Port slammed over FOI abuse
(CNS): The Information Commissioner's Office has condemned the Port Authority of the Cayman Islands (PACI) over the way it handled a freedom of information request made by CNS back in January regarding the GLF cruise berthing proposal. In her decision delivered Thursday, some ten months after we made our request, Commissioner Jennifer Dilbert described the procedural issues relating to the request as “unprecedented” and said the authority repeatedly failed to meet deadlines or cooperate with the ICO. “In my opinion PACI showed a total disregard for the policies and procedures of the ICO, and the FOI Law,” the information boss found as she announced that she was conducting a separate investigation under section 44 of the law regarding the port's failure to comply.
In the final analysis Dilbert has ordered some further records released and upheld the Port Authority's decision to keep others under wraps. However, her main concern in this case has been the failure of the authority to follow the law, not just in terms of what it should have released but also in connection with the procedural process.
CNS made the FOI request to the port in January after a previous request by someone else was dealt with by the commissioner but was then dropped by the applicant. From that point on the obstruction and difficulties began.
Although the commissioner had ordered the records released to the original applicant, when CNS asked for the same records we were refused. Dilbert ordered the Port Authority to comply with her decision but it objected and questioned the validity of the commissioner applying the original decision to a new applicant.
The commissioner then turned to the courts to enforce her decision, but in the face of what was likely to be a costly and long legal battle, the more efficient move was for CNS to make a fresh request. We did so, and after some time received some records. However, it was very clear that not everything relating to our request had been released and as a result CNS asked the ICO to intervene once again.
"The unreasonable manner in which this request was handled at every step along the way unnecessarily created additional cost, work and delays for all concerned,” Dilbert said as she pointed to the obstructionism of the authority over the ten months since the request was submitted. She added that the authority consistently confused the disclosure of records to CNS as the applicant with the provision of copies of records to the ICO to enable the office to carry out the appeal under the law.
“This resulted in delays and much additional work on the part of the ICO to bring the appeal to this point,” Dilbert said in her decision, rejecting outright the port's claim that to “disclose any privileged documents in the absence of compulsion as to do so would result in waiver of privilege over these records.”
She said the authority had “grossly misused” the application of legal professional privilege in this case in various different ways.
Dilbert also said that once the ICO hearing began, the port engaged in “a month of negotiation, unacceptable delays, and non-cooperative and obstreperous responses”.
The authority did all it could to prevent the ICO seeing the documents that were in dispute but eventually agreed to staff from her office inspecting the responsive records at the offices of PACI’s lawyers.
“The ICO was challenged at each step of the way, and while to expedite matters the ICO agreed to inspect records at the offices of the lawyers, it placed significant and unnecessary logistical burdens on the staff. It was doubly frustrating, and further testifies to the obstructionist approach by PACI, when the resulting informal opinion letter was apparently not seriously considered after a further delay of over a month,” she added.
One of the most serious issues that came to light during this appeal, however, was that the ICO discovered records that should have been identified and provided to the office after the original open records request made which was later withdrawn (Hearing 19-01911). In short, the port may have deliberately withheld records that should have been declared to the ICO in a hearing that was completed last year in direct contravention of the law.
Following her instructions to the port to release more documents, the authority now has 45 days to reveal these outstanding records or seek judicial review. CNS, as the applicant, has accepted the commissioner's decision that some records actually are exempt under the law and others are not relevant and will not be seeking judicial review.
“However, we continue to live in hope that the port will comply with the order to release the records that Dilbert states are not exempt and hope that the almost year long record breaking request can finally be dealt with,' said reporter Wendy Ledger.
“I have made many FOI requests in the course of my work at CNS and many of them have seen public authorities missing deadlines and failing to release what they should, requiring the intervention of the ICO, but this was the most ridiculous of them all. It is quite apparent that whatever happened regarding the sudden rejection of the GLF cruise berthing proposal, the people of Cayman will never know the complete truth.The port's reluctance at every turn over this request speaks volumes about whether this was or was not above board,” Ledger added.
