Freedom of – or from? – information

When then-Leader of Government Business Kurt Tibbetts presented the Freedom of Information Bill in August 2007, he said the objects of the legislation included governmental accountability, transparency and public participation in national decision-making through the granting to the public the general right of access to government documents.

The FOI Unit’s website notes that the law gives the public the legal right to see or obtain copies of government records and that disclosure of those records is the general rule, not the exception. The website states that access to government records provides citizens with the information they need to participate in the democratic process.

It also states:

“An informed electorate is better able to evaluate and monitor public officials and ensure an honest, competent and responsive government. It means that every citizen can exercise responsibility as a voter and, equipped with the right to access information, hold the administration accountable as representatives of the people. In a democracy, the records belong to the people and are held on trust for the people by the government.”

Given the stated intentions of the Freedom of Information Law, it is dismaying to see that there are those in government now trying to restrict the public’s access to information that, if released, would certainly hold our public officials accountable.

At issue is the release of details of charges made on government-issued credit cards by Cabinet ministers and chief officers. After releasing some credit card statements that disclosed all pertinent details, some ministries are now trying to withhold information that would give necessary context to make the information worthwhile at all.

For instance, the Ministry of Community Affairs has released credit card statements, but is refusing to name the cardholder, and the Ministry of Education is releasing amounts of charges made by specified people, but the records don’t state the name of the vendor.

The Ministry of Community Affairs has said that releasing the name of the cardholder is an unreasonable disclosure of personal information. How the name on a credit card issued to a government official for use in official government business and paid for by the government can be considered “personal information” we can’t fathom.

Just because some government officials occasionally use their government credit cards for personal purchases doesn’t make the information personal, and, quite frankly, is exactly the kind of information the public needs to hold officials accountable with regard to their usage of the credit cards.

Withholding key information such as the names of the cardholders or the places where charges were made thwarts the intent of the Freedom of Information Law and effectively denies the public the ability to ensure their tax dollars are being put to good use. These seemingly arbitrary FOI rulings – as evidenced by the way the same requests for information are dealt with differently by different ministries – merely serve to protect the politicians and civil servants from being held accountable for their public spending.

Government officials, be they ministers, chief officers, or public employees, who try to dodge the intent of the FOI legislation, anonymizing themselves behind redactions or omissions, are breaking faith with those they were elected, appointed, or hired to serve.