shouldn’t be classed as a “commercial applicant” because the purpose was to provide information to the public.

The City responded that the definition of “commercial applicant” is broad and therefore allows the City to charge the “actual estimated costs” of providing documents.

As to public interest, “it is not clear how the Mayor’s personal legal disputes or his legislated authority are themselves matters of public interest.”

I decided to go ahead with the application anyway and paid the deposit. Late last week, roughly three and a half months after I first submitted it, I received a batch of documents and the good news that I would be refunded $54.16 because the amount of time taken to retrieve them was less than estimated.

And what did I get? Well, the documents consist almost entirely of text messages and emails that have been redacted so heavily it’s hard to follow any particular thread. Many pages are redacted entirely.

Various sections of the Act are used to justify the copious redactions: “protected by privilege,” “personal information,” “policy advice/ recommendations” and so on.

They do, however, reveal an atmosphere of disharmony during the week and a half covered by my application. The word “circus” comes up several times. In one message between councillors Bill Sarai and Mike O’Reilly, the comment is made, “That’s the sad part. He forced us into being performers in his circus.” In other emails between councillors, a reference is made to “Reid’s circus” and “The circus continues.” (Because of all the redactions, it’s often hard to know who is saying what.)

On Dec. 3, Hamer-Jackson and Sarai — who was deputy mayor for the month — have a back and forth over the mayor needing to keep councillors and staff informed when he’s away.

After Hamer-Jackson recused himself from the Dec. 6 council meeting and went home, Coun. Stephen Karpuk texts him asking where he went.

Replies Hamer-Jackson: “I sat for 2 hours waiting to go to a council meeting that I had to recuse myself from. I was not going to sit outside for another 2 hours. Because of people that don’t want to be accountable. I ran on accountability.”

On Dec. 9, Sarai tells Hamer-Jackson, “Reid. I’m saying this for the last time to you bad (sic) your friend. If you do not start working with your council instead of against us. You will get nothing done in your four years. We all got elected on our own platforms. But to get them fulfilled, we would need 4 more councillors to do that. Right now you only have me, and you’re treating me like shit. Next move is yours my friend.”

The mayor replies that Sarai “won’t listen” and “abandoned west Victoria street,” and then says, “Don’t call me a friend, my friends don’t treat me like you.”

Much of the material appears irrelevant to the application because it’s out of context. For example, at one point, Coun. Katie Neustaeter compliments the mayor for doing a good job of running one of council’s closed meetings.

In another thread, Karpuk and Hamer-Jackson exchange comments about which committees Karpuk wants to be on.

Was this worth $138.60? No, but FOI applications are always uncertain — you pays your money and takes your chances that something worthwhile will be released. I have no quarrel with some of the costs of FOI being offset with fees for staff time.

But mayors and councillors create no costs for the system when they provide information to the public. People shouldn’t have to pay the City for them to check their emails and text messages.

Mel Rothenburger is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.

by Mel Rothenburger

ROTHENBURGER: We shouldn’t have to pay for civic politicians to give us FOI records

Our Community