See ICO's full decision below.
Category: FOI
Folks, for your good and your most informed opinion please visit the Port Authority web-site to see who makes up the board of directors! From their you can see why the Port Authority will not move ahead and will, until June 2013, be in the spot-light.
Folks, let us put the blame where it truly lies – a weak, impotent, "All Boys Club aka Board Members who, rather than resign like some did in order to maintain their integrity and put country above self, chose to stay "On Board" and go along with instructions given by the BIg Man aka Head of the Boys Club. That is the problem with the country today, too many little boys trying to fill big boots, but not enough MEN with iron balls to put country above self interests.
And who do you think the Board was taking instructions from? Only one man. The Big Mac himself who thinks that the Cayman Islands is his personal fiefdom and he can do anything he wants and hide any information he chooses.
"Now you listen to me! If you release the documents you'll be fired, and if you don't, you might end up in court, but the firing will come first, trust me! If you submit the implicating documents after the elections, you'll avoid the court case, and as long as you're man enough to take some wrist-slappings, along with a few outbursts on CNS, all will be forgiven and forgotten. In fact, I'll see to it you get a promotion. And by the way, don't forget why Breakers is called Breakers. It's got nothing to do with the waves! This is how it's always been done in Cayman, so don't let yourself be the first to break with tradition. Click."
As one of the earlier posters said, any Board Member who resigned at the time rather than go along with the farce, had integrity. Any who remained and went along with the status quo….well, you can draw your own conclusions. It seems folks, that the big boys club is alive and kicking, and people will do whatever they have to, to cover up for their own. Perhaps some of them were scared of the possibility of lawsuits being filed against them personally as Board Members over the decision to kick out GLF? But wasn't it a directive of the Premier? If you ask me, the Premier should have personally paid the settlement to GLF, not the country. Why should the countrysuffer for the inept decisions made by its politicians? Oh, I forget, this is supposed to be a democracy. DEMOCKERY, if you ask me.
We elected them, so unfortunately we pay for their F…UPS, sorry I meant mistakes. It is a democracy only when it comes to who has to pay for the lawsuit payments, but a dictatorship in all other instances, especially when it comes to making the decisions. So I guess wecould call our system of government "DEMUCK-DICKTATORY."
I think it's about time we own up to the hard truth that Caymanians are simply not qualified enough and in a position to run this island. By this I mean there are not enough qualified, intelligent, educated and experienced enough Caymanians around and the ones that are around are usually too "connected" whether it be by family or business interests.
The absolute pathetic way this administration run government, the widespread corruption, inefficient government departments and the obscene amount of waste all has one common factor – it always involve those parts of society where Caymanians control or are represented in the vast majority if not 100%. I don't like saying this and I wish the opposite was true – however, I can no longer pretend the opposite.
The first step is to allow status holders to be able to run for political office, let's widen our choices on the political arena. The mess that is Cayman today needs to be cleaned up big time, nepotism, favoritism, family connections, under the table deals, etc, etc, etc cannot be allowed to continue for the future of these islands.
ya, let the expats n on the gravy train!
that's one of the problems at this time. There is one expat on the board who should know better than to circumvent the laws!!! Big ??????????????????????
13:48, I am behind your thoughts, however the powers that be would rather have Cayman become independent of the UK before that happens.
Sick of all the bullsh*t that is taking this island away from what it once was.
An irrate Caymanian.
13;48
And you think your Oxford and Cambridge leaders are qualified to run the UK,… give me a break! they have done more fu@@ ups, which will take them decades to correct.
The people on the board with integrity all resigned… that says it all really
….and their replacements are questionable!
As the Port Director I report and take instructions from the Board of Directors. These FOI requests were dealth with at a Board of Directors level.
Paul W. Hurlston
Port Director
I hope the next government undertakes to have ALL the minutes of the Port Authority meetings published. It is commendable that the Water Authority and Central Planning Authority (and others?) already publish theirs.
As despicable as I may find some of the CPA decisions to be, at least they "man up" to them by publishing the minutes of their board meetings.
