labradore

"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Clarity Act

The Telegram on Thursday ran the following "clarification" (hyperlinks added):
A page A1 story in The Telegram March 17, "Hands tied by Bill 29," suggested the government will not be able to make the findings of its Muskrat Falls project oversight committee public, since Bill 29 - the access to information law - prohibits the public release of reports prepared for cabinet. In fact, interim Premier Tom Marshall has since clarified that the access to information law allows the public release of reports prepared for cabinet, provided they have not been requested through the formal information request process first - a quirk of the access law. For further explanation, see the latest blog post from The Telegram's political reporter, James McLeod http://www.thetelegram.com/Blog-Article/b/25893/My-mistake.

Slight problem:

The "clarification" actually introduces errors of its own.

Take this hypothetical: "James" applies for document XYZ under the Access to Information Act. The ATI co-ordinator denies James access under the Act, because of s. 18 of the Act, which was enacted as part of the paranoid, secretive PC government's Bill 29 in 2012.

Does the fact that James has applied for document XYZ preclude government from releasing it, ex gratia, of their own meer motion, to Mary?

No, it does not.

Does the fact that James has applied for document XYZ preclude government from releasing it, ex gratia, of their own meer motion, to James himself?

No, it does not.

Good luck getting government to do so. But the fact that the document has been requested, does not inoculate it from being released, other than to that requester and pursuant to the request made under the Act.

Never mind that's what the government has spent the past two years wanting you to believe. Never mind that they apply the supposed "principles" of the Act, including the Bill 29 provisions, to things other than the Access to Information requests that the Act governs.

Subject to the Protection of Privacy portions of the Act, the government can release just about any record it chooses to.

It just doesn't so choose.

Labels: ,

Saturday, September 14, 2013

I've heard the Tories spinning, each to each

It’s been a while since this corner has had occasion to poke the gormless PC MHA for Bellevue, Calvin Peach. Mercifully, Mr. Peach is making up for his long absence, in droves.

There are many ways in which one could question, critique, and even ridicule his ill-considered attempt at spin on Thursday evening’s VOCM Nightline. Here’s the audio, courtesy of the ever-keen Dave Adey.



As an appetizer, consider this, where Mr. Peach says:
In Bill 29, when it was brought in in 2003, one of the clauses that was in there was that it had to be reviewed and amendments had to be made in five years. So there had to be some, y’know, meetings on this, and meetings were on it, and was brought forward with the changes in five years, because that was one of the recommendations that was in Bill 29.
Bill 29 was an Act to Amend the Access to Information Act, introduced and rammed through the legislature by the Dunderdale government in 2012 as the culmination of an Access-gutting process kicked into gear by Danny Williams in 2010.

It is not the Access to Information Act itself, which was enacted under the former Liberal government of Roger Grimes in 2002, replacing the former Freedom of Information Act, and, after a transitional period, was brought into effect by the Williams administration in 2005.

Bill 29 reflected, almost in its entirety, the January 2011 recommendations of John R. Cummings. Mr. Cummings was appointed as “Commissioner” to review the Act in early 2010. His review was to be informed by responses to a “discussion paper” which, happy coincidence, touched on themes such as giving public bodies more time to respond to requests, and making certain discretionary exceptions to access mandatory – subjects near and dear to the beating heart of Former Premier Dear Leader, who – once in power for a while – came to hate Access to Information with a passion that burned hotter than a thousand suns.

Even happier coincidence: Commissioner Cummings’ final report dealt with the issue of “frivolous requests”, which, in the opinion of Former Premier Dear Leader, seemed to include pretty well all of them.

The original, pre-Bill 29 Access to Information Act did indeed have the five-year review provision within it, referenced by Mr. Peach, as s. 74:
74. After the expiration of not more than 5 years after the coming into force of this Act or part of it and every 5 years thereafter, the minister responsible for this Act shall refer it to a committee for the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act or part of it.
Note that this section required that the review be referred to a committee. Whatever else Commissioner Cummings is, he is only one person.

