Skakun's FOI Request Falls Flat

Monday, October 19, 2009 08:56 PM

Prince George, B.C.- City Councilor Brian Skakun made little ground in his effort to have the fees waived, or an exception made in his Freedom of Information request.

Skakun has requested all the documents pertaining to the development of the Chances Gaming Centre and the underground parkade.

In a motion to Council he requested that :

The City of Prince George pays for fees billed under the FOI act to any Prince George City Councillor when they make an FOI request to the City of Prince George and
that the City of Prince George develops a policy to give Prince George City Councillors information they request regarding any City, Regional or Provincial matters.

Skakun says he has been presented with an estimated bill of $531.00 for the 1784 pages of information he has requested. He says he needs the information to “perform my job as a responsible elected official” He goes on to say it is not “fair and just that I have to compel the City of Prince George through a Provincial Statute to produce documents I have requested, and to pay for that information.”

Corporate Officer Walter Babicz says there is no policy in place to deny anyone information.

"The real story here" says Councillor Skakun " is why do staff have access to the information, and Council, the decision making body does not?" He believes the information he has been seeking was part of his "due diligence" as he was looking for details on the finances involved in the development of the $3 million dollar parkade which he says is a matter that is in the public interest.

Councillor Skakun did not issue a request through Council for this information, nor did he request that the fees be waived on the grounds the information was in the public's interest.

Councillor Dave Wilbur says Skakun should not be left carrying the bag for failing to follow process when what he should have done was make a request at the Council level and have Council request the information.

Councilor Don Bassermann supports the policies that are in place "This is a good piece of work , we need to work with it, and we need to better understand how to access information we need to do the work we need to do."

Mayor Dan Rogers argues the request for a policy is out of order as it flies in the face of provincial law. "I will not allow this Council to put forth an item for debate whichis contrary toan existing law." That was immediately challenged by Councillor Skakun.

In his counter comment to the Mayor's ruling, Councilor Skakun says the ruling is not correct because "I was hoping to ammend the motion. We have always been fair to people to make their presentations, and we should allow that same lattitude to City Councillors."

Council then was asked to vote on whether or not the Mayor's ruling should be upheld, and the vote was 6-1 with Councilor Skakun voting against and the Mayor not participating in the vote.

Skakun’s motion was preceded with a report on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act particularly as it pertains to access to information by a member of Council. The City’s interpretation is that if the information requested is not necessary for a Councillor to perform his/her duties, (i.e. make a decision on a matter), then the same rules for access apply to a Councillor as would the general public.

Councilor Skakun will now officially make a request that his specific fees be waived.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2009 08:56 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Palopu on October 19 2009 9:21 PM

In this day and age $500.00 is not a lot of moeny. Maybe Skakun should pay it out of his pocket, get the information he is looking for, and then at a later date tray and get his $500.00 back.

It would seem that getting the information is the main thrust of his argument, so he could very easily go around Council.

Posted by: Bridget on October 20 2009 12:11 AM

$500 is probably a lot of money to Skakun right now given his current legal battle.

Posted by: billposer on October 20 2009 12:30 AM

What strikes me as bizarre here is the city's position that a councillor's official duties consist only of making decisions. Surely a councillor's official duties include investigating matters of concern to his or her constituents and making proposals for action.

Posted by: gus on October 20 2009 1:15 AM

"The real story here" says Councillor Skakun " is why do staff have access to the information, and Council, the decision making body does not?"

--------------------

Why, when the matter came up in Council, did he simply not ask for that information in the first place? I cannot see that he would have been denied. If he had, then he could lay a complaint to the Minister responsible.

I think it is time that BC put a Municipal Board in place which could make rulings in such cases that would have to be followed by Municipalities.

Posted by: Eagleone on October 20 2009 8:39 AM

Decision makers should have accsss to information to make those decision, and the tax payer should be paying for those costs when they relate to decisions being made on behalf of the tax payer.

How can we have democracy if the decision makers can not be guided by a consensus of properly qualified elected individuals that are fully informed of the issues?

Something stinks IMO.

Posted by: B.P.P. on October 20 2009 10:27 AM

He was on council when it approved the parking lot. Did he forget what he voted for ?

On his election platform, he ran on the premise that he would donate part of his salary to charity. Wondor how thats been working out? Maybe he could take some of the charitable proceeds to pay his due dilligence request.

Posted by: Brian Skakun on October 20 2009 12:10 PM

Just so your viewers know Ben and Elaine I donated $ 15,000 to local charities between 2002 and 2008 and I did not vote on the Gaming Center parkade issue in 2006 because I was in a legal conflict of interest because I was offered money to vote in favor of the parkade deal.
As I am sure many know the RCMP recommended charges against that individual but local crown did not want to charge him.
The other issue is I had been asking for a year was for important information regarding the parkade deal and that information was not supplied. I was never told I could not get this information from administration because it fell under the FOI Act until I made an official FOI request many months later. Some of my requests of administration were not responded to at all!

Some of the questions I had been asking all along and some were discussed last night at council were,

Where under the FOI Act does it say I cannot have this information?

I specifically asked when the individual checks cleared? With regards to the 2.4 million dollar exchange between John Major and the City?

Can I see the city hired consultants reports that looked after the interests of the City regarding the building of the parkade?

Complete breakdown of parkade costs including labour, and supplies?

What is costs to reinforce the parkade to allow for a 5 � 6 story structure to be built on it?

What the actual value of the parkade was worth? and was told the city did not know ask John Major!

I also asked questions in the past several months about my regarding the awarding 3 million dollar parkade contract to a private contractor that was not open to public tender under the rules of BC BID

These are some but not all of the questions I asked to our administration regarding the construction, financing and monitoring of the building of the parkade, thanks.

Councillor Brian Skakun
Brian Skakun

Posted by: metalman on October 20 2009 12:39 PM

Well, it sounds like we may have an honest councillor in Mr. Skakun. Good for him, I hope he never backs down, and even more so, I hope he gets what he has been asking for.
metalman.

Posted by: Steve Thorlakson on October 20 2009 4:00 PM

No individual councillor (or Mayor, for that matter), has authority unless expressly designated or delegated by an Act or bylaw or resolution. Council acts as a whole, not 8 or 9 individuals. Councillors should bring matters such as this to council as a whole, in camera if warrranted, and Council should adopt a resolution requesting the information - that's how the process works. If things aren't going "according to Hoyle", the Minister of Community Services department has officials with the authority to review matters.

Posted by: Bridget on October 21 2009 12:09 AM

Whatever the existing protocol, act, bylaw is, the systems in place can preserve and protect any wrongdoings, corruption. I do not regret voting for Councillor Skakun. He is the lone man right now and it doesn't look like he's getting any support from the City. He has courage, honesty and integrity. We need more of his type on city council.

Posted by: Eagleone on October 21 2009 7:36 AM

I disagree with goolie... Any elected official has the right to investigate matters in which they are responsible for making decisions... this is an individual matter as much as it is for the council as a whole. This is a city issue and not a provincial issue or an issue for the city admin to hide behind a provincial bureaucrate.

Also I have long said the the PG Crown council is the most corrupt in the country in that we have the highest percentage of plea bargins in the country and the most politicized Crown probably anywhere in the country. The list of their failure is long and documented. The people of PG are the big losers when all is said and done, because the law is not applied equally here as it would be in almost any other place in Canada. They have a lot of power when they make decisons on who goes to court and for what, and they make the sole decisions before a court or judge ever even gets to review the case.