Bid for access to private information sends wrong message
Currently, access to that information rests within the domain of the clerk's office. However, a recent legal opinion, obtained by councillors Howard Moscoe (Ward 15, Eglinton-Lawrence), Cesar Palacio (Ward 17, Davenport) and Cliff Jenkins (Ward 25, Don Valley West), suggests that councillors should be the ones who are able to see and judge what's appropriate for the public to view.
In response, Ontario's Privacy Commissioner has dismissed this suggestion as "ludicrous."
So here we are.
In our opinion, if the potential for abuse of a proposed change in policy is rife, then it's a completely understandable reaction to not want to proceed with that change.
In reality it should be pretty straightforward: if a citizen is, by law, permitted to have his privacy protected, that should be respected, full stop.
Something's either private or it isn't. Should private information be critical for an elected official to have access to, a process currently exists and a case-by-case determination can then take place.
There is an important distinction to be made between elected officials and municipal staff. While both are employees of the municipality, information in the hands of staff is not - nor is it even considered to be - politicized. Part of the duty of an elected body is to conduct itself with integrity - this includes the appearance of conducting oneself with integrity. Has anybody thought about what has the potential to happen at election time? And they say incumbents already have a historically unfair advantage.
Another important distinction to consider is the manner in which the private information is collected. Presumably citizens are given the impression that their sensitive information will be used in a proper manner. Is a citizen less likely to be forthright with the municipality, knowing his or her councillor may have access to the sensitive information?
Jenkins is indeed correct when he says that personal information is what is at issue. The right to privacy needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness.
Even in the most sympathetic light, this proposal falls short on the basis of simply by being too vague. Thus, when this item makes it to the council table in the fall, elected officials need to consider the following items, and consider them carefully, to fully understand just what doing this would mean.
Specifically how does opening up privately collected information to councillors better allow them to represent their constituents?
Following that, do the benefits of this policy, which need to be outlined in far greater detail, outweigh the considerable risks?
The public places an enormous amount of trust in its government. Giving the suggestion that its elected officials are in a position to unfairly benefit from a policy sends the wrong message.
