Chances are that recent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests in Erin will be costly – both to the town and to the unidentified individual making the requests.
On Nov. 5, clerk Dina Lundy presented council members with a synopsis of the recent FOI requests.
While the name of the person making the request remained confidential, prior to the discussion Mayor Lou Maieron stepped away, citing a pecuniary interest.
Lundy stated councillors had asked her to keep them apprised of any Freedom of Information requests received. She said she received three requests on Oct. 29 (the same day as a special closed council meeting was held by the town).
“They are quite voluminous requests, which will go back years (in terms of research),” said Lundy.
“The amount of documents to be examined will be in the hundreds, or more.”
Lundy explained she received three requests for information under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. The requests include:
– “all materials, emails, notes, messages, phone call records, including any and all methods of correspondence between any Town of Erin staff person, retained consultant, legal firm or lawyer with respect to woodlot, Block 56 or 57 and the OMB, Gulia et al, Erin Brook Subdivision, Charleston Homes, John and Cheryl Leenders, Birdseye Farm, and any respective principle thereof and any government agency, the CVC, MOE, MNR, DFO, or other, etc.;”
– “all materials, information, emails, notes, messages, letters, record of phone calls etc. (ie. any method of communication, correspondence) between any town of Erin staff member in particular, the CAO, acting CAO or clerk Kathryn Ironmonger and John Craig, John Craig Integrity Commissioner, John Craig Consulting, or any variation of same;” and
– “a full accounting of all expenses for all town of Erin councillors and the mayor from start of this council term (approximately Dec. 2010) to date. Accounting to include all receipts, credit card invoices, cash payments etc. with a breakdown of conference costs, meals, accommodation costs, travel and other associated costs.”
Lundy stated that in the past, the municipality had not really charged fees, because the requests were relatively minimal in terms of workload.
“These requests will probably take months to process. And the amount of staff time required will interfere with our operations,” she said.
Lundy noted there is a provision within the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act which allows for an extension of the time to reply to a request.
“I am going to inform the requester of the extension.”
She also stated that fees will be charged in accordance with the relevant legislation due to the extensive work required in locating, processing, and copying the records relevant to the requests.
“I will most likely need to get a researcher in to assist with the documents – finding them, searching them, and then compiling what information can and cannot be released,” said Lundy, who in October was appointed as head of the municipality for the purpose of administering the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Council received the report and authorized the clerk to engage the services of a researcher to gather the information.
Council also supported charging fees to the requestor due to the extensive work required to locate, process and copy the relevant records.
Councillor Deb Callaghan asked for clarification as to how much could be billed to the requestor.
Lundy said there are specific costs which can be billed – such as staff time for researching, copying and/or preparing the documents for disclosure.
Callaghan asked if there was an estimate for the overall cost.
Lundy said that she had not yet gone through the records, which she estimated to be in the hundreds, “this could take hundreds of hours and at $30 per hour, the costs could be significant.”
She added the municipality would require 50 per cent of the cost up front and 50 per cent of the costs before any records are released.
When councillor Josie Wintersinger asked how far back the records go, Lundy explained, “one of these requests goes back to 1997 (before amalgamation).”
Wintersinger said that before a decision is made, council would need costing estimates.
CAO Kathryn Ironmonger said that any costs associated with the requests would be billed to the applicant.
Lundy clarified, “… any possible costs we can charge back, we will.”
However, she explained, “processing the requests is not an option – I must process them – unless the requests are withdrawn.”
Brennan agreed, “There will be a huge amount of records to be examined. Then, as well, because it talks about matters currently under litigation, we will need legal direction as to which documents would need to be redacted and not released.”
Brennan added, “I think it is important the petitioner understands up front that the fees to be charged are for the examination and processing of these records – not for what the final product will be.”
He said it is possible the individual could pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars depending on the work involved, and at the end of the process – get nothing.
“In fairness, the petitioner needs to understand that up front,” said Brennan.
As to the request regarding the integrity commissioner, “I would assume anything involved in his investigation – is confidential.”
Brennan was uncertain whether the town even had access to the detailed information – as compared to having received a final report – which is a public document.
As to council expenses, Brennan didn’t think it would be difficult to get dollar figures which are published every year.
“The difficulty is the request to include receipts, credit card invoices, cash payments, and breakdowns of convention costs including meals, travel and associated costs,” Brennan said.
“We definitely will need an outside person to help us with this research and I think there will be legal costs involved.”
Brennan again said it needs to be made clear that the applicant may get next to nothing as a result of the request – or information which is publicly available anyhow.
Wintersinger said that with the request regarding the woodlot, there are a number of parties involved other than the municipality.
Lundy said Erin is only responsible for records in the care and control of the municipality.
Ironmonger added there may still be instances where third party notice will be required.
She said even with the municipality being able to charge back a significant amount to the requestor, “there may be costs to the municipality which may not be recoverable.”
Brennan said his review indicated there was nothing stating the town would be able to recover any costs for legal advice.
“So this could come out to quite a substantial bill,” Wintersinger said.
In later discussion, Lundy stated the name of the requestor was confidential.
In a later telephone interview with the Wellington Advertiser, Maieron added “It would be inappropriate as mayor to make the identity of the person in an FOI process known. Privacy is paramount in such matters.”