Perhaps, had the s. 74 review been a real, honest, good-faith review of the Act by multiple people – a committee – instead of being a blatant and transparent manoeuvre on the part of Former Premier Dear Leader to rush into effect a wholesale gutting of the Access to Information Act, then Bill 29, the filibuster, and the consequential collapse of PC Party support, might never have happened.

The official Tory talking points, distributed last week, hold that Bill 29 was brought in by the nefarious Librils. Much as they have tried to blame the opposition parties for everything from the lack of disclosure of faulty cancer diagnostic tests to the AbitibiBowater expropriation fiasco, the PC Brain Trust – such as it is these days – are counting on successfully sowing confusion in the public mind between the original Access to Information Act itself, and the Dunderdale government's Bill 29.

Gormless PC backbenchers like Calvin Peach (or, for that matter, Tom Marshall) are, frankly, stupid enough to believe that.

The general public are not — as the PC caucus is about to learn with a vengeance.

If the PC party was looking for a way to drive its polling numbers from the merely-dismal 20s into the apocalyptic teens, they may just have found it.

CRA will be back in the field in six weeks.

Labels:

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Echoes of last summer

Via a remarkable Access to Information request, one of many similar emails received by the Premier's office in the wake of last year's Bill 29 fiasco:
A disclaimer that the author is a (formerly) loyal Progressive Conservative is a motif common to many of the emails.

The example shown above is on p. 17 of the 74-page, 7 MB PDF version of the ATI release, available for viewing and download here.

Labels:

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Show your work - 2013 update

[The main body of this post was originally published on September 14, 2012.]

On June 11th, the totally independent Information Commissioner issued this cautionary note about his views on Bill 29, the Williams-Dunderdale Memorial Freedom from Information Act:
Proposed amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPPA) are before the House of Assembly for debate. This is part of the democratic process of lawmaking, and those charged with making statute law are the elected representatives of the House of Assembly.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) is an independent Office of the House of Assembly and the Commissioner an appointed officer of the House of Assembly. Independence of the OIPC is paramount. It is its independent nature that ensures it can carry out its statutory function of information and privacy protection on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Given this role, it is not appropriate for the Commissioner to provide commentary on the process while the proposed ATIPPA amendments are before the House.

Commissioner Ed Ring comments further, “I will not be in a position to engage in discussion on the amendments until I am fully briefed and read-in. It will be necessary to take some time for in-house analysis and discussion to fully explore the long term effects and implications of the changes before speaking about them. The scope, extent and complexity of the amendments will dictate how long our consideration will take. The bottom line here, is that I am reluctant to make comments prematurely until the appropriate study and analytical work by my Office is completed.”
A week later, the Commissioner is reported to have told reporters at a conference of his peers:
"I still maintain, based on my review, that the legislation remains robust, and that people's right to access information will be protected," Ring told reporters Monday, after he spoke at a St. John's conference on public access to government information.

While he acknowledged that "it's going to be a work in progress" as Bill 29 is implemented, Ring said he was heartened to see that individuals can still appeal government rejections of their requests to the courts.

"There are opportunities for judicial review," he said.

"Will there be oversight? And so the answer is yes, there will be."
On June 21st, Ed Ring was re-appointed as Access to Information Commissioner for a further two-year term.

On June 27th, Bill 29, the Williams-Dunderdale Memorial Freedom from Information Act, received Royal Assent.

There is still no sign of that "appropriate study and analytical work" on Bill 29 over at the Commissioner's website.

* * *

2013 update: There is still no sign of the "appropriate study and analytical work" on Bill 29 over at the Commissioner's website. If the OIPC has carried out any such work, whether before or after enthusiastically endorsing Bill 29, it has not been published.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 18, 2013

Worlds colliding

Last year's Bill 29 filibuster had an interesting close encounter with the VOCM poll-goosing saga during debate on June 14th.

Susan Sullivan, Minister of Whatever Susan Sullivan Is Minister Of, cited a VOCM poll-related Access to Information request as being the sort of thing a body might find frivolous or vexatious:
MS SULLIVAN: Here is another one from a political party: I request under the Access to Information any correspondence, e-mails, directives, instructions, fax sheets, briefing notes, meeting minutes or other communications, either internal or external, regarding the VOCM Question of the Day. They did not give a date. I do not know which VOCM Question of the Day I am supposed to look up here, or VOCM’s Open Line show and or Back Talk and or any other talk shows, no date, just anyone of them. Again, is that frivolous, is that vexatious?
The issue of government resources being deployed to co-ordinate tinkering with VOCM's Question of the Day is long standing and well-established. (Intrepid blogger, Meeker, Bond Papers).
 
