|
|
As news stories evolve over time, it can become difficult to keep focus on the big picture. Reflection in hindsight can reveal interesting - sometimes startling - patterns in an otherwise rapid, chaotic event. PRIVA-CTM Research follows such news stories, the commentary on which may prevent others from repeating past mistakes in privacy management.
|
|
|
NOTE: Some external news stories may expire over time, resulting in dead links.
|
|
 |
March 1, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Being punished for simply doing job, city official says
Rita Reynolds says she's under siege. The director of Toronto's corporate access and privacy office…says she is being pressured by senior staff to be a "team player" and keep potentially embarrassing information hidden from public view. [More…]
March 4, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
Whistleblowers bosses handed Reynolds a noose
The moment she blew the whistle, revealing that city bureaucrats had destroyed sensitive records related to the coming privatization of Union Station, it was obvious that Toronto privacy director Rita Reynolds had done more to put her job on the line. [More…]
March 5, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Official lauded for integrity
A top provincial official has rushed to the defence of a municipal bureaucrat who says she's being pressured by her bosses to keep city business hidden from the public. [More…]
March 6, 2003 (Toronto Star)
City to probe missing files
An investigation has begun into the disappearance of three Union Station files from the desk of Toronto's director of corporate access and privacy, more than two weeks after the documents went missing. [More…]
March 7, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
City official confirms disappearance of documents
The city saga on Union Station has taken another odd twist with the confirmation that documents were stolen last month from the office of the senior Toronto official responsible for freedom of information requests. [More…]
March 25, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
Station fiasco makes City Hall surreal terrain
"One day, a respectable municipal official woke up to discover that she had been transformed into a giant cockroach. She denied it, quickly issuing a briefing note to set the record straight, antennae twitching angrily…" [More…]
April 8, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Union Station record turned over to judge
One of the judges in Toronto's contest to choose a consortium to renovate and operate Union Station has turned over personal scoring records to an independent judge's review of the deal, more than a month after city officials insisted that the judges' scoring records had all been discarded. [More…]
May 29, 2003 (Globe and Mail)
Whistle-blowers such as Reynolds always suffer
It is a truism of corporate and institutional life that whistle-blowers always suffer from the consequences of their actions - no matter how well motivated or helpful to the public interest those actions may be. [More…]
May 29, 2003 (Toronto Star)
City hall fires its privacy director
Rita Reynolds, who has spent 12 years at Toronto City Hall deciding what information people have a legal right to, has been fired. [More…]
May 30, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Editorial - Reynolds firing wrong
What does City Hall have to hide? That's what every Toronto resident should be wondering after the city official in charge of releasing public records was dumped from her job. [More…]
May 30, 2003 (Toronto Star)
Tory mum on firing of official
Toronto mayoral candidate John Tory has unveiled his ideas for open and honest civic government, but doesn't want to talk about the city's firing of the official responsible for deciding what information the public is legally entitled to see. [More…]
|
 The privacy officer is always walking a tightrope, having to balance the rights of citizens and customers with the vested interests of the organization.
It's a tricky position. At a minimum, the privacy officer must keep the organization on the right side of the law, even when it makes it uncomfortable for management, the board of directors or shareholders.
Rita Reynolds was accused of not being a "team player" by not protecting individuals in the organization from embarrassment. On the contrary, by keeping the organization on the right side of the law, she was contributing to the integrity of the organization by ensuring the openness and transparency.
Every privacy officer will come a point in their career where they will have to put their job on the line for principle's sake. Each person must decide where they will draw that line in the sand.
This case demonstrates the need for clear and precise terms of reference for the privacy officer, explicitly defining the role, authority and reporting relationship for the position. These terms of reference should be available to all stakeholders including staff, management and the public.
This case demonstrates the need for whistle-blower protection for people who make egregious abuses of power known to the public without fear of losing their jobs. There should be protocols in place for an individual to make such issues known, perhaps through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
There needs to be a mechanism in the organization to mediate and resolve disputes between the privacy officer and colleagues or superiors without resorting to traditional human resource management or disciplinary procedures.
All files and records relating to privacy or freedom of information cases must be stored in a secure manner, accessible only to personnel authorized by the privacy officer. Any breach of security must be reported and investigated immediately.
Sometimes the good guys don't win. Watch for further developments in this case.
|
|
|
