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.
But the haste with which her discomfited bosses chastised her and continued to plan to eliminate her job is still shocking (assuming that the actions of city bureaucrats can still be said to shock, given the heady escalation of outrageous behaviour during the reign of Melvin the Last).
The day the news broke, on Jan. 29 of this year, Ms. Reynolds's superiors took her aside and handed her a noose, and over the past month they have slowly marched her to the nearest high branch.
The privacy director may have stayed her own execution by blowing the whistle again -- complaining in The Toronto Star last week about "being intimidated and punished for doing my job with integrity" -- but her brutal treatment testifies powerfully about the continuing decline of our local government.
As the person responsible for releasing documents that often have the potential to embarrass city officials, Ms. Reynolds has always done her job well: In other words, her decisions have regularly embarrassed city officials. But unlike the city auditor, who reports directly to council, the privacy director reports directly to the officials whom her decisions embarrass most.
Ms. Reynolds was already aware of a high-level plan to reorganize her job out of existence on the morning she revealed that officials had destroyed Union Station documents requested under the terms of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Chief administrator Shirley Hoy, surrounded by several other senior managers, took the opportunity to remind her of the plan in a meeting held the same day.
Ms. Hoy also said "she wouldn't tolerate me not being a team player," according to Ms. Reynolds, "and how dare I have divulged the fact that those records were destroyed."
Ms. Hoy and corporate services commissioner Joan Anderton, who is responsible for both the Union Station process and the city privacy office, told Ms. Reynolds her decision was "unprofessional," according to Ms. Reynolds.
Ms. Reynold's decision to tell the simple truth about the matter -- in accordance with statutory requirements, she insists -- rocked the administration committee, which debated the Union Station deal on the same day and ultimately refused to recommend it, opting instead for an arm's-length ethical inquiry. But it didn't stop Ms. Reynolds's superiors from going ahead with their outlandish plan to eliminate her office and make each city department individually responsible for complying with public requests for information about its activities.
They even justified this brazen attempt to swat the gadfly -- and, in effect, to frustrate public access to city records -- as an improvement in transparency and accountability.
News of this attack has alarmed the true professionals in the field of public access.
"I can say without hesitation that Rita is a highly competent public servant," Ontario assistant privacy commissioner Tom Mitchinson wrote in an unsolicited letter to Ms. Hoy yesterday, "recognized for her leadership throughout the freedom-of-information community."
Ms. Reynolds is an "exemplary public servant" with "the utmost integrity" and "a strong and demonstrated commitment to transparency and public accountability," according to Mr. Mitchinson.
Does widespread publicity and professional outrage mean Hoy & Co. can't grease Rita Reynolds right away? Probably. Will it stop them from trying again? Good question. We still don't know how low they can go.
But thanks to Rita Reynolds, whose courageous stance forced city council to hand the Union Station file over to provincial Integrity Commissioner Coulter Osborne, we will soon know an awful lot more about the way these people operate -- all of it information they would prefer you not to have. jbarber@globeandmail.ca