It is a valid matter of public concern, and good on whichever "political party" posed the ATI question.
 
And, given Sullivan's deliberately obfuscating rejoinder, to a simple and straightforward question, it is abundantly clear that it's a very, very, very touchy subject for the rapidly-foundering governing PC Party. 

Labels:

Friday, February 15, 2013

A peek behind the curtain

By way of a provincial access to information request, a demonstration that even in the brave new Bill 29 world, five bucks can still sometimes yield interesting results.

This is an internal summary of media — including a fascinating review of social media — in the hours that followed the November 30th Muskrat Falls loan guarantee announcement.

Hello, "Known Critics".


Labels: , ,

Friday, November 23, 2012

149 + 29 = 244

On Friday, the opposition Liberals released a heavily-redacted copy of a report entitled “Job Evaluation Systems Project”, obtained under the provincial Access to Information Act. (Big PDF file here.)

A typical page of the report looks like this one (selected at random):


The blacked-out bits are the redactions, passages that the responding department felt justified to exclude from the document release based on one or more provisions of the Act. Those provisions are cited in the little call-out boxes. In this case, all of the redactions were justified on the basis of s. 24(1)(c) through (e) of the Act.

In total, there were 227 instances where one or more paragraphs of one particular sub-section of the Act were cited to justify one or more redactions of material in the release. (Some citations applied to multiple blocks of blacked-out text.)

There are 149 pages in the document. Some of them consist of the single word, “Deloitte”.

That very popular sub-section is 24(1).

Sub-section 24(1) of the Act, as amended, was legislated in June as part of Bill 29.

There are a further 13 redactions which are justified on the basis of ss. 20(1) of the Act.

Sub-section 20(1) of the Act, as amended, was legislated as part of Bill 29.

There are another three redactions justified on the basis of s. 18 of the Act, as amended.

You guessed it: s. 18 was repealed and replaced with an entirely new section as part of Bill 29.

There do not seem to be any other sections of the Act cited as justification for any other redactions, and no section which has survived unamended from pre-Bill 29 days.

There is one redaction on p. 138 which is not attributed to any provision of the Act.

With that one possible exception, every single one of the 244+ redactions, in a 149-page document – including, in many cases, redactions to section tables of contents – is justified on the basis of one or more provisions of Bill 29.

Every.

Single.

One.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Brave new world

A fascinating tale of access to information in the post-Bill 29 universe is told in Wednesday's Tellytorial:
...[H]ere’s the results of a request The Telegram made for the financial rationale behind the budgetary decision to spend $765,000 on the remediation of abandoned mines, including money to clean up the former Gullbridge copper mine site near South Brook. A simple request, really — but under the new rules, nothing is simple.

The cover letter that came with the released information sounds hopeful enough: “… (W)e have severed information that is excepted from disclosure and have provided you with as much information as possible.” The information, however, is sadly lacking.

To put the finest point possible on it, “as much information as possible” is now virtually no information.

Between the broadened exemptions for cabinet secrets, policy advice and claims that the information requested would harm “the financial/economic interests of a public body,” the new, Dunderdale-repaired legislation has completely neutered any response.

It’s almost comedic: the first page of information is a one-line email that reads “Hope this makes sense.” Everything after that sentence in the email is blacked out.

...

To add insult to injury, the information on the mine mess was requested on May 11. It was finally sent to The Telegram on Nov. 9. Six months to release 55 blank pages. Stellar work, folks.
[Emphasis added.]

Fascinating.

Assume, at least for argument's sake, that the Telegram is rightfully aggrieved in attributing the lack of information in the release to Bill 29.

