By Kate on May 2, 2016 12:30 AM | 2 Comments
Since last summer, Councilman Stuart Taylor has been trying to review an existing agreement between the town and an engineering firm. Council members are often called upon to make financial decisions for the town, so in the interest of due diligence Taylor asked to see the agreement.
Having spent the better part of a year trying to get access to the information, and having access denied, Taylor finally sent a letter to a few newspapers explaining the whole story. And he used the S-word (secrecy). Taylor never called for the information to be public. As a councillor, he simply wanted to read the agreement.
Just helping shine sunlight on a local story. Things do sound rather odd.Since last summer, Councilman Stuart Taylor has been trying to review an existing agreement between the town and an engineering firm. Council members are often called upon to make financial decisions for the town, so in the interest of due diligence Taylor asked to see the agreement.
Having spent the better part of a year trying to get access to the information, and having access denied, Taylor finally sent a letter to a few newspapers explaining the whole story. And he used the S-word (secrecy). Taylor never called for the information to be public. As a councillor, he simply wanted to read the agreement.
INFORMATION ACCESS: HAS ANYONE SEEN WHAT’S GOING ON IN HINTON?
Has anyone seen what’s going on in Hinton? Since last summer, Councilman Stuart Taylor has been trying to review an existing agreement between the town and an engineering firm. Council members are often called upon to make financial decisions for the town, so in the interest of due diligence Taylor asked to see the agreement.
Having spent the better part of a year trying to get access to the information, and having access denied, Taylor finally sent a letter to a few newspapers explaining the whole story. And he used the S-word (secrecy). Taylor never called for the information to be public. As a councillor, he simply wanted to read the agreement.
Taylor contacted the town manager to ask when he could drop by to read the agreement. The town manager said he wouldn’t let Taylor see the agreement. In response, at a standing committee meeting, Taylor introduced a motion asking Hinton’s town council to instruct administration to provide council members with an opportunity to read the document.
Hinton has a bylaw called 1060. According to Section 27, if the town manager tells an elected council member that he can’t have information about something, the councillor has an option to go to Council with a request for their collective permission to see the information, which is exactly what Taylor did. He followed the bylaw.
Taylor’s actual motion at the standing committee meeting was for Council to “direct administration to provide councillors with an opportunity to review the signed agreement…” When it came time for a decision about the motion, the councillors in attendance wouldn’t allow the agreement to be disclosed. One hand was raised to support the motion (Taylor). Five were against.
Stonewalled by his fellow councillors, Taylor decided to go to the town office and file a formal FOIP request. The town’s designated FOIP staff person responded by giving Taylor (contrary to the standing committee decision under Section 27) a very heavily censored version of the agreement. Financial details were omitted.
Believing that any elected council member in any Alberta community should have access to information about the town’s financial affairs, Taylor approached the FOIP office in Edmonton, asking for a review of the town’s refusal to disclose. After an investigation, a Senior FOIP Official ruled that the town should disclose the full agreement, including the financial information.
Shortly thereafter, the engineering firm appealed the decision (asked for a review). From the news stories, it’s not 100% clear whether the company is trying to stop Taylor from getting the information, or trying to stop the information from getting into the general public—but the latter is certainly more likely.
The town still refuses to give Taylor the information. It was reported in a Hinton Voice story on Facebook, and alluded to in a separate news story, that the town manager says the issue of disclosure is now out of the town’s hands because of the pending review process. Yet Taylor insists that the FOIP manager in Edmonton who investigated his complaint, said there is nothing in the FOIP Act that stops the town from releasing the agreement to elected members of council, so long as it’s done in camera (meaning in private), which is what Taylor had been asking for all along, but that council refused to allow.
In Hinton, people are angry. Some councillors are lashing out at Taylor—evaluating the possibility of a lawsuit. Taylor has been accused of misrepresentation. Council members, rather than dealing with bylaw Section 27’s flaws and their own decision to refuse Taylor access to information, are trying to lynch the guy. They’ve got a lawyer sifting through Taylor’s public statements to see if they can find something actionable. There’s even a claim that Taylor’s request for information disclosure wasn’t brought before council.
The video of Hinton’s council members at the standing committee meeting, collectively refusing Taylor’s request and defeating his disclosure motion is actually posted online. It's the September 8th meeting at: http://www.hinton.ca/MediaCenter.as...
The actual motion Taylor advanced (starting at about 1.13 of the video) said:
“THAT COUNCIL DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE COUNCILLORS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE SIGNED AGREEMENT OF CONTRACT WITH [ENGINEERING COMPANY NAME] AND SUPPORTING ADDENDUMS.”
The utter irony of all this is that as soon as Taylor went public, Hinton’s council could have immediately acknowledged its bad decision. They could have admitted that its Section 27 bylaw doesn’t work. They could have apologized for withholding information from a council member. They could have shown themselves as individuals who will dig in and fight for the rights of elected council members. Instead, they’ve circled the wagons and now want to see if they can skin the only man among them who has the courage to stand alone.
Danny Hozack, Lloydminster
Hozack is past chairman of Alberta Beef Producers and for many years has maintained a particularly keen interest in the FOIP issue and government transparency.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/dann...een-whats-going-on-in-hinton/1612582045727893
