Sir: In response to the letter to the editor by Don Shropshire, the Municipality’s CAO, critical of the article about myself, as a citizen, trying to get answers from municipal hall as to how and where our tax dollars are being spent. It would seem the municipality, as meaningful as it may be, doesn’t know how to be open and transparent or doesn’t want to be nor understand the difference between fact and truth.
Mr. Shropshire’s concerns (the format of his letter is more indicative of our legal department than his own wording) of my stating five full- or part-time employees handle Freedom of Information requests, that there’s only two. With so many serious municipal challenges, this should not be a concern. Police services and municipal hall have two FOI [Freedom of Information] departments, having five individuals respond to me.
Presumably, in order to justify condemning the article, Mr. Shropshire deemed the article as portraying that C-K has to provide any information requested. He said that’s false. He is correct, however, all my FOIs reflect the rules of legislation.
Mr. Shropshire describes many documents were provided to me, however, most were either not relevant, uninterpretable or incomplete.
I have tried several times over months, without success, to obtain detailed accounting of our 2017 budget finances, as is statutorily allowed. C-K keeps denying, hence, why I keep requesting.
Among dozens of untitled or ambiguous budget areas I have found $25M identified only as “Other Expenses” and “Internal Allocations.” There is $1.1M in the police service budget under the same description.
Mr. Shropshire states in my case they are dealing with one piece of paper containing confidential information. This is untrue. I’ve asked for financial verification to the Fire/EMS proposals “B” and “C.” That which I asked for is legislatively allowed. C-K chose to identify their documents as being on one sheet along with confidential information that cannot be disclosed. This way they are attempting not to have to disclose true costs of the amalgamation. Their documents also failed to describe over $300 million in employee lifecycle costs and numerous other costs.
C-K filed a 24-page defense not wanting to disclose financial details. Imagine the cost to have legal and other employees go to this extent to prohibit a citizen from accessing how tax dollars are being spent.
I did have one unsuccessful appeal, due to my application wording – my fault. My re-appeal to obtain proper financial accounting of the CSX/WC Rail will be successful and will add much light to seemingly secret-Byzantium C-K accounting.
Mr. Shropshire states contrary to the impression fostered by the article, the municipality routinely provides most residents with information not requiring them to go thru an FOI process, instead obtained by telephone. C-K placed in writing I am required to go thru the FOI process.
Seemingly any information that may expose detailed financial activity would be meant with opposition.
John Cryderman
Chatham
