Greg Pemberton
RTKNS Web Admin

—

Received: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:31 AM

Dear Mr. Fardy,

Thank you for your email. Thank you also for your recent article in the Herald.

One of the most significant and important changes brought in with the Municipal Government Act was clarity around the practice of in camera decisions. I support the principles set out in the legislation and as Mayor and Warden adhered strictly to the principle of openness and to the belief in the limited application of the exceptions when an in camera meeting can be held. I am confident the media that covered Council in the last ten years support that view.

The cost of providing access to public records is part of the cost of doing the business of government. The fees in place presently are a disincentive to access. I cannot comment specifically on the fees that should be imposed but I do believe that the costs should be limited to a modest recovery of actual out of pocket costs like photocopying. With access to electronic storage it seems to me that even those costs would be unnecessary.

I am reminded of the recent controversy between AIMS and various school boards and the difficulty that they encountered in getting access to basic information critical to issues of accountability. In that case I recall it was not just the cost of access, which would have been in the thousands of dollars, but the fact that the school boards were not keeping information in a way that was easily accessible to the public. This suggests an institutional embrace of openness is required.

Regards,

Mike Smith