The Westlock News is one step closer to finding out what happened with former Pembina Hills school division Supt. Richard Harvey, but it could take months to find out for sure.
The process has been a slow-going one, beginning with the division’s announcement on Oct. 25, 2010, that Harvey was no longer an employee of the division.
Division officials’ refusal to elaborate on the circumstances surrounding his departure prompted an information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, resulting in a fee estimate of nearly $4,000. The News asked for a fee waiver in January 2011, which the division declined, and the issue has been in the formal appeal process since then.
The most recent development was a four-hour oral hearing last Thursday in Edmonton, which addressed three issues surrounding the request: whether the fees should be waived because the issue is a matter of public interest, whether PHRD correctly calculated the fees and whether PHRD has legal jurisdiction to charge fees in the first place.
It could still be several months before adjudicator Wade Riordan Raaflaub releases his decision.
“I’ll endeavour to get it done as soon as possible,” he said at the hearing.
In attendance at the hearing were Raaflaub, Westlock News reporter Doug Neuman, publisher George Blais, PHRD secretary-treasurer Tracy Meunier, assistant secretary-treasurer Grant Widdup, division lawyer Grace Cooke, and Jillian Harker, a lawyer employed by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
On the first issue discussed at the hearing, the division’s lawyer Grace Cooke suggested that the details of Harvey’s departure from the board are simply a matter of curiosity and don’t meet a legal definition of public interest.
The News, which is unrepresented by legal counsel for the purpose of the FOIP request, maintains that as the top-ranking bureaucrat of one of the largest public bodies in the area, it would be in the public interest to have information about the circumstances of Harvey’s departure — especially in light of the Barrhead RCMP’s ongoing fraud investigation relating to the expense account of an unnamed employee of the division.
Cooke emphasized the division is not trying to hide anything, but rather is simply trying to comply with the FOIP Act and not breach Harvey’s privacy.
As for the issue of whether the fees were correctly calculated, an unrelated fee-waiver decision in November 2011 set a precedent meaning the school division now had to prove the fee estimates they used were realistic instead of simply relying on the maximum amounts set out in the Act.
Meunier confirmed at the hearing that the fee estimate had been reduced by more than $1,000 in light of that decision although no attempts were made to inform the News about the change, which was made some time in the spring.
Cooke pointed out that the News made no attempt to find out what impact that decision would have had on the fee schedule, either. Raaflaub said that particular issue did not concern him.
Raaflaub himself brought forward the third issue: whether the school board has legal jurisdiction to charge fees in the first place.
Since there is no official PHRD policy defining how fees are charged, he questioned whether the division has the legal right to charge fees in the first place. Cooke argued that the division’s policy indicating it will comply with the FOIP Act constitutes a legal instrument allowing it to charge the fees. The two debated the issue for about half an hour before the hearing was closed.