Everyone with a grain of sense knows your hands have been tied Paul and that lawyers are involved.
Congratulations Mr. Hurlston for coming out with who took the decision to conceal information. Boy I wouldn't want to be sitting on that board. Can you imagine? I must say that I'm not surprised of the make up of the board; pure yes males!
Steal $100 and everyone is after you. Loot millions from the public purse, damage the country's economy, ignore procurement rules designed to stamp out corruption then intentionally violate Freedom of Information laws to cover your tracks and you'll get a slap on the wrists and keep your job.
The Port Authority, like most authorities, has a “Board of Directors” which instructs it on what they can and cannot do or in this case…..release. Some HODs are very willing to release certain information but cannot do so because their "Board of Directors" has taken that choice away from both them and the FOI Manager. This appears to be the case with this authority….lawyers are involved.
" Laywers are involved." Seems to me, like they all got something to hide. Why else would lawyers be involved? And the rabbit hole goes deeper and deeper in wonderland.
This is the case dear blogger! No doubt it. CNS you must FOI the costs involved in defending this decision and the entire board minutes from the time all this began. I bet you will find that there is lots of stuff in those minutes, if the minutes reflects such decisions, that will tell the public who told who to refer the matter to lawyers!
CNS: The FOI law is for everybody, not just the media. What is stopping you from making the FOI requests you suggest?
To CNS comment; it would be better if you FOI'd that information so you can publish it. If a member of the public did it would only be for personal use and not to have it published. Don't get cold foot now; things are hot!
CNS: If a member of the public makes an FOI request, they can send us the response and, if they feel it is relevant, all email correspondence concerning the request, and we will publish the results. We have done this many times before – here for example: Adults and juveniles still mixed in local jails. It's not a question of cold feet, it is a question of time and resources – CNS is a very small opertation.
This expose of the port authority says it all about the attitude, arrogance and the culture that is well established and totally ingained in the operation and thinking at the port authority. This authority needs a serious shake up with new management that realizes and understands that they work for the people of the Cayman Islands and provide a service to the community and are not an authoritarian empire within a Government. The attitude and character of any organisation always comes from and fillers down from the top.
Unfortunately the board of directors often don't consult or involve the members of an authority in decisions and I am sure that this was the case here too.
FYI The Port Director, Paul Hurlston, has a seat on the Board in every meeting and is aware of everything that goes on in each meeting.
Of course the Port Director, like the director of every other Government Authority, is aware of everything that goes on in each meeting. They have responsibility for taking the minutes. However, they do NOT vote, and even if allowed to vote, a single vote against a politically-appointed dozen would not be of any use.
Freedom of information will be done as long as it does not interfere with CIG's freedom to take what they want, when they want, and how much they want. This is Cayman. It is what it is. Caymankind.
Who controls the Government ?
Why cannot the citizens get the public information for which they are paying through the nose ?
Why do the citizens have to pay another branch of the Government, including expensive lawyers, to obtain what they already own?
Does the Premier control Government? If not, who does?
Why cannot the Premier simply order his recalcitrant departments to come clean? Could they have something on the Premier?
Why doesn't the Premier just say, "Release the information?" Afterall, it is he who fired the last Board when they did follow his dictate! Could it be they are following his dictate in this instance?
BINGO!!!!!! Although I suspect Foolio might be involved too.
Let me answer your questions.
Who controls the Government? Ans: No one. They are self-governing.
Why cannot the citizens get the public information for which they are paying through the nose? Ans: Because Government doesn't want you to. It might expose their crimes or incompetence.
Why do the citizens have to pay another branch of the Government, including expensive lawyers, to obtain what they already own? Ans: I'm not sure about this one, but I think they need more money to pay for all those pensions.
XXXX
The question is, why were they witholding information, someone told them to? If so, what were they trying to hide? Could there be any link to the cancellation of the Cruise ship berth contract and the involvement of the Chinese company, a company known for giving "payments" to those allotting contracts.
Is there any link to the refusal to pass FFR legislation?
Is there a link to the auditors comments about failure to account properly.
