It will cost us $1,000 to learn more about how city decided to withhold name of basketball club in outbreak
Six months after the city said it was launching a time sensitive" privacy review following a freedom-of-information controversy involving The Spectator, nothing's happened. At least, not publicly.
In April, the city announced it was hiring an external consultant to review a decision by the city clerk to release to The Spectator the name of a previously unidentified basketball club. The newspaper had filed a freedom-of-information (FOI) request asking for the team's name after public health refused to identify it during an October 2020 outbreak, making it an outlier since other outbreak settings were named.
But in April, the city's plan for a speedy external review came to a halt when city councillors questioned why it couldn't be done in-house.
A senior city staffer said at the time that an external review was preferred since staff were busy and the review was time sensitive." Councillors rejected that argument and ordered staff to explore the possibility of an internal review - and establish the scope of it - then report back. That report was expected in early June.
Six months later, it's still not done.
Asked this week for an update, Matthew Grant, the city's director of communications, said the report's been delayed partly due to the onboarding" of the city's new solicitor, who is assisting on the file."
Meanwhile, a hefty price tag is standing in the way of the public's ability to know more about the secrecy surrounding the identification of the basketball team - revealed to be Lincoln Prep, an elite basketball academy. The price tag is attached to the records in the city's possession - specifically, staff correspondence about the privacy review and basketball team secrecy - requested by The Spec via another FOI filed in April.
The city's quote to access said records is $1,000.
The newspaper asked the city to lower the fee, arguing it's in the public's interest to release the information as it pertains to their health and safety - secrecy surrounding its handling of a high-profile outbreak amid a pandemic. FOI legislation allows for public bodies to lower fees if they deem it fair and equitable" to do so, particularly if the records pertain to public health and safety.
On Thursday, the city formally denied The Spec's fee-waiver request.
I find that your arguments have not persuaded me that a fee waiver is justified and would benefit public health and safety," said the city's manager of corporate records, Lisa Barroso.
The city's $1,000 fee estimate includes the search and preparation of responsive records of six city divisions and over 17 city staff, and was already reduced by over $600," Barroso wrote.
Specifically, The Spec asked for two weeks' worth of internal communications including emails and texts generated as a result of, or making mention of: the initial basketball team FOI, The Spec's reporting on the matter, The Spec's media requests and the privacy review. The request, Barroso confirmed, generated 2,200 records.
The basketball outbreak occurred at the beginning of the second wave of the pandemic. It involved six patrons" and came in the immediate wake of a widespread outbreak at Hamilton's SpinCo, which ultimately infected more than 80 people.
Why does it matter that the city doesn't think it's in the public's interest to release these documents for free?
If you are charging exorbitant fees, then in essence, it's a de facto denial," said David McKie, a professor with the University of British Columbia's school of journalism and an expert in access to information.
We are moving into an era where data or information should be open by default, where governments are equating open data with open government, with democracy. And if we are forcing people to pay for this kind of information ... then that sends mixed signals. Then you're really not open," McKie said.
McKie makes clear: no one is going to cry the blues" about a newspaper being forced to open its wallet, but it's more the principle of the matter - costs put up barriers to accessing information that should be public.
He adds that greater transparency can bolster the public's trust in government. Refusal to release information can do the opposite. Trust is a valuable commodity, especially during a pandemic when public bodies are making snap decisions that affect people's lives and livelihoods, he said.
Asked for comment on its position on high costs for FOIs access in general, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario's office said the IPC is a strong supporter of open government.
To promote efficiency and keep access to information fees low, we encourage public institutions to develop policies to enable proactive disclosure, and to post more government-held information online unless there are legitimate legal, privacy, security, or confidentiality reasons not to do so," the office said. We also encourage organizations to maintain good record and information management policies and practices, to help ensure an efficient search."
Katrina Clarke is a Hamilton-based reporter at The Spectator. Reach her via email: katrinaclarke@thespec.com