COMH Admits to Violating Privacy
COMH Admits to Violating Privacy 4 Times in One FOIP, Denies 5 Other Accusations
Interior of the Glass Palace aka Medicine Hat City Hall - photo credit Kelly Allard
I filed a personal FOIP April 13 2024
The City claimed that they needed more time as more than 3400 items had come back with the search. In June 2024 I received 279 pages, a number of which were out of scope of the date parameters. One document went back to 2004.
Some of the items were highly suspect such as evidence of the monitoring of election candidates and considering Candidate Censorship. These were people who had put their names in the ring to serve our city and had not been elected yet.
NB- Nobody takes names of the attendees at Council meetings held in Council Chambers unless you are speaking to Council. No member of the public is permitted to address any committee unless you are part of a delegation.
Members of the public should note that if you appear in person or by Teams at committee meetings, your name will likely be recorded. (Since members of the public must mute their mikes and shut off their video,you can give them any name you want.)
Image from a Public Services Committee livestream
Jan 21 2025 e-mail to the City Clerk's office
“Greetings;
I spoke with a Senior Manager with the OIPC (Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner) this morning about the above file. They suggested that I send you an example of missing documents and I am complying. They also suggested that I give you a response time of one week to respond in hopes of settling this matter before it goes further in the OIPC complaint process. In addition to this e-mail I will also be calling the office to leave messages about this matter.
Since Ms Sibanda is out of the office until tomorrow, I will extend the one week period one day until
Noon
January 29 2025
Example of Missing Documents
Excerpt from my privacy complaint
"Sep 8 2023 My name was recorded when I came in and asked for a FOIP Request form, I didn't even leave with the document. My name was given via email to the Acting City Manager, Dennis Egert (also Managing Director of Corporate Services), it was also given to Rochelle Pancoast (Managing Director of Energy Land and Environment) and Ben Bullock (City Solicitor) the following Monday.
I had not made a FOIP request yet, nor had I indicated which departments I would be asking for information. In fact, I did not even make a FOIP Request until seven months later. This is an invasion of my privacy, I had not done anything other than ask a question.
Three copies of the above email were given to Nicole Frey, my name was not redacted as a third party. I was not given the opportunity as a third party to address this issue before the document was released. None of the copies were in my packet for my personal FOIP request."
Documents attached. These have been sent to you previously in November 2024 (and again today) as part of a request to address privacy issues.
I await your prompt reply.
Jan 28, I received the following
Blue Denotes their response to my concerns. (Brackets denote my thoughts about each response.)
Dear Ms. Allard,
This is to inform you that your request to address an alleged breach of privacy was received by the City of Medicine Hat, and the response to your inquiry is outlined below.
1. September 8, 2023: My name was recorded when I came in and asked for a FOIP Request form, I didn't even leave with the document. My name was given via email to the Acting City Manager, Dennis Egert (also Managing Director of Corporate Services), it was also given to Rochelle Pancoast (Managing Director of Energy Land and Environment) and Ben Bullock (City Solicitor) the following Monday.
– Where employees engage in a discussion in the scope and duty of their work, there is no breach of privacy. The individuals involved in this conversation are not just peers, but employees holding positions of all-encompassing duties that oversee the administration of the public body. (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act s.39(1)(c) read with s.40(1)(h))
(I call bullshit. There is no way that gossiping about who came in for what form is in the job description. What if I came in for a Fair Entry form, would I be identified then? Are they doing this with other members of the public - a scary thought - or am I somehow just special?)
2. Three copies of the above email were given to Nicole Frey, my name was not redacted as a third party. I was not given the opportunity as a third party to address this issue before the document was released.
– Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have investigated this matter and appropriate steps will be taken.
(NB - this means they recognize that a document was shared with a third party. This is important given the response to the next item.)
3. I did not receive a copy of the above email when I received my FOIP response. That indicates to me that documents are missing from my FOIP Request.
– Every request is directed by search terms and time periods specific to it. The report provided to you is a result of the search terms specific to your request.
(Gas City Gaslighting at its finest. A missing document was identified to them but they are insisting that there are none. Many documents were out of scope of the date range, one went back TWENTY YEARS but they don’t think that a document that mentions my name falls within the parameters of “ All communication between city staff and departments, both internal and external, where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.” Given how much they communicated about me before the election, why am I supposed to believe they suddenly went quiet after I wrote many, many articles?)
4. I did receive documents in my FOIP Response that identified a third party which included this person's account information and payment information. This person is unknown to me. This is an invasion of the privacy of a third party.
– Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have investigated this matter, and appropriate steps will be taken.
5. I received a copy of an email in my FOIP Response that disclosed the name of all of the applicants for the Police Commission. This is an invasion of the privacy of the other applicants.
– Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have investigated this matter, and appropriate steps will be taken.
(For anybody who applied to join the Police Commission in late 2021, your privacy was violated. I would ask the City how they intend to deal with this.)
6. I received a copy of an email in my FOIP Response that named 4 other candidates who met with Kris Samraj (then Council Member). This is an invasion of the privacy of these 4 candidates.
– Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have investigated this matter, and appropriate steps will be taken.
(Potential candidates, take note. Your names were revealed to other people, not just me.)
7. In 2016 I paid my utility bill in error and requested a refund. This information was given to no less than 17 other people. This is an invasion of my privacy.
– Kindly provide more detail on the incident to allow an investigation into this matter. If this information was shared among City employees within the scope and duty of their work, there would not be a breach of privacy. (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Part 2)
(I had other communications with City staff about payment arrangements, these were not shared with 17 other people. A note should have been added to my file where everyone who needed to see it could see it. Sending an e-mail to 17 people means that for 16 of them, it was a waste of time.)
8. Dec 14 2021 my online participation at a Committee meeting was transmitted to committee members during the meeting. The public do not have to give their names at a public meeting and I have no idea why my presence was noted. I was not working as a journalist back then, I was merely a member of the public. This is an invasion of my privacy.
– Public meetings of the public body are held in public. Attendance is a fact already in the public knowledge. There is no breach of privacy in this instance.
(They could have avoided this by saying “X members of the public” attended. My name should not have been recorded but I was already on their radar - they even gave me my own category during the 2021 election. See the sidebar with the portion of the FOIP Act that describes when a Public Body is allowed to collect your name. It certainly does not apply in this situation.)
9. Feb 3 2022 my online participation was recorded in notes taken at that meeting. The public do not have to give their names at a public meeting and I have no idea why my presence was noted. I was not working as a journalist back then, I was merely a member of the public. This is an invasion of my privacy.
– Public meetings of the public body are held in public. Attendance is a fact already in the public knowledge. There is no breach of privacy in this instance.
(They could have avoided this by saying “X members of the public” attended. My name should not have been recorded but I was already on their radar. See the sidebar with the portion of the FOIP Act that describes when a Public Body is allowed to collect your name. It certainly does not apply in this situation.)
The Office of the Commissioner can be contacted toll free at: 1-888-878-4044.
Regards,
Why Would Anybody Invest In or Trust The City Of Medicine Hat?
If City staff thinks they can violate the FOIP Act when collecting personal information, why should anybody trust them?
If senior management is gossiping about residents, what are they saying about potential investors?
If the City is giving account information to random people, why would any investor feel their account information is safe?
If the City cannot complete a task within specified parameters, what confidence will investors have that they will receive pertinent information in a timely manner?
If the City cannot keep private information private, why would anybody want to work for them?
If our City Manager cannot even stay off her social media during Council Meetings, why should anybody trust her?
When our City Manager is not wise enough to equip her computer screen with a privacy filter, is that not reason enough to reconsider her employment?
Taken at January 6 2025 City Council Meeting at 7:03pm. Council had been in session since 6:30pm, it only lasted 46 minutes.
(photo credit Kelly Allard)
While some of the privacy violations predate City Manager Mitchell, the subsequent handling of the information and the handling of FOIP requests does not. This is on her.
April 13 2024 Personal FOIP Request
All communication between city staff and departments, both internal and external, where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.
All communication between city staff and external agencies and/or people, where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.
All communication between any City Council Member(s) - including the mayor - and departments, both internal and external, where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.
All communication between any City Council Member(s) - including the mayor - and external agencies and/or people, where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.
All communication between any City Council Member(s) - including the mayor, both internal where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.
All minutes of any meetings where all or part of my name, Kelly Allard, appears.
Between the dates of Dec 1 2020 and April 13 2024.
From the FOIP Act
Division 1
Collection of Personal Information
Purpose of collection of information
33 No personal information may be collected by or for a public body unless
(a) the collection of that information is expressly authorized by an enactment of Alberta or Canada,
(b) that information is collected for the purposes of law enforcement, or
(c) that information relates directly to and is necessary for an operating program or activity of the public body.
I Call Bullshit on The Response
FOIPs are administered by the City Clerk’s office which is directly supervised by the City Manager. My FOIP request predated our current City Clerk but the recent response certainly did not. The City is responsible for the recording of your personal information and keeping it private in accordance with the FOIP Act.
Here is how they kept Josephine’s information private. This is a person I do not know, nor do I know anybody with the same name. The redactions in red are mine. Under those redactions are Josephine’s last name (which is not a common name) and her full account number. The City redacted nothing.
