This sounds like the citys manager is going to take a hit for this mess. This should have never gone to court. This is a waste of taxpayers money

I would like to see this in a very public hearing. Mr Skakun is doing his job, well. As a counselor with a fiduciary responsibility to the city, he is trying to find some answers to an apparently shady deal. He asked for a report and was denied.

On what grounds was his FoI&P request denied?

He is not only doing his job as a counselor, but also his duty as a citizen in a supposed free society. The only way we can have a free society is to hinder all attempts of back room deals and resist the government working in secrete. If any public infrastructure deals have any secretes, then the public is being screwed. There is no other plausible reason for secrecy in these deals. It will be much cheaper in the long run to just release that information to him.

We still don't have a transparent government.

Sic 'em sakun!

What's known behind closed doors and what's actually spoon-fed to John Q Public in this town seem to at great lengths from eachother.

Just off the top of my head, we had Kinsley guaranteeing us that the Cameron Street Bridge was going to be reopened by the end of his term, and the contractor stating that they told him unequivocally that it would be delayed; IPG telling us they had excellent market research to back up the Horizon Air deal, but refusing to disclose any of those numbers or details of who InterVISTA spoke to amongst PG stakeholders to see if the Seattle air service would actually be viable; CN and Canfor running the show on air quality and constantly blaming ridiculous factors while the city spends our tax dollars to chase down Joe Plumber who contributes almost nothing to the problem; John Major's little bingo joint where we taxpayers got gouged $3 million for an empty parking lot; the City's hand-picked hiring of six-figure mouthpiece after constantly crying poverty when they raise our taxes, and after claiming they couldn't get any other suitable applicants (yeah, under completely different financial terms and without reposting the job); PG Airport Authority's desperate attempt to create some positive vibes at our cobweb-gathering, taxpayer-funded $40-million asphalt frog habitat and thus giving us a bogus dog & pony show with a jumbo the other day; and on and on.

And yet when a publicly-elected official does finally try to get to the bottom of city corruption (perceived or otherwise), the Old Boys Club of PG tries to crucify him for it. This is a case I don't actually mind my tax dollars going towards; seems to me it's not just about Brian Skakun's case but for the future of any elected official to dare to rock the boat on behalf of his constituents. That's ultimately what we expect politicians to do when we vote for them; unfortunately 99.5% just get swept into the "network" and become like all the others, telling the public one thing while doing something completely different behind the veil.

A very big error.

Brian did the right thing, nothing wrong with what he did.

vdesign: The precedent to be set has nothing to do with the release of personal information on a private citizen. The precedent I would like to see is actually having Freedom of Information available on public domain projects. This would especially include all infrastructure or public funded projects. If my tax dollars are going into the project, I want complete transparency and disclosure from all parties involved. If there is not, then there is sure to be abuse leading to budget over runs that are only going into some high level pockets.

Come to think of it, have we not had budget over runs on just about every project in the last few years, mostly with IDL as the primary contractor? Kind of makes one think. Too bad they could not legislate out budget over runs on all government projects. You bid it, you build it for that and not a penny more.

I do think you have a valid concern for the release of private information on private citizens as the examples you have cited. That is not what this is about.

Did he leak a document he knew should not be leaked? That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. If I can't trust him to keep confidential documents confidential, then I can't trust him.

I guess all of this will come out in the trial, and I am looking forward to seeing the details of what he did. But if it turns out that he is making decisions about what information gets released, even when he knows its wrong, he really should get his hands slapped. As Vdesign says, what other information is free game if this goes unpunished?

Of course, if it turns out that he did nothing wrong, good on him. But if he knowingly released information he knew he did not have the authority to release, then he should be man enough to face the music.

This is not an issue of ethics. In other words, this is not about releasing an in-camera document. That matter should have been dealt with through the Mayor's office.

The document that he is alleged to have released is a document that had alleged personal information in it that is protected by provincial and federal privacy laws. I believe that is the issue in front of the court.

This should be an interesting case. Is the information private as define by the law? Are the people involved public or private people?

Keep in mind that the standard has moved from privacy with respect to how much people earn to where that information now has to be made public for those making over a threshhold amount.

There might be an argument that individuals who are in a conflict of interest must disclose it publicly as well or, at the least, not have an expectation of privacy when such a discovery is made.

Vdesign has some good points. Unfortunately we have to delete his comments given that he is suggesting Councillor Skakun is guilty. He pleaded not guilty to leaking the Kitty Heller report. He must be given the benefit of doubt until he has been proven guilty, or admits guilt. He has done neither.
We do not like to remove comments, but please understand the rule of law is that until you are proven guilty you are only charged with an offence, please respect that.

When Brian Skakun signed on to be a city councillor he pledged to represent the citizens of Prince George in a fair, ethical and just manner. I believe he has done that and then some during his time in office. Despite allegations and the charge against him, Brian is solid in his character and reputation. We are very fortunate to have an individual of his calibre on council. The truth will set him free.

Snakum is just setting up for a run for mayor. Think we have it bad now..just think if he gets in ..YIKES

Ben, why would you delete comments from somebody who 'thinks' Brian Skakun is guilty of the charges against him? Is this not a forum to post comments or opinions? Is this website not called Opinion 250? Hmmmmm......

I didn't see Vdesign's post, but the presumption of innocence is a principle that governs the courts, not public commentary. There's nothing wrong with members of the public suggesting that a defendant may be guilty. Why delete comments on this basis if they are not libelous?

You are absolutely right billposer. The thing alot of people on this site and many others like it don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between saying "He is guilty" and "I THINK he MIGHT be guilty because....." If you have an opinion then state it as an opinion, not as a fact. Believe whatever you want, but make sure that your statement is clear when you hit the "Post Comment" button. I think that is a fair thing to ask of anyone.