Bill 29 contains the following important transitional provision:

34. (1) Where, on the coming into force of this Act, a public body, the commissioner or a judge has begun to consider, review or decide on a matter but has not completed the consideration or review or made a decision on it, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act as it existed before the coming into force of this Act shall apply to that consideration, review or decision.
Bill 29 did not come into force until June 27th.

Bill 29 was not even introduced at first reading until June 11th.

So, if the Telegram filed its request on May 11th, and if any of the extensive redactions are justified by the respondent department on the basis of Bill 29 amendments to the Act, the necessary and obvious consequence is that the respondent department either delayed "consideration" of the request for six weeks, for no obviously good reason other than to punt it into the post-Bill 29 era, or it began "consideration" in a timely manner, sometime before June 27th, but, gleefully ignoring s. 34 of Bill 29, broke the law by treating it as a post-June 27th request.   Which is it?

Labels: ,

Monday, September 24, 2012

Your right to "No"

For your "Right to Know Week" entertainment, here's a totally true, long-running email exchange, verbatim other than with certain identifying details redacted to protect the... well, to protect them.


From: ME
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:46 PM
To: Elections NL
Subject: Digital maps

Do you have shapefiles available of provincial electoral districts and polling divisions?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:27 am
Subject: Digital maps

We do not have shapefiles available for our provincial electoral district or polling division maps. On our web page (www.elections.gov.nl.ca/elections/) we have the district maps as pdf's and our polling division map files will be available on our web page as pdf's for the general election.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards
[ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:57 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Subject: Re: Digital maps

When will such shapefiles be available? Most other provincial and the federal electoral agency make this data public.

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:05 pm
Subject: RE: Digital maps

Unfortunately our provincial office is not equipped with a geographic information system and will not have this software in the foreseeable future. Therefore all maps will be pdf's for the upcoming General Election.

Regards
[ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:54 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Subject: Re: RE: Digital maps

What were those maps generated with in the first place?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Date: April 20, 2011 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Digital maps

The maps were generated with a GIS software. We had this project contracted out as we do not have the software. Access to the contractor is not available.

Regards
[ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:04 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Digital maps

What about access to the data produced by the contractor?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]
Date: April 20, 2011 2:36 PM
Subject: RE: Digital maps

Access to the data is unavailable.

Regards
[ELECTIONS NL PERSON 1]

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:37 pm
Subject: Data

Can you please make available GIS shapes for electoral districts?

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Sent: July 13, 2011 9:03 PM
Subject:

Resending.

----- Original Message -----
From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:37 pm
Subject: Data

Can you please make available GIS shapes for electoral districts?

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Sent: July 21, 2011 12:06 PM
Subject:

Re-re-sending.

----- Original Message -----
From: ME
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:37 pm
Subject: Data

Can you please make available GIS shapes for electoral districts?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
To: ME
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:37 pm
Subject: Data

Not sure what you mean by GIS shapes, but we should have new district maps available on the web within the next month. Our, target date was, I believe Aug 22.

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Date: July 21, 2011 12:45 PM
Subject: Data

Not sure what you mean by GIS shapes, but we should have new district maps available on the web within the next month. Our, target date was, I believe Aug 22.

Shapefiles which can be used in GIS (mapping) software. Your map guys will know what this is; it would be good to have these files available for third-party public use, just as Elections Canada and many other provincial CEOs have done.

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
To: ME
Date: July 21, 2011 12:52 PM
Subject: Data

I believe the maps we have will be similar to the Elections Canada maps.

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Date: July 21, 2011 12:57 PM
Subject: Data

I believe the maps we have will be similar to the Elections Canada maps.

But will the district boundary shapefiles for GIS applications be made available to the public?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
To: ME
Date: July 21, 2011 1:21 PM
Subject: Data

Again, I’m not sure what you mean. The general public will be able to look at the maps if that is what you mean. I personally do not understand the technology but I believe you may be talking about access to computer code or something like that. If so, I would have to refer your question elsewhere as we do not actually have our own mapping people or mapping division such as Elections Canada has. Our maps were developed by another government entity, NL stats, I believe.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:15 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Subject: Re: RE: Data

Not sure what you mean by GIS shapes, but we should have new district maps available on the web within the next month. Our, target date was, I believe Aug 22.

