Sara, there are a lot of useful perspectives offered so far in  
relation to your notposte. I'll add another and hope it may be useful  
as well.

*  The legal standing of a generic disclaimer is subject to  
challenge.  This has been pointed out and is a valid view, but it is  
no improvement to decide NOT to put the recipient on notice that  
proper handling of information content is expected.  Interpretation  
of "confidentiality notices" is contextual...like just about  
everything. (Leaving my own on just as an example of other language.)

* Confidentiality is not a fixed state, generally.  For example,  
correspondence about a project may be confidential until approved.  
Thereafter, some aspects of the project, players, etc. may remain  
confidential when other communication about the approval process  
itself may be open to the public, perhaps.  Isn't it all auditable?  
Therefore, identification of content as "confidential" is quite  
appropriate despite that by the time a third party reviews the  
content, it may not be confidential any more.

Declaration of confidential status, as has been pointed out, may have  
absolutely nothing to do with FOIP or other compliance...but as has  
not been pointed out yet, this does not make such a declaration wrong  
in other contexts.

* A blanket request for "all" of a class of records (such as email)  
should not be too difficult to duck.  It is an unreasonable request  
in terms of resourcing the response and would certainly reach beyond  
legitimate access to a given matter. The request needs to be framed  
in a way that enables a timely and accurate response--which is the  
way to frame the refusal.

The catch here is that refocusing on a given subject matter opens the  
door to other record types.  "Give me everything related to the  
decision to remove the cross-walk by the public park" establishes no  
limit on media type.  But it is a more reasonable request than, "give  
me all emails from the planning department".

On a cautionary note, over the years I have seen one organization  
after another seek to short cut its own necessary process by seeking  
a pre-existing solution to a perceived problem.  Not saying your  
council is doing that!  Simply cautioning that focusing on the means  
rather than the outcome may result in the typical "protection" that  
enables the laying of blame when something goes wrong, rather than  
reducing the risk that something will go wrong.

Dealing with challenges such as the one use raised can be a great  
opportunity.  Hope you may find some ideas in here. Good luck with it!

Regards,
John

John James O'Brien, BA, CRM, MALT
[log in to unmask]
On assignment in Canada: +1 250 891 2997

Partner & Managing Director, IRM Strategies
Hong Kong: +852 3101 7359  Bangkok: +66 2 207 2530
http://www.irmstrategies.com

Associate Partner, S4K Research AB
Stockholm, Sweden s4k.com
____________________________________________________________
Note: This email (including all attachments and content conveyed  
hereby) is intended for the addressee, in person or position, only.   
Unauthorized use, distribution or action based on this email is  
prohibited. No rights of ownership are waived or lost through  
transmission, misdirection or interception. If you are not the  
intended addressee, kindly notify the sender immediately and expunge   
all record of this email from all relevant data systems.


List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]