THE DEMOCRATIC REPORTER
Pages of Special Interest;
Other Table of Contents;
|Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections: |
Opening comments: More at the end.
To the Public Question Period Index page. The news article noted here.
The CANCER of City halls BANNING those who are the Whistle Blowers, Ask the hard & Intelligent questions and are more successful than politicians at serving the greater good of taxpayers. The police, lawyers and legal orders are now the WEAPONS of choice as Security Insanity Plague us all!
Letter Donald Barber - July 31, 2006 - A thank You letter.
In regards to the July 31-06, Toronto Star article [He can fight city hall, if he plays nice] - about the City of Mississauga making up reasons to keep the media and a candidate for the office of Mayor from Hazel McCallion's Expenditure Details for the past few years, in an election year.
Thank you very much for the article Mike Funston, I know from personal experience how risky it is to question Mississauga City hall. But guess what? On the same day (Monday) as your article ran, got a letter from the City granting me access to the Mayor's Expenditure Details! Your pointed questions turned their NO into a YES. This is a good example of the MEDIA being the poor mans court.
There are points would like to follow-up on and more is on my web-site. Saying I have to play nice when clear the City is not and even making up rules that serve its politicians is what can be seen in that article. When it comes to how far City of Mississauga politicians will go to win - I would say that only the end can justify the means for them and the example they set for staff to follow. These are not the only examples.
The City was caught red handed, what do we expect them to say? Sorry? They are trying to save face and hope no one looks closer to see more wrong-doing. City lawyers are there to protect City politicians first, not serve the public for their pay cheques of taxpayer dollars. The City's lawyer claims there is confusion, true but it is on her part, not mine and I am being treated improperly. The City's lawyer says this is a reasonable ruling - "the city is not required to respond to any communication from the appellant unless it is in response to a properly filed access (for information) request." How can a person ask their elected official a question by way of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request if the FOI Act does not allow you to even ask questions? I can't ask City staff the time of day unless it is a $5 FOI request and only 4 per-year - how insane is that? However, the City is so committed to destroying taxpayers rights, they do not disagree because it serves City politicians effort removing knowledge persons from participating in government, for the good of the community and holding politicians accountable.
As a lawyer how can she say with a straight face that the Information and Privacy Commission (IPC) can make a ruling that forbids non-Freedom of Information (FOI) communication with City staff and elected officials? What laws or legislation empower the IPC to that degree? Fact is none, so what does that do to her credibility? How did this happen? Easy, no lawyer and ruthless legal predators taking full advantage of that fact. Beating a man down and keep kicking him in the head so he will not get up - but get up I have.
In an IPC Appeal that I was told the City's documents against me would be copied to me, they were not - so their accusation could not be countered. A report about me was presented in a secret hearing and even after the fact when I asked for a copy of it, denied!
- 1 - ...2
The City lawyer goes on to say - "Barber was calling about a new letter he had sent to "a number of people at the city," and not a properly filed information request, so "that is why the person wasn't talking to him," Bench said" - Falsehood. The other letters were sent the next day, after talking to the City's FOI Coordinator and they were noted as requests for evidence from the City in regards to my trial, there has been no follow-up on them! The important point here is, I am requesting evidence so it will be a fair trial and the City lawyer is saying that the IPC can deny this and City staff need not even inform me they will do noting to serve justice!
And while we are on the matter of how this City lawyer obeys the law, I recall that FOI requests are protected by Privacy legislation, so why is she yakking her head off about mine? By what she is saying, just a chance to defame me. As far as I am concerned this is just another example of how the City plays fast and loose with the law to serve politicians who would never be elected if all the facts about how they do business were made public.
Just a note here. There is a City By-law that say the City's FOI Coordinator job and decisions are not under politicians control but in the past the IPC has found Hazel McCallion has broke that By-law as have other City staff. It is clear to me that the City's FOI Coordinator was taking direction this time too, all too typical for City staff. Laws, we don't needs no stinking laws!
Mike - got them to admit one wrong doing, can you do it again?
Lastly - the well known Toronto lawyer Clayton C. Ruby, responded to my general mailing asking for a lawyer to help undo the damage done and the legal precedence set by a deeply flawed IPC ruling, his comments hit the nail right on the head, for all Canadians fighting for their communities and what is right - "Redress for this sort of thing is difficult even if you are rich -- it is impossible without money."
I am willing to discuss my letter with you and there is an answering machine you can leave a detailed private message on.
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated