APLA Advocacy
From Complaints to Cookies Louise White & Frances Newman
APLA 2014
Library and Archives Canada
A Tale of Two Codes
Louise White, APLA 2014
louise.white@mi.mun.ca
Quick Recap
➢ March 13, 2013 journalist Margaret Munro uploads a new Code of Conduct to Scribd.com
➢ The Code had been in force since January
➢ James Turk of CAUT and others criticize the Code in a National Post article on March 15
An Institution in Trouble
➢ Concern for LAC already present
○ Severe budget cuts
○ Skill level of senior administrators questioned
➢ Along comes a Code which restricts LAC staff
engaging in professional discourse
APLA Resolution
Put forward by Peter Glenister, OGM, May 17, 2013:
Whereas: Code includes measures which stop LAC professionals from communicating about their work; LAC responsible for
preserving Canada’s documentary heritage facilitated through cooperation which demands experts be allowed to speak publicly Resolved: to preserve public’s right to access expert knowledge;
request ICC include LAC among agencies to be investigated for policies and actions that restrict government scientist from
communicating with the media and Canadians
Homework
➢ Learn about the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
○ established in 1983 under the Access to Information Act Canada’s freedom of information legislation – to assist individuals and organizations who believe that federal institutions have not respected their rights under the Act
○ provide arms-length oversight of the federal government’s access to information practices
○ encourages and assists federal institutions to adopt approaches to information-sharing that meet the objectives of the Act, and advocates for greater access to information in Canada.
From: http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/abu-ans_who-we-are_qui-sommes-nous.aspx
Approach to ICC
➢ Had to take a slightly different approach than anticipated
➢ Was not citing a breach of the Act
➢ Wanted ICC to be made “officially” aware of
Code and the concerns it raised
Encourage and Assist
➢ Careful not to use word “complaint”
➢ Rather, indicated possibility of shared concern
➢ Wasn’t sure, at all, how ICC would respond
➢ OICC used the word “complaint” assigning
weight, and an investigator, to our request
File # 3213-00870
Summarized by investigator
In your complaint, you submitted that the Code of Conduct “severely limits the freedom of expression of national library staff.” You also alleged that the Code limits what the library staff is entitled to say in the conduct of their professional activities which further affects their
ability to carry out their responsibilities towards the Canadian public. According to the
complaint, the Code of Conduct restricts professional and personal activities which could have the effect of impeding “public awareness of, and ultimately public access to, the vast store of Canadian heritage materials and officials government documents held at LAC.” Consequently, you requested that our office reviews the Code of Conduct and shares any concerns with LAC.
Then:
Over the course of the investigation, LAC revised the Code of Conduct that was under complaint.
Next Phase
From the Investigator:
In light of this revised version of the Code of Conduct and the fact that your complaint raised concerns about the Code that is no longer in effect, I am writing to inquire
whether you would be interested in settling the complaint. Recording a complaint as
“settled” means that the complaint was settled to the satisfaction of all parties without the need for our office to make a finding (i.e. ‘well-founded’ or ‘not well-founded’). In order to settle a complaint, we require consents of all parties.
APLA:
Wanted to establish that concerns we raised were no longer present in the new code.
