That's a serious charge for someone in that kind of position of trust (Human Resource Department).

It has no relation in my opinion to the kind of situation Skakun is in as part of his regular duties as an elected official.

Recently had a breach of my privacy and another person's privacy during a transaction with the City. Called and was redirected to the person who could help and left a message. Response was no call for a couple days, so a call to main switchboard on day 3 and asked who I could talk to about this and was told it was not a breach of privacy, just a 'clerical error', the computer automatically brings up the information and the wrong info was chosen, sorry no one else to talk to. Next call is to the Freedom of Information / Protection of Privacy, Election Process office and leave a message. The return message on my voicemail is someone who doesn't know what is going on but I should call back if there is a problem? Called back, but he can't do anything until the 'one person' responsible for the documents gets back from holidays and they can discuss it. Two days later another document arrives in the mail with the correct name on it, but a glaring spelling error rendering that document useless. The next day the 'one person' who could help me calls to say she just returned from holidays the day before and did I receive help or do I still need her assistance? Needless to say I was laughing too hard to talk to her for a bit and now this....It appears that there was another "clerical error" and I'm kinda surprised that who ever reported the breach found someone to talk to about it!

Watching this one closely. Who is paying to legally defend Ms. caffrey? We are. So not only are we paying her bills, but in doing so we are implying that we also defend her actions. Not good. Taxpayers should start asking questions about how much of our money is being spent on legal fees.

Councillor Skakun is an elected official who ran on a platform that he was for the people. And he is. He deserves support as he has always stood strong behind his values. Don't forget, he serves us and he doesn't do it for the money.

How do you know we are paying her legal fees? No where on here does it say that. You are making assumptions to suit your own agenda.

Forgive me please for posting three times, I now know to log out...I certainly have no agenda, just questions. The City says "no comment" when asked, and certainly as high level professionals they are aware that the first rule of Communications 101 is never say "no comment" as it implies there is much to hide.

Sorry that I don't feel sorry for Skakun. He is an elected official and he more than anyone should know what a breach of confidentiality is. He didn't like a something so he thought that he could leak confidential information. Now he has to pay the consequences on his own dime. Breaching FOIPA is a serious offence and he is not Robin Hood for those of you who think he is.

Mr. Skakun still giving part of his salary to charity? Or did that fall to the wayside?

As much is Brian is for the people by doing this he has hurt his credibility. It does not matter what was said at in IN Camera meeting..it is the fact it was said. I have to agree w/ ravinggrannie.

StreetWise2 wrote: "How do you know we are paying her legal fees? No where on here does it say that. You are making assumptions to suit your own agenda."

I make the same assumption. The reason I make that assumption is because an employer has a duty to protect its staff against liability which arises through the normal work of that employee.

If, on the other hand, the City feels she knowingly and intentionally released the information, even though she knew that she was not to have done so and was properly instructed in that work as far as the City is concerned, then the City may decide not to protect her in the court action.

The City, by not answering the question, is leaving people to wonder what is wrong. If the City feels the employee was carrying out her duty properly and was backing her up, there would be no question of whether they would support her.

In my mind, by not responding, they leave it open to the worst interpretation. They are between a rock and a hard place.

ALWAYS remember that there are TWO sides to every story -so dont be so quick to judge Ms Caffrey

I am not seeing anyone judge Caffrey. I am seeing judgements of Skakun, however. The same should hold for both.

Actually there are many sides to most stories.

1. the way the accused sees it
2. the way the accuser sees it
3. the way the court sees it
4. the way the public sees it
5. the way the freinds see it
6. the way history sees it. ......

etc. etc ....

And finally the way some higher power knows it to be .....

I agree,Gus. Watching this oh so closely.