125 replies to this topic

[Holden West]

Focus' David Broadland was on CBC this morning discussing the City's successful attempt to have Focus' Freedom of Information requests regarding the Bridge replacement "section 43'd"--declared frivolous or repetitious.

[Holden West]

^Correction to my post above: The City has applied, but has not yet got the order. Broadland said on the radio he recieved an email from FOI but that just meant the wheels were put in motion. They also said Ross Crockford was also subject to this attempt at clamping down on the amount of FOI requests regarding the bridge.

Section 43 was written to discourage nutbars and axe-grinders from gumming up the system with loads of pointless requests. Broadland's response was that it's impossible to know what the document volume of the request will be beforehand--it could be one page, it could be 300 so a legitimate journalistic request shouldn't be Sec. 43'd.

[gumgum]

This is making top of the hour news on CBC.

[Hotel Mike]

I have some knowledge of FOI requests to governments. The "legitimate journalists" who do their homework ahead of time, request fairly specific documents to complete the investigation for their stories. The lazy journalists put in broad, nebulous requests hoping that somewhere in all the stuff they get, there is a story.

There is little question into which group Sam, oops, I mean David, falls.

[Bingo]

I have some knowledge of FOI requests to governments. The "legitimate journalists" who do their homework ahead of time, request fairly specific documents to complete the investigation for their stories. The lazy journalists put in broad, nebulous requests hoping that somewhere in all the stuff they get, there is a story.

There is little question into which group Sam, oops, I mean David, falls.

We don't seem to have very many people with investigative journalism qualities in Victoria that are willing to look after taxpayer dollars on these huge infrastructure projects.

Stopping FOI requests, having secret meetings behind closed doors on expenditures and design decisions, and we all loose.

[gumgum]

City spokesperson on CBC right now on this issue.

[gumgum]

-requests are exhausting our resources
-not denying but limiting request
-making application now because of the broad nature and volume of requests
Why not make info more available to public?
-making efforts to make info more available. IE: City website etc.
But JSB stuff not a a available
-we must review the info before we release it which what is what is taking up staff resources

[sam]

-requests are exhausting our resources
-not denying but limiting request
-making application now because of the broad nature and volume of requests
Why not make info more available to public?
-making efforts to make info more available. IE: City website etc.
But JSB stuff not a a available
-we must review the info before we release it which what is what is taking up staff resources

I believe gumgum is loosely quoting the City's Katie Josephson, who appeared on CBC Radio the day after I was on. Unfortunately, Josephson didn't get her facts straight before opening her mouth. I've written a piece here Victoria City Hall's dark secret | Focus Online that debunks everything she said and provides some insight into what's really behind the City's Section 43 application.

By the way, OIPC rushed this file to the top of the pile. A Notice of Hearing was sent out on September 27. The City has until October 10 to provide their submission. At that point we'll decide whether we even need to respond. The burden of proof is on the City to prove both part (a) and (b) of Section 43. We will provide access to all documents the process generates as soon as we get them. I will be uploading all of our frivolous and vexatious requests along with the "enormous" volume of documents they involved. For now, you can find the Notice of Hearing and the City's August 7 Section 43 application here: City of Victoria's FIPPA Section 43 action against Focus Magazine | Focus Online

For those of you who think the City of Victoria will "win" this fight, I am willing to pay you $10 for each $1 you donate to Cops for Cancer. But if Focus wins, you pay me $10 for every dollar you donate to Cops for Cancer. I'll donate every dollar I take from you to the Cops. Just sign your name below and the amount you are donating. You hearing me Hotel Mike? Before you do this, though, better read my lazy journalism at the address above.

With frivolous and vexatious regards (quoting Section 43),

David Broadland

[VicHockeyFan]

Interesting. I can't see the City being granted this application.

It's $100m project, largest-ever.

Borrowing was subject to a citizen-lead successful counter-petition with wide interest (as evidenced by the success of the petition).

Focus is a respected and widely-read publication, and so is a good candidate for receiving these type of documents.

As David says, a project of this size should expect to budget for some FOI requests, and therefore should be staffed as such, and if they were, these requests would not cause them any hardship or delays on the project.

And I'm not sure this is relevant, but since the borrowing referendum, the project, while no actual construction has taken place, has gone $17M over an earlier budget. I think there is public interest in seeing why that happened. All we were given was a list of five or so items and their associated cost escalations.

[jklymak]

I have to say that throwing up frivolous challenges to FOI requests to delay until after the contracts are voted on is pretty low tactics by the city. I don't know how anyone on council can hope for re-election if they vote for something that is forced through based on anything less than complete public transparency.

[Holden West]

^The fact that several Councillors expressed gratitute upon hearing for the first time the revelations uncovered by the FOI requests...well, that speaks volumes itself.

