Truth Gone AWOL - Alcyonenews

April 14, 2015: A FOI Access Request the Trust should have never triggered

“The Islands Trust

Ms. Carmen Thiel and

Ms Claire Olivier

Re: FOI Access Request

Given that on:

March 23, 2015: I submitted the delegation paper titled “Trust Fakes Prudery” for presentation at the April 16 SSI LTC meeting;

April 3, 2015: I submitted the delegation paper titled “Roll in and Turn On the Camera” for presentation at the April 16 SSI LTC meeting;

April 13, 2015: on the Agenda of the next, the April 16, 2015 SSI LTC meeting there is a statement reading:

“14. DELEGATIONS – None”

I hereby request access to the records of the deliberations and the other aspects of the processing of my submission of March 13 and April 3, 2015; and of the making of the decision to proclaim: “DELEGATIONS – None” through the LTC Meeting Agenda for April 16, 2015; and documentation of the Trust compliance with the obligation of the Trust to make decisions in public.

This Access to Information request is for all the information and covers all media it was recorded on and/or may be stored in.

Regards,

Dr. A. N. T. Varzeliotis, P. Eng ( Ret’d)”

“RE: FOI Access to information Request

Dear Mr. Varzeliotis,

Your FOI request has been completed and is ready to be picked up or mailed to you at your request. The cost to process this request is $45.00. Upon receipt of your payment we will release the requested records. Please make your cheque payable to Islands Trust.

The office will be temporarily closed on Wednesday of this week but is open all other week days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Yours truly,

Claire Olivier”

“The Islands Trust

Ms. Carmen Thiel and

Ms Claire Olivier

By Hand and Email

Dear Ms. Olivier, GoodDay,

Re: Your May 4 email – FOI as the Trust reads it

In your notification about having “completed and ready to be picked up” my “FOI request”, you refer to the “cover message” under which I conveyed it and which reads:

“Attached please find a FOI Access Request.

Prompt Consideration will be appreciated.”

Sadly you removed [from the correspondence thread] the “attachment”, thereby leaving the reader in the dark about the subject matter. At the end of this message I will copy that “attachment” to restore the email thread.

You ask me to fork out $45 (the price of a bottle of Scotch) for the contents of your response to my FOI access request. Well the answer is “No”, I will not pay, “Yes” you must hand me the “completed and ready to be picked up response to my FOI access request”. This for a host of reasons, including but not limited to the following:

1. You know or ought to know, that the FOI (“Act”) explicitly obligates you, the public body, to assist applicants; and that it implicitly forbids you to launch “witch-hunts” for means to obstruct the flow of information.

2. You know or ought to know, that the Act compels you to provide an estimate of the fee, if a fee is applicable to an access request and to do so promptly. Indeed, the Act allows you to ask for a fee “down payment”, before wasting public resources to compile a FOI response that may not be taken.

3. You know or ought to know, that you should have itemized your fee invoice.

4. You know or ought to figure by yourselves, that the subject of my access request (which you “removed” from the email thread) is “personal information” for me.

5. You know or ought to know (I have myself pointed out that to you since Pauline Brazier first tried the “fee” roadblock on me), that the Act stipulates that no fee can be charged for “personal information”.

6. You know or ought to know, that you were obligated to process the subject matter in front of the Public Eye, to wit, that the information I am requesting, ought to have been already in the public domain. It is, therefore, you who, by doing the censoring from the dungeon, have unduly forced me to file the FOI access request. Accordingly, it is you who should compensate me for the burden you imposed on me in your churlish attempt to evade the law and keep society and me in the dark about your act of censorship.

This comes on the heels of Carmen Thiel & Nancy Roggers demanding I re-apply for the info on the Kris Nichols RAR thing, using the OIPC form which on its face declares in Beatrix Potter English, in caps:

“YOU MAY MAKE A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORDS WITHOUT USING THIS FORM”

Now, please, provide me with the “FOI request [that] has been completed” c/w an apology for playing on me, once again, the Trust’s Pay a Fee stonewalling Trick.

Regards,

Dr. A. N. T. Varzeliotis, P.Eng (Ret’d)”     NB: The “ ‘attachment’ to restore the email thread,” is the May 4, 2015, FOI access requests at the top of this example of trust malfeasance.

I visited the SSI Trust office asking for the information. At my ringing the bell, Planner Seth Wright appeared and after searching for the FOI response, he brought the pack to the counter.

Unwilling to get him into trouble, I told him that I have been requested to pay $45.00 for it, and I told him that I would not pay. I handed him a copy of my letter of that day addressed to Carmen and Claire. After reading it, he told me that Claire was on vacation that day but he would ask Carmen to consider the issue, and that I will be informed accordingly. Neither Carmen Thiel nor Clair Olivier, contacted me.

At the time of writing, May 25, 2012, I am still denied the information the Trust was obligated by law to have made available to me prior to the April 16 SSI LTC meeting, two and a half months to date.

Irrespective of whether the six breaches of the FOIPPA noted in my letter of May 7, 2012 cited above are due to lack of training of the Trust employees or to sinister ends, apologies are also due, along with the wrongfully withheld information.

Sincerely,

A.N.T. Varzeliotis.

“was considered to have incorrect and defamatory content, when viewed in its entirety”.

“also contains personal criticism of named staff members and the Islands Trust Council has a responsibility to protect staff from harassment.”

“Far from liberating us, the fear of causing offence can drive resentment and unwittingly expand the numbers of the readily offended. Not judging is a symptom of disengagement, not harmony. We should strive to engage passionately – yet peacefully.”

“the Executive Committee recommended that your submission not be placed on the June Trust Council agenda due to the objectionable content”

a) Retraction of the libelous letter and appropriate written apologies;

b) Recognition that the Trust is accountable to society as all Local governments are.

c) An outline of the measures the Trust will take to ensure compliance with FIPPA