McKillop Council discusses OIPC Report

×

Expand

RM MCKillop - Council Meeting Jan 25 2022

January 25, 2022

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) released a two-part report on January 13. The Commissioner makes recommendations to the RM on what to withhold and release on four different areas their office reviewed. READ Here.

The review was requested in March of 2021 by this reporter after the RM refused to release records for: (1) Ethics and conflict of interest complaints submitted against councilors since January 2018; (2) Applications submitted to the RM from Glamping/Northshore Development since January 2020; (3) Quotes received for live streaming; and (4) A document which Council discussed when deciding to hire an RM solicitor.

When the OIPC Review Report came up for discussion in the regular Jan 25th meeting, Reeve Schmidt noted that the CAO had to be designated the coordinator. CAO Brandi Morissette asked what if she didn’t want to be the coordinator. Reeve Schmidt said the designation would be based on the Council’s motion. The CAO said the process is complicated and that mistakes can be made.

“In these reports they are asking us to do specific things and we have to communicate our decisions based on their recommendations to them and to the applicant within 30 days.” Morissette said.

The CAO noted, “the recommendations are very clear as to what they would like us to do. At this particular time, I don’t see any reason not to do it.” The CAO said that her only concern was the costs involved in sending out the information. The Reeve responded that they will be responding with information on the fees, “and there’s definitely going to be the fees to do it.”

Reeve Bob Schmidt informed the Council they don’t have to follow the OIPC recommendations.

“For Council’s sake, recommendations by the privacy commissioner are not…how do you say it…are not binding on Council. So, we make the decision on these particular items. And you can review the privacy commissioner’s annual report, and you can find out all the local authorities that have been cited for not following the recommendations.” Reeve Schmidt gave examples of the Saskatoon and Regina Police Service, and Saskatoon and Regina City Councils plus one RM not following the privacy commissioner’s recommendations.

Reeve Schmidt gave an example of the RM of McKillop in 2018 being cited for not following OIPC recommendations. Schmidt asked Councillor Howard Arndt, who was on Council at the time as the Reeve, what the fall-out was from not following the recommendations. Arndt said they did follow the recommendations but said another one from the CBC was handled after he left Council.

Arndt said, “Just so that you know. If we choose not to follow the recommendations that doesn’t stop the process. There are other steps that the person that has filed this can do or a process they can go through.”

Council made a motion for the Reeve and CAO to write a response and bring it before Council at the next meeting.

In October 2021, this reporter interviewed the Privacy Commissioner, Ron Kruziniski. I asked him about public bodies under his jurisdiction that don’t comply with his recommendations. He said when that happens, the person who has asked for the review can take that body to court. There are risks with it, though. He said that hiring a lawyer to go through the process can cost 15-20k, which can take months, and there is also the added risk that if a person loses, the judge could apply the other party’s court costs on top of it.

Because of this, Kruziniski said he had asked the Government of Saskatchewan for the authority to make orders, which other commissioners in Canada have the power to do. Kruziniski said that even with the authority to make orders, a public body such as a rural municipality would still be able to appeal to the court.

“Various commissioners across the country now do have order making power and it’s hoped that having that power would sort of speed up the system and prevent citizens from having to spend 15 or 20 thousand dollars to get their order.” Kruziniski said.

Kruziniski said that the current legislation, the Freedom of Information Act and the Local Authority’s Freedom of Information Act, is outdated and needs revisions. Any changes to the Act, including the authority to make orders, would need to come in the form of an amendment to the Act undertaken by the government.

The RM has until February 17 to respond to the OIPC’s recommendations. They will be bringing the response for council approval to the next council meeting.

Jennifer Argue, Local Journalism Initiative reporter

Note: These reports are abridged for content