The Information Officer keeps the requester confidential; the Minister or other civil servants simply have to comply with the Information Officer’s requests for XYZ based on the request of the requester.

That’s the point of the Information Officer, to be a named person the requester lodges the request for so that the requester itself is kept confidential and the Information Officer handles the request.

PATI is for the people and others to get information out of the civil servants which keeps information secret to cover up avoid their responsibilities not for partisan politicians to keep their job.

No one else. Not the Permanent Secretary, the Minister or anyone else.

My guess would be that Mr Cannonier has a bit of a track record (think Jet Gate) of misleading parliament and refusing to answer parliamentary questions. So perhaps Mr Brown thought it best to go through the PATI route as (a) a back-up should Mr Cannonier refuse to answer; and (b) to confirm that Mr Cannonier was not misleading parliament in any answer he provided.

Your heritage here in Bermuda is minimul.

Stop stirring the pot.

Really.

The Minister can know about a PATI request, no question. However, the Minister should not know who the requester is.

The civil servant in charge of handling the PATI request is bound by the law to ensure the name of the requester is confidential – only s/he should know it for the sake of responding to the requester, and should not be sharing it with anyone else, let alone a Minister.

It is because we are a small and close-knit society that the importance of protecting the requester is all the more important. That the Minister was able to find it arguably calls into question the professionalism and impartiality of the civil servants involved.

Go pump gas.

So it is not confidential once he crossed that line.

Nothing to see here except more garbage from the PLP and their wanted destruction of a Government trying to make things tick-tock again.

Think about it before you slam me.

Shalom.

Remember the black balling and retribution that many people faced back in the 1900′s and under the old oligarchy?? It started with things like this. What if a random member of the public is on to something that the government is trying to hide? The people are no longer protected! PAY ATTENTION, we are very quickly going back to “the old days” !!!

In fact, it’s ridiculous to think the Minister would not know about it, if it is a question directly involving him. He would presumably be the source of some of the information, so how can he not know?

So, as I said above, let’s look at what happened here. Walton tells everyone that he wants this information. Cannonier says yes, I know, you already asked for it. And the Walton complains that now everyone knows he wants the information.

It’s bizarre, and it’s a total waste of time.

So let’s look at what happened here. Walton tells everyone that he wants this information. Cannonier says yes, I know, you already asked for it. And the Walton complains that now everyone knows he wants the information.

Frankly, it’s bizarre. And it’s a total waste of time.

Exactly.

… “This undermines the entire PATI Act and leaves individuals at fear of retribution going forward – it has a chilling effect.

Minister Cannonier will to have to disclose how he ‘was aware…’ Mr. Brown had made a request. How was the Minister aware, did Mr. Brown tell him? I doubt it. Did a PLP member tell him? possible, but if it came directly from someone connected to the Pati office then see J Starlings comments above.

Spot on.

“… and I did reveal that I was aware that maybe he had put in a request through PATI for the information”. This only serves to raise more questions and calls into question the staff in the Pati Office.

It doesn’t matter if Mr. Brown spoke about it in the HOA if he wanted to say that it’s up to him. However requests are supposed to be confidential, on this evidence it sounds like someone leaked Mr. Browns request to him. Not Good.

Doesn’t it bother you that if it were YOU asking, the annonimity that was assured DOESN’T actually exist?

This was JUST in BERNEWS on the 12th of THIS month…………

“When asked about the independence of the Office of the Information Commissioner as relates to it not being subject to bias or influence by any political party or government, Commissioner Gutierrez asserted: “I do think it’s absolutely critical that the Information Commissioner’s Office be independent and also actually be free from bias, as well as being perceived as being free from bias.

“This office is charged with safeguarding a process. The role of the Information Commissioner is not to take sides, to be an advocate for any particular issue or any particular political party, but really to promote, oversee and safeguard a process for people informing themselves. One of the most important changes in the law with the PATI Act is that we’ve moved from people having access to information as a matter of discretion to people having access to information as a matter of right.”

“So if the office of the Information Commissioner is perceived as exercising some sense of discretion based on bias or personal preference or political influence, then that completely undermines one of the most important aspects of the Act. I am personally very committed to the principle of independence and fairness and impartiality.”

Dear Commissioner Gutierrez, just so know Mr. Cannonier has apologized so it’s all good…..KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON.

Reading the PATI guidelines, I have a couple of questions/concerns. Who are the “public administrators?” Are they specific officers/civil servants, or does it mean anyone who serves in a public capacity? If it refers to specific officers who work in the PATI office (if there is one), it appears to me that the PATI officer responsible for fulfilling Mr. Brown’s request had a duty to keep the request private, and the name of the requester confidential. However, that duty does not appear to extend to anyone other than the PATI officer, unless it means anyone who serves in a public capacity, and therefore would include Min. Cannonier – at least that is the way I read it. If I should happen to become privy to the details of a PATI request, the person who told me, if they were the officer, would and should be liable, but there don’t appear to be any restrictions on me talking about the information I have received, since I do not serve in a public capacity. Now, maybe there should be restrictions on my revealing said information, but what I read above does not make that clear. At the very least, that section of the guidelines is ambiguous and open to interpretation
All of which is to say, this incident can be viewed as a blessing in disguise. The offending officer needs to experience appropriate consequences for breaching the guidelines and the legislators might want to revisit the Act to ensure this loophole, if it is one, gets closed. Maybe if the penalty for an officer breaching the guidelines is severe enough, the likelihood of members of the public gaining access to confidential information will be nonexistant.

It’s funny watching him go for broke every time he moves his lips .

What a idiot!!!

lastly with Bermuda’s size and closely knit communities, it would not be a stretch for the Minister to ‘know’ who the requestor was either by accident or design. so even if he ‘knew’, the Minister’s real wrong-doing was in uttering the requester’s name into the public domain?

You are absolutely correct, not to mention the information that is shared at social gatherings.

Members of parliament have the parliamentary privilege to speak in parliament in ways that outside it would constitute an offence. So although breaching the law, he will not likely suffer the consequence (I believe it’s a $5000 fine and some imprisonment). However, it opens up concerns that future requesters may not have their names concealed, and they may fear retribution and so not request information in the first place. The Premier, in this case, should censure the Minister, possibly even relieving him of his Cabinet position.

Media are within their rights to report whatever is said on the floor of the House. As the proceedings of the house are played live on the radio anyway, the name of the requestor would immediately have been broadcast regardless.

questions? at what point are Members’ statements made in the House privileged? do the PATI rules supersede Members privileges? if the Member’s statement was privileged was it wrong for the media to disclose the name of the requestor. thanks.

That calls for a Commission of Enquiry.

$875!!!!

Who “officially” valued it?