The provincial Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be asked to weigh in on the issue of a redacted council meeting video.
A motion to refer the issue of the March 14, 2016 standing committee of the whole video redaction to the provincial commissioner for an opinion on administration’s decision to cut parts out of Steve Stone’s presentation for privacy reasons.
The motion to refer the video to the commissioner passed in a 4-3 vote, with Coun. Cam MacKay, Coun. Sheena Hughes, Coun. Bob Russell and Coun. Wes Brodhead voting in favour of the referral.
At issue is the March 14 video. Stone presented to the committee, which is made up of all council members and broadcast live, the findings of a group of residents who had done research and filed freedom of information requests into the hiring of now-former councillor Gilles Prefontaine for the chief community development officer position.
During Stone’s presentation he included some examples, without names, of other people who were potentially candidates for the position.
The names of these potential candidates were released accidentally as part of freedom of information requests and Stone and other residents were able to conduct research on those people’s qualifications.
That part of his presentation was redacted in the video that was archived online.
MacKay was the one who made the motion, which was debated on Tuesday after some revision and delays from previous meetings. Previous versions of his motion had been to post the video in an un-redacted format.
“We shouldn’t be censoring large blocks of information,” he said, adding he’s had a transcript of the meeting reviewed and in his opinion he feels a much smaller portion should be redacted, if any.
A staff report noted that the redaction was to try and mitigate any further dissemination of people’s personal information.
Coun. Tim Osborne was supportive of keeping the redaction in place, noting he was able to positively identify people referred to in Stone’s presentation even without their names based on the information given.
“I don’t think the city should be doubling down on the inadvertent disclosure,” Osborne said.
Osborne and Mayor Nolan Crouse noted that the city employs staff who are trained on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
“I don’t think the politicians should be entering the FOIP world,” said Crouse.
MacKay and Hughes argued that the privacy commissioner could tell them if staff had been correct to do the redaction.
Interim city manager Chris Jardine said that administration had consulted informally with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Coun. Cathy Heron was against the motion, and noted that Jardine was supportive of staff’s recommendation and that council doesn’t have information on the entire hiring process or the interviews that resulted in the selection of Prefontaine over other candidates.
Brodhead said during debate he hadn’t decided which way to vote yet, adding he saw valid points on both sides.
He said he’s sure that the privacy commissioner’s office will find city staff behaved appropriately, but said council needs to “get past this.”
Russell said he’d stick specifically to the issue of the motion and that he was supportive of the idea.