Shapefiles which can be used in GIS (mapping) software. Your map guys will know what this is; it would be good to have these files available for third-party public use, just as Elections Canada and many other provincial CEOs have done.

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Date: August 15, 2011 3:12 PM

Not sure what you mean by GIS shapes, but we should have new district maps available on the web within the next month. Our, target date was, I believe Aug 22.

Have you enquired with your map people about making GIS files publicly available?

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 2]
Date: August 24, 2011 1:30 AM

Any update on these two fronts?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 3]
To: ME
Date: August 25, 2011 10:24 AM

Your e-mail was forward along to me for a response.


As for the maps, I am not sure what type of maps you are referring to. We have maps for each of the districts which are currently on our website. We also anticipate posting the map for each of the individual polls in the district over the next couple of weeks. However, this may take a bit of time as there are approximately 1500 maps to post.

You can give me a call if you have any questions.

- - -

From: ME
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 3]
Date: August 25, 2011 10:28 AM

As for the maps, I am not sure what type of maps you are referring to.

Shapefiles. Maps which third parties can import into GIS software and USE, not just look at. Are these types of files going to be made public, as many other provincial electoral offices (and municipal, and Elections Canada) have done?

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:39 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL]
Subject: Map GIS files

Are GIS (such as Shapefile or KML) files of district and polling division maps, files which would have been used to generate the PDF versions on your site, available for download?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: FW: Map GIS files
Sent: March 13, 2012 7:30 AM

I do have shapefiles and have also created a KLM file of the electoral boundaries. I'm in the process of working with the GNL IT office to see if I can somehow incorporate them on our website. I also am planning to place those files (likely in KLM format) online for download sometime in the near future. Check back to the website or follow us on Twitter (@NLElections) for updates. Thanks.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:23 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: RE: Map GIS files

Shapefiles would be ideal! I'm actually playing around with retro-projecting past results on a municipality level into current municipal boundaries, but for the latest election, shapefiles of current districts and PDs would be ideal. A few of the other provincial CEOs do the same already, noteably BC and QC.

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: FW: Map GIS files
Sent: April 30, 2012 10:03 AM

Attached are the shapefiles for which you are looking. The original author at the Department of Environment and Conservation has informed me that they can be released to the public if requested.

Any questions, please contact me again.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:04 AM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: Re: Map GIS files

Thanks again for the ED boundary shapefiles.

Is there a similar release available for the sub-district polling divisions?

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: FW: Map GIS files
Sent: May 16, 2012 7:50 AM

I asked the same thing when I initially received the file but unfortunately the author only created the singular provincial file. I think if you, or someone you know, were adept enough at working with these types of files you could parse out the 48 districts. I might try that at some later point once I get a chance to look at it.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:51 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: Re: Map GIS files

The poll maps were prepared by NL Stats over in the Department of Finance. They must have the GIS data.

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: FW: Map GIS files
Sent: May 17, 2012 7:30 AM

The GIS data is embedded in the file I sent. If you had the proper software/knowledge you could parse it out.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:32 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: Re: Map GIS files

The data for district boundaries, yes. Not the polling divisions, though. And having recently mapped provincial election results in four other provinces, at a poll-by-poll level, I have a rough idea what I'm looking for and doing.

I'll ask the others, then.

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: FW: Map GIS files
Sent: May 17, 2012 7:33 AM

You may contact the author of the file directly if you're looking for further information. His contact info is:

[ENV/CONS PERSON 5]

- - -

From: ME
Sent: May 17, 2012 11:02 AM
To: [ENV/CONS PERSON 5]
Subject: Re: Map GIS files

Where might a body obtain a copy of the GIS files of provincial electoral polling divisions (not districts)?

"Elections NL" is the wrong answer, apparently.

- - -

From: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]
Subject: FW: Map GIS files
Sent: May 17, 2012 11:03 AM

Sorry I may have misunderstood. Polling divisions are not GIS-based but instead are defined by physical boundaries - most notably streets.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: May 17, 2012 12:27 PM
To: [ELECTIONS NL PERSON 4]

Yes, but those polling division boundaries HAVE been mapped.

Using GIS.

By someone.