[aastra]

I don't know how anyone on council can hope for re-election if they vote for something that is forced through based on anything less than complete public transparency.

Methinks this bridge project could top $200 million and there still wouldn't be much in the way of political consequences. There have been no consequences so far and the whole thing has gone about as poorly as anyone could have ever imagined.

[VicHockeyFan]

Methinks this bridge project could top $200 million and there still wouldn't be much in the way of political consequences. There have been no consequences so far and the whole thing has gone about as poorly as anyone could have ever imagined.

I agree. Generally, people are uninformed. Remember, 60% of Victorians are renters, they see no tie-in between rents and the cost of a new bridge, a new sewage plant, the frequency of their garbage pick-up etc. And the media is doing a poor job, but then again, why concentrate so closely on an issue that only affects, financially, 8/33 residents in the area?

[VicHockeyFan]

Victoria News - Timing ironic for Victoria

Timing ironic for Victoria’s FOI request
By Roszan Holmen - Victoria News
Published: October 02, 2012 3:00 PM
Updated: October 02, 2012 3:28 PM

If the City of Victoria hoped to keep a low profile as it seeks to limit media access to information, it picked the wrong time of year.

Last week marked Right to Know Week in Canada, meaning cities across Canada held forums and summits to discuss the strength of freedom-of-information legislation at the federal, provincial and municipal level.

Smack in the middle of the week, news broke of Victoria’s application to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the city has requested permission to disregard some requests for information by a local magazine it believes is making repetitious and systemic requests that interfere with city operations.

[Mike K.]

So much for City Hall's "Open Government" agenda, hey? One minute council is frothing at the mouth about the virtues of open and accessible government, and the next Focus Magazine is in City Hall's crosshairs for submitting FOI requests for information that should be freely available in the first place.

[Adrian]

Hotel Mike got it right in his post on Thursday: "Legitimate journalists" do not behave like Sam, oops, I mean David!

In fact, let's be absolutely clear.

Focus is a highly partisan rag operated by a handful of aging and angry writers seeking revenge for having lost the referendum on the bridge.

Only the deranged could persuade themselves that Focus is an objective and balanced news publication.

Yes, Focus has a certain following, and it has had success in bullying several of the more malleable members of City Council into echoing its rants. However, by engaging in such unethical practices as rewarding councillors with favourable coverage in exchange for their support, Focus has forfeited any claim to journalistic integrity. (Witness Focus's flattering profiles (puff pieces) of various Council members that have appeared in its pages over the past year.)

For these reasons, at least among the adults in greater Victoria, Focus is decidedly not a respectable news magazine.

Adrian

[Bingo]

Focus is a highly partisan rag operated by a handful of aging and angry writers seeking revenge for having lost the referendum on the bridge.

Only the deranged could persuade themselves that Focus is an objective and balanced news publication.

What a lot of drivel! To rag on Focus for keeping the the bridge and other infrastructure projects like sewage treatment and transit in the headlines. Fantasies of endlessly deep tax payer pockets cannot continue without someone with the courage to keep the city staff and it's politicians accountable for the runaway costs on expensive projects.

Your comments lead one to believe that it is not the people at Focus and it's readers, that are the ones that are angry and deranged.

[Mike K.]

The legitimate journalists you speak of quietly fall in line and rehash press releases. Journalists like David Broadland who stick their necks out to report on issues that actually matter to tax payers are a dying breed due largely to the to the denigration that follows a reporter with any integrity and wherewithal to conduct an investigative report. Adrian proves my point perfectly: Focus readers are deranged; the publication is a rag; it bullies councillors to echo it's rants; favourable coverage in exchange for support; no journalistic integrity; no real adult reads Focus.


City Hall has enough press release jockies in this town to warrant at least one reporter nipping at its coat tails. And as already stated, if City Hall was serious about the open government agenda it championed earlier in this term we wouldn't need this dramatic showdown.

[Holden West]

Welcome, Adrian. I notice you are having great difficulty articulating any specific errors or mistruths in Focus' coverage of the bridge construction. If you were to take a deep breath and let us know about what they got wrong without calling them unpleasant names we'd be grateful as we always appreciate hearing alternate views.

[VicHockeyFan]

Your comments lead one to believe that it is not the people at Focus and it's readers, that are the ones that are angry and deranged.

Careful Bingo. Dispute and challenge the point of view of the new member, but don't call anyone names please, backhandedly or not.

Welcome to the forum Adrian!

I think if you pick up a physical copy of Focus and take a look at who the advertisers are, you have to consider it a very serious publication. Those advertisers are in there for a reason, to reach a certain demographic that can't be bothered with the TC for the two or three articles of interest each day.