If taxpayers want to know how much they paid for the City of Prince George to pursue the Coun. Brian Skakun matter in court after he revealed sensitive documents to media a few years ago, they're out of luck.
In response to a Nov. 29 freedom of information (FOI) request, the city informed The Citizen they don't have to tell the public how much legal bills totalled because that falls within client/attorney privilege of sorts.
In making their case, city staff pointed to a past privacy commissioner decision that a B.C. school district did not have to reveal a detailed account of costs after a legal matter. But what the city didn't say was the school district was ordered to disclose the total - as opposed to the breakdown - of costs incurred.
The city is still not revealing a dime. Did the municipality conveniently stop reading the privacy commission's decision at "detailed account" when they saw what they wanted?
City staffers might feel clever using this flimsy excuse to refuse to tell its shareholders how much of their money was spent on this issue, but the result could cost them more dearly than the Skakun case itself. There's more to governing than dollars and cents, after all.
So what could possibly motivate the municipality to hide this information?
One argument we heard from the city was that in revealing the money spent, they'd be showing their hand to sneaky types who would somehow find a way to take advantage of the city's willingness to pay this much for legal costs.
A very odd argument considering this wasn't a lawsuit settlement - it was a case unprecedented in all of B.C. of a municipality going after a councillor for breaching the privacy act. How often is such a situation going to arise that would make the municipality susceptible to predators? And besides, they did let us know they paid $12,000 to an unnamed complainant involved in the issue so he or she wouldn't sue the city.
The argument is also weak since there are always drawbacks to transparency - for example there's a high probability that revealing the cost of a contract awarded to a bridge builder will influence the next bridge builder. But that's never justified hiding spending.
Does it really need to be said? The reason taxpayers need to know what's going on with their money is simple: it's the only way to hold the city accountable.
If the city's budget goes into a tailspin of ridiculous spending, taxpayers need to know so they can replace the leaders making those
decisions in the next election.
So is this avoidance a means of protecting political interests? If it is, whoever decided to duck this question is seriously politically tone deaf.
You'd think people under such scrutiny would know by now that whenever public information is refused on tenuous grounds, the public gets suspicious.
And then politicians wonder how people come up with wild conspiracy theories. Nature abhors a vacuum - when one appears, an irresistible force compels people to fill it. In the absence of answers, don't be surprised if all sorts of crazy conjectures get thrown about as ironclad truth.
A word to the wise - the best way to wipe the slate clean is to come clean.
-- Prince George Citizen
