In My Files

I came up with a A Councillor's Guide to Working With the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. It was distributed as an attachment to Councillors on December 1st 2009 Agenda.

I flicked the pages and spotted a Section :

Situations in which the IPC has determined that a councilor's records were not within the jurisdiction of the Act:

` when the records are the councillors personal records and are held by the
councillor in the capacity of an elected representative of a constituent
and relate to the councillor's mandate and function as an elected representative (Order M-846).

~ where the records are only held by the councillor.have never been integrated
into the City's files and the city has no authority to possess, regulate,
dispose of or otherwise deal with the records (M-846)

` where the councillor is acting on behalf of the constituents in furthering
the constituent's interest rather than the interest of the corporation or
council. and the city does not have custody or control of the records.
(Order M-813).

********8

So...there we have it. A councillor can have records pertaining to her mandate
which are not part of the corporation's interest.

I doubt the social media, blogs and comments to blogs were in the minds of
writers of the legislation when material subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act was ruled upon.

Still, I do believe the rulings give a sense of the breadth of an elected person's
mandate.

In the twilight zone of the past four years, responsibilities of staff and authority of elected representatives became ever murkier as years, months, weeks, and days rolled into and beyond electioneering, culminating in litigation, unbeknownst to elected members except for one, against three citizens by their own municipality.

The fog has still not lifted.