My bet is yes there are links, and if so that is serious indeed!
Well I’ll be be a toothless dog – toothless dog
If the GLF deal had gone through, then the port would probably have a working cruise dock today. This would have been a great economic boost to the Cayman Islands.
Howver, I suspect (just suspect mind you) that the real reason the GLF deal fell through at a great cost to Cayman is that GLF would not give the Mr. Bush an adequate kickback (oops, sorry, I mean a charitable contribution to the Nation Building Fund).
Let the records be opened for all to see. If the documents prove that Mr. Bush's hands are clean and that his heart is pure, then I will stand corrected and apologize.
You know what Jennifer I am tired of hearing failed FOI and no fallout. When is it that someone gets fired? When is it that someone has to come to answer for this? I am TIRED no strike that SICK AND TIRED of just hearing some department did not do this or did not do that. Is that all the teeth you have???
DO SOMETHING. FOI lies in the balance.
could not agree more, do something about it or quit and go home.
I find this absolutely amazing. Whomever sat on the board at the Port Authority in these times needs to be subject to self examination. I have no doubt that our AG, not I should add the Attorney General, is on top of this.
As a passing observer of several years it is clear the Port Authority have failed miserably in maintaining transparency and letting us know what really is taking place. Can we find twelve just men to run it. Henry Fonda would have filled his boots.
Mrs Dilbert is a shining star but how long will it be before she gets fired by the corrupt powers that be. Dan Duguay went so just how long I wonder before Mrs Dilbert gets fired.
The public need to speak out and support a West Bay star in times when only the few will stand up against corruption and the total lack of transparency of the current Stalanistic/ communistic regime.
"We'll give you information when we want, how we want and decide what we want you to have"
Freedom of Information? Not a chance. Jennifer Dilbert deserves more support but that would need to come from the very people who obstruct her.
"… we'll give you information when you pry it from our cold, unelected fingers."
Terminate the "man" in charge.
Family can not be terminated here. Its against Caymanian christianity morals. Stealing, lying and cheating still seems to be OK though.
07:43, its against good ol caymanian common sense from the sacred wessell.
I hear Rolly is taking care of that for us! UDP Internal Coup is underway apparently
Will he need a driver? I'm a very good driver.
Rainman
he ain't got the stones for that…….
14:53, Thats because the courts are currently holding on to them.
You go Rollie; I am with you on this all the way. You still have 7 months to work on turning the UDP around. We the faithfull are behind you, a man of integrity, all the way.
You will fine you have more support than you think. The old Captain is just weary from fighting the storm, a new navigator will right the good ship Cayman and the UDP in no time.
The chance to save the UDP was when the vote of no confidence was in. It is too late now. All they would be doing now is proving that their political life is more important than the people. If they truly put the people first they would have acted sooner.
It's impressive to see this work from the FOI Commissioner's office and she is to be commended for it but it always comes with Mrs Dilbert's "byline" when it is well known that the major groundwork, which she signs off on and publicises, is done by a guy who used to be at the Archives, Jan Libieers or some name like that. It's ok for her to do this but she should really give him credit for the massive amount of behind the scenes stuff he does – he's a lawyer, very bright and committed to whatever he does. If Mrs Dilbert is promoted, he could take over, but he should be recognised from now as a natural "succession plan" replacement.
Seconded. I've worked with him before. I know Jennifer too, and she is fabulous, but Jan deserves some public credit from her.
If a government port employee (who is paid by the public) is in charge of FOI requests, then who the hell is he/she?
This is a criminal waste of time and money.
FOI exists for the benefit of the taxpayer and is not open to abuse. Name yourself and/or step down.
A port employee would not be in charge of granting or not granting FOI requests, the board of directors would be.
THe Law requires that an IFo officer be appointed within the department or Authority.
Actually a PACI employee IS in charge of deciding FOI requests. However, it appears the PROBLEM is that the Board of Directors is actually making the decisions.
so what will be done about it? nothing?
Theres a lot of slamming going on. When am I going to get mines?