Though concerns remain, councillors here have endorsed, in a 3-1 vote, a proposed mail handling procedure proposed by staff.
Last month, council deferred a decision on the proposal pending a legal opinion.
The town solicitor found no issue with the procedure, but stated it was particularly important to have proper records of received mail so that it could be tracked and responded to as necessary.
Until adoption of the resolution, the municipality had no written policy in place to outline the proper procedures to receive and handle incoming mail.
In her report to council, Trish Crawford wrote that Canada Post confirms mail handling policies are the responsibility of the organization and therefore a proper process is required to be in place “which would entitle the CAO or delegate to open, date stamp and distribute according to company policy.”
The overall intent of the policy is to streamline mail handling and ensure a clear understanding of the procedure.
The proposed policy states that mail delivered to an organization is considered property of that organization – even if it is addressed to an individual either by name or title – or whether marked as personal or confidential.
The policy states there is a fine distinction between personally addressed mail and personal mail – and “Both should be discouraged.”
The policy states that mail marked as “private” or “confidential” would be handed to the CAO unopened. The CAO would then open, date stamp and redirect as appropriate.
CAO Kathryn Ironmonger explained the policy came forward because while the town had a policy for mail handling – there was no written policy in place.
She said that as acting CAO she followed the policy the town had operated under with regard to opening mail identified as personal or confidential. Ironmonger said having a written policy lets councillors know how mail is being handled.
“To my knowledge, this is how mail has been handled since amalgamation,” said Ironmonger.
Councillor Barb Tocher said any organization she has worked in where there is a document retention policy, “once mail comes into the building, it needs to be opened and directed.”
In addition, Tocher said there needs to be a process of date stamping the mail.
“You need to know what is coming into the building.”
She added, “Every document which comes in here is subject to Freedom of Information requests, subject to public scrutiny, subject to all kinds of things. So we need to know what is coming into the building with regard to mail.”
Tocher said if mail is being directed as personal mail, it should be directed to the council member’s home address, which is listed on the town website.
“If it comes into this building, I have no objection to you opening a piece of mail addressed to me,” Tocher added.
She said one of her concerns is the mayor and councillors are part-time positions and sometimes the only time council members are in the building is for council meetings which are two weeks apart.
“Meanwhile the person who wrote the letter may have telephoned the office asking why nothing has been done,” said Tocher.
Councillor Josie Wintersinger agreed.
“If you are going to receive a private and confidential letter, maybe you should give the person your home phone number and address,” she said. “Once a piece of mail comes in here, it becomes the property of the corporation. Therefore it should be opened.”
Wintersinger added staff and council have taken oaths and “know when not to reveal information.” She said the person opening the mail simply opens the mail, date stamps it, records that it was received, and directs it as needed.
“I don’t see a way around it,” Wintersinger said.
Councillor Deb Callaghan agreed and added directing the responsibility to the CAO is appropriate.
“She handles a lot of confidential information and I don’t see how this is any different.”
Callaghan understood the issue had become a hot topic in the municipality, but added, “Anything that comes in to this building becomes a municipal record.”
Wintersinger then asked whether the town was receiving a lot of correspondence marked as personal or confidential. The answer was “no.”
Councillor John Brennan took the other side of the issue.
“I have no problem with regular mail coming in, but when somebody takes the time to mark something as personal or confidential, they have an expectation that the envelop will by opened by the person to whom it was addressed,” said Brennan.
He empathized with the argument that council members are part time, “But I think that if it comes in personal or confidential, then a staff member could pick up a phone and call me.”
Brennan had no issue with regular mail being opened.
Ironmonger said the other aspect of the issue is that the clerk is responsible for care and control of all documents that are the corporation’s. She used the example of what could happen if a document addressed to an individual is marked confidential and was not opened.
That person could then remove the document from the municipal office.
“How would we know what that piece of correspondence was?” Ironmonger asked.
While the document could have been personal, it also might have been town business, she said.
Without proper reporting, Ironmonger said there is the potential of documents leaving the building without any documentation as to whether it ever arrived or what was inside.
Brennan countered, “We’re all big people and we all took an oath not to do that kind of stuff.” He said there should be a measure of trust involved.
On the other hand, Callaghan said there the potential of an individual not realizing the importance of a document and that person either keeping or destroying the document.
“What happens if there is a Freedom of Information request on that item?” asked Callaghan.
Ironmonger said theoretically official mail coming in should be addressed to the position and not the person. She said there are so many pieces of legislation which impact how the municipality deals with correspondence.
“I just want council to clearly understand what is going on in the office – and that we are doing this in the manner that council wants us to do it,” Ironmonger said. She added “there are implications on both sides.”
Brennan agreed with most of the discussion, except for the opening of items marked personal or confidential.
Ironmonger said that recently there was a letter which did come into the office marked as personal/confidential. The document was taken out of the building and Ironmonger said she has no idea of the contents.
Wintersinger said, “So what you are saying is that letter was taken away, out of the building altogether.”
“Correct,” Ironmonger responded.
Brennan wondered what would happen if the person was asked whether the document should be part of the corporate record.
Wintersinger asked what would happen if a bribe was sent under the guise of private/confidential mail. The CAO could call and ask what was in the document and the person could say it was nothing.
Wintersinger asked to see the solicitor’s letter before casting a vote.
The resolution to support the mail handling procedure (which included opening personal/confidential mail) was adopted in a 3-1 vote. Wintersinger, Tocher, and Callaghan voted in favour, while Brennan was opposed. Mayor Lou Maieron was absent.
