By Mark Squibb/April 28, 2022
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has found no evidence that the Town of Witless Bay withheld documents related to a recent Access to Information request.
Resident Anita Dunn requested the town to provide “all emails, phone records, texts, and any forms of communications, both on private forms of communication that were used for official town business and official forms of communication, prior to and after the swearing in of officials, between all members of the Witless Bay town council, including the mayor and deputy mayor, and between all members of the Witless Bay council and any employee or former employee, and between the Witless Bay town council and any private citizen, regarding the motions that were rescinded in the first and second town meetings by the new council.”
In the early months following the September election, the new council rescinded half a dozen motions that had been passed by the former council, some at the behest of an unidentified resident. By rescinding two of those motions, the new council effectually reinstated a 99-hectare Crown Land Reserve in the Mullowney’s Lane area that essentially halts any potential development in the area. It was information relating to those motions that Dunn was in search of.
That search turned up dry, though the town provided Dunn with statements from councillors saying they did not have any records related to her access request.
The response did not sit well with Dunn, who then requested a formal investigation.
“With all due respect, it is unreasonable to assert that not one phone call took place, no texts or emails, no social media messages happened in the wake of such a flurry happening over 3 days, especially during a pandemic,” Dunn was quoted in the Privacy report. “I fear that information I requested is being deliberately withheld.”
The formal investigation dug a little deeper and shone a light at how the town operated (or didn’t operate) in mid-to-late 2021, a time marked not only by the transition of a new council in the fall, but by the resignation of almost the entire town staff.
The Town acknowledged that there was a brief period in early October when newly-elected councillors did use their personal email accounts to coordinate their first meeting, as they had not yet been issued Town emails. The coordinator requested those emails, and found no reason to believe that councillors withheld records.
The Town also claimed that the Town Office was closed for four months in 2021.
“The Town Office was closed from June 11, 2021 to October 11, 2021 and the Town explained that, during this time, the Office was not staffed, and that councilors were not sending correspondence to, or receiving correspondence from the Town,” reads the report.
The new councillors also advised the Acting ATIPP Coordinator that they had discussed rescinding motions when they gathered prior to their first formal meeting.
In the end, the Office belived the Town “demonstrated reasoned efforts to assist the Complainant.”
“There has been no evidence to support the Complainant’s claim that responsive records were ‘being deliberately withheld,’” reads the report.
However, the report did note that the two October council meetings, the ‘first and second meetings’ referenced in the initial request, did not focus on rescinding motions.
“It is possible that the Complainant mistakenly thought that the November 9, 2021 meeting would fall within the parameters of the access request,” reads the report. “If the Complainant would like access to records relating to this, or any earlier or later meetings of the new Town Council, she must file a new access request with the Town.”
During that November 9 meeting, council voted to rescind four previous motions of council, and delayed rescinding of two (which were rescinded at a later meeting)
Council rescinded a 2018 decision of council which stated that road standards within the town of Witless Bay, including all public rights-of-ways, shall be at the discretion of council.
Council also rescinded a 2021 motion (which was made to rescind an even earlier motion) to provide conditional approval for a single family dwelling at 215-217 Gallows Cove Road.
Council then made a new motion to approve the home.
Council also rescinded a 2020 motion of council to demolish a barn on 41 Dunn’s Lane. Councillor Gerard Dunn declared a conflict of interest and did not vote on that motion as his son owns the property.
Two further motions of the former council were rescinded during the December 14 meeting. Those moves effectively reinstated a 99-hectare Crown Land Reserve near Mullowney’s Lane. One of the decisions rescinded was a 2020 decision to rescind a former motion, made in 2014, that established the Land Reserve in the first place. The second motion rescinded was a 2020 motion to send a letter to the Department of Municipal Affairs asking to remove the Land Reserve from the regional plan.
With that last motion rescinded, councillor Ralph Carey, who was also part of the council two terms back that created the Land Reserve, requested that a letter be sent to the Department of Municipal Affairs to inform it of the move and to request a meeting with officials.
That motion was passed unanimously.