- - -

From: [ENV/CONS PERSON 5]
To: ME
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:33 PM

My understanding was that Elections NL has been working on creating a file for all of their polling divisions. I thought that this work was completed by contract. If they are telling you that it is not available, then I do not know of anyone else who would go to the trouble of creating that data set.

- - -

From: ME
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:39 PM
To: [ENV/CONS PERSON 5]
Subject: Re: NL provincial polling division GIS data

They told me to ask you guys.

I think the technical term is "runaround".

Oh well.

- - -

From: [ENV/CONS PERSON 5]
To: ME
Sent: May 23, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: NL provincial polling division GIS data

They contracted the work out to the NL statistics agency to create that data set for them. The gentlemans name who did the work for them was [FINANCE PERSON 6]

- - -

From: ME
Sent: May 31, 2012 9:55 PM
To: [FINANCE PERSON 6]
Subject: NL provincial polling divisions

How might a body get the shapefiles (or similar such data sets) of the provincial electoral polling divisions?

- - -

From: [FINANCE PERSON 6]
To: ME
Sent: June 1, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: NL provincial polling divisions

Maps of the current Provincial polling division boundaries are available at the website of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer at http://www.elections.gov.nl.ca/elections/Voters/districtmaps.html

Poll boundaries change as conditions warrant. Frequent changes due to ongoing maintenance preclude us from distributing alternate versions of these source files.

- - -

From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 6]
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 12:37:22 PM
Subject: RE: NL provincial polling divisions

Those are in PDF format.

I am looking for the GIS files.

I am not worried about "frequent changes" one bit.

- - -

[June 4, 2012: Filed ATI request with Finance for DIGITAL copies of DIGITAL polling division maps]

- - -

[June 11, 2012: First reading of Bill 29]

- - -

[June 14, 2012: Third reading of Bill 29]

- - -


From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 7]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:13:51 PM
Subject: Access to Information request

Have you received my request of June 4th?

- - -

From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 8]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:09:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Access to Information request

See below:

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 7]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:13:51 PM
Subject: Access to Information request

Have you received my request of June 4th?

- - -

From: [FINANCE PERSON 8]
To: ME
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:43:52 PM
Subject: RE: Access to Information request

I am confirming that we have received your request.

- - -

[June 27, 2012: Bill 29 receives Royal Assent]

- - -

From: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
To: ME
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:23:49 PM
Subject: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

Please see attached a letter acknowledging receipt of your ATIPP Request. A paper copy will be mailed this week.

- - -

From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:42:06 PM
Subject: Re: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

Will my requests be processed under the ATI act as it subsisted before yesterday, or after?

- - -

From: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
To: ME
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:23:00 AM
Subject: RE: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

Your requests will be processed under the ATIPP Act as it subsisted after June 27, 2012.

---

From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:27:58 AM
Subject: Re: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

Why?

---

From: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
To: ME
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:45:44 PM
Subject: RE: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

It will be processed this way because subsection 34(2) of Bill 29 states:

"Where, before the coming into force of this Act, an application had been made to a head of a public body, the commissioner or a judge but the head of the public body, the commissioner or judge had not yet begun to consider, review or decide upon the matter, the application shall be considered, reviewed or decided upon in accordance with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act as amended by this Act."

---

From: ME
To: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:46:38 PM
Subject: Re: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

The request was received, and acknowledged to have been received, well before Bill 29 received Royal Assent.

---

From: [FINANCE PERSON 9]
To: ME
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:59:05 PM
Subject: RE: Your New ATIPP Request (JUS/17/2012)

As it states below the new amendments apply to ATIPP Requests that were received prior to Royal Assent (June 27, 2012) if the head of a public body "had not yet begun to consider, review or decide upon the matter, the application shall be considered, reviewed or decided upon in accordance with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act as amended by this Act."

---

July 12, 2012

Excerpt from the cover letter accompanying a data disk containing the long-sought Shapefiles:

Please note that any future request for Shapefiles should be directed to Elections Newfoundland and Labrador as Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency must seek approval before being able to release responsive records pertaining to Shapefiles from Elections Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sincerely,
[FINANCE PERSON 7]

Labels: ,