How run-down are 91原创 school buildings?
It鈥檚 a question the school district appears reluctant to answer, even though an up-to-date report about the maintenance and general physical condition of 91原创 school facilities was completed earlier this year.
The 230-page assessment that describes the condition of secondary, elementary and middle schools in 91原创 was produced by a team of architectural, electrical and mechanical engineers who visited the local school district earlier this year.
When The Times asked to see the report, the school district set $4,500 as the estimated cost of initial access.
That鈥檚 $2,200 to review the material and see what pages the district is willing to release plus $10 a page to photocopy them.
The fee estimate was provided in response to a Times Freedom Of Information (FOI) application for a copy of the preliminary facilities audit report for 91原创.
In an e-mail to The Times, the school district staffer who handles FOI requests, assistant superintendent of human resources Jennifer Canas, called the documentation requested 鈥渆xtensive鈥� and broke down the price the paper would have to pay.
鈥淚 estimate that actual cost of reviewing the 230 pages for purpose of disclosure etc would be approximately not more than $2,200 and printing costs at $1. per page [or] $2,300.鈥�
In a follow-up letter, Canas explained the district was billing $450 an hour for the four to five hours it estimates staff would need to review the documents.
She said the district would require half the amount before it conducted the review and the rest before it would release the documents.
鈥淎ll reasonable efforts have been made to generate an accurate estimate,鈥� Canas warned.
鈥淗owever, you should be aware that you will be required to pay the actual cost, whether it is higher or lower than the estimate.鈥�
Canas explained that the costs could be appealed to the office of the information and privacy commissioner.
However, when The Times filed an appeal of the fees with the commissioner, Intake Service officer Tlell Raffard wrote back and said that appeal should be filed with the district.
When the matter was then raised with the provincial education ministry, a government staffer revealed that there is a shorter summary report that could be obtained for less money.
The education minister did not respond to a request for comment.
After 91原创 school board chair Rob McFarlane was advised by The Times of the existence of a summary report, he also suggested the paper apply for the shorter version to reduce the costs.
鈥淚t [the $4,500 estimate] seems to be a function of the size of the document,鈥� McFarlane told The Times after consulting with school district staff.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a beast.鈥�
McFarlane also said district staff are required to review any FOI-related material before they release it.
The opposition critic for citizens鈥� services and open government, Nanaimo-North Cowichan MLA Doug Routley, warned that even if The Times were to pay the fee, there is no guarantee the information would be fully disclosed.
He cited several cases where public bodies in B.C. have produced a heavily edited version of requested documents.
While the FOI law is supposed to ensure transparency by public bodies, it contains loopholes that bureaucrats have learned to exploit by foot-dragging and charging huge fees, Routley said.
鈥淚t鈥檚 farcical and tragic all at once,鈥� Routley commented.
鈥淚t is ridiculous.鈥�
One study by a university of Victoria law student (Access denied: Abuses and Failures under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by Morgan Blakley) found that the law has become 鈥渁n impotent shell of what it can and should be.鈥�
In one instance, when the Sierra Legal Defence Fund appealed a fee estimate of $24,000, bureaucrats responded by increasing the assessment to $173,000.
In another case cited by Blakley, a researcher who could not afford a $4,200 fee quoted by the provincial Ministry of Labour for information about the enforcement of employment standards regulations spent four years filing appeals.
On Saturday (Nov. 5), the 91原创 school district revised the proposed fee downward, blaming a math error in a email to The Times.
鈥淭he correct amount of course is $1.00 x 230 pages which is $230.00 [not $2,300],鈥� Canas wrote.
鈥淭he total estimated fee therefore is $2,430 not $4,500.
The deposit is half that amount which is $1,215.00.鈥�
The Times is refusing to pay the revised fee.
