A “patchwork of inconsistent approaches” is how a report released Tuesday by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. (OIPC) described the findings of an investigation into how municipalities handle the release of information to the public.
The findings were based on responses from chief administrative officers and other personnel working in 156 municipalities in the province. Only four of the 160 municipalities contacted by the OIPC did not participate.
B.C. Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey said the goal of the investigation was not to “name and shame” municipalities, although 42 are named that charge an application fee for records as are 12 that don’t allow remote payments.
“Really the story that comes through was one of inconsistency, and that's what we really wanted to focus on here,” Harvey told BIV Tuesday. “Inconsistency breeds confusion and a lack of transparency.”
The OIPC launched the investigation into disclosure of records in response to concerns about how municipalities were handling their access to information obligations.
Questions focused on municipalities’ processes under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, including the administration of the application fee, proactive disclosure of records, and records made available for purchase.
Inconsistencies that Harvey referred to include methods by which municipalities disclose records to the public, and unequal access to similar records across municipalities.
Officials 'confused' about what is released
For example, the report found that while all municipalities did make records available proactively without a freedom-of-information (FOI) request, nearly a quarter of municipalities reported, incorrectly, they did not have a proactive disclosure program.
The result is that some municipalities may fail to properly publish records that are intended to be available without an FOI request, which in turn may generate additional requests that could incur an application fee.
“There were a number of times when the officials that we responded to were confused about what they do actually release,” Harvey said.
The report also found potential for barriers to access in some municipalities that charge the $10 application fee for general records.
As Harvey indicated, the investigation found 12 municipalities said they only allowed in-person or mail-in payment for the fee. That approach can limit accessibility by requiring applicants to make their way in person to the city hall, or to a mailbox.
FOI staff
The investigation revealed a lack of clear criteria in terms of which records can be made available for purchase, resulting in a broad and inconsistent application across municipalities.
Forty-three municipalities (28 per cent) reported employing staff whose primary responsibility is to respond to FOI requests. Most reported having one or two staff primarily responsible for such requests.
Fewer than 10 municipalities employ more than two staff.
Conversely, 113 municipalities (72 per cent) stated they do not employ staff whose primary responsibility is to respond to FOI requests.
In these cases, municipal staff in other primary roles such as the corporate officer, deputy corporate officer or chief administrative officer, are responsible for handling the requests on behalf of the municipality.
“All municipalities are required to adequately resource their FOI function to appropriately respond to requests within legislated time limits,” the report said.
“Municipalities that receive few FOI requests likely do not require staff solely for the purpose of responding to such requests so long as they maintain capacity to meet FOI demands.”
'Less confusion with the public'
Municipalities reported receiving 5,387 general FOI requests and 2,065 personal FOI requests from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024.
A total of 27 per cent of municipalities reported they currently charge an application fee. Combined, they collected more than $3,600 in application fees between April 1, 2023 and March 31, 2024.
An additional 10 per cent of municipalities said they intend to charge an application fee in the future, 28 per cent were undecided or unsure, and the remaining 35 per cent stated they do not intend to charge the fee.
The report makes three recommendations to municipal governments to address issues with fee payment options, staff training on routine disclosure and FOI processes, and publishing “meaningful categories for routine disclosure.”
A fourth recommendation is directed toward the provincial government to establish clear criteria that would help municipalities, and other public bodies, determine which records should be provided for purchase and associated costs.
“If municipalities could themselves determine the categories of information that they would then release, and that there be guidance from the province to help guide municipalities, it would provide for more consistency across the board and less confusion with the public,” he said.
'Crisis of trust'
Harvey said he was optimistic about the recommendations being implemented, noting the urgency in combatting what he described as a “real crisis of trust” that exists around the world.
“If we have a crisis of political trust, that's a threat to our democracy, and I really am optimistic that we are going to be as vigorous in defending our democracy as we are in defending our economy,” he said.
“The best defence against a crisis in political trust is transparency. And so that’s the context in which we are releasing this report — in that it's a real call for more transparency.”
Added Harvey: “I'm pretty pleased at the overall level of transparency at every level of public bodies in [B.C.] in comparison to some other jurisdictions, but there's work to be done.”
While the report is directed toward municipal governments, Harvey encouraged other public bodies across B.C. to review the report and implement relevant recommendations.
X/@Howellings
