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]
|