My FOIP Request Results - For Your Reading Pleasure

Sept 3 The City of Medicine Hat removed all candidate campaign links from their website. Why? Because they received a complaint about MY website. They have since restored them with a disclaimer but candidates had to resubmit their links.

My links aren't there because I haven't sent them in. I'm holding myself to the promise I made when I sent this letter to the City.

The Promise

In the spirit of wanting the election to appear fair, I am willing to leave my campaign link off the list if the other candidate links are restored. I will even send an email to the city administration asking for my information to be removed. I am willing to make this sacrifice for the benefit of others. After all,

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”

 Spock - Wrath of Khan

Here is the disclaimer they posted - As a service to the public, the City provides links to websites and social media platforms created and maintained by municipal election candidates.

By providing these links, the City of Medicine Hat does not endorse, adopt, repeat, or control, the content of any external candidate website or social media platform nor assume any responsibility or liability for the content of any external candidate website or social media platform. The views, opinions, and information expressed on external candidate websites and social media platforms are those of the candidates alone and do not represent the views of the City.

Visitors who follow these links do so at their own discretion and risk. Any concerns regarding content found on candidate websites or social media platforms should be directed to the respective candidate.

It makes me wonder

• Why did they not tell this person to go pound sand?

• Why did they not just post this disclaimer when they received the complaint?

• Who is this person who has so much power that the City acted immediately to remove my link and then removed everybody else's links too so it did not look they were targeting only me?

  
  

I have received only one concern about my website. Take a look at my posts and see if you can figure out which one it is.

The City is refusing to give me the body of the complaint, claiming privilege. That to me seems very odd. The complaint came from an outside e-mail; I am not sure how privilege applies. I asked for an expanation, they gave me none; they are not even responding to me anymore. I sent an e-mail to City Solicitor Ben Bullock to ask for an explanation, I do not expect an answer before Monday.

Here is the e-mail chain about the "privilege".

As promised, here is the link for my ATIA (Access To Information Act) Request. The pages are not in chronological order so I created a document which outlines the events in order. Read it for yourself and see if you think the City acted in a reasonable way.

Sept 5 2025 ATIA Chronological Order

Abbreviations

ACA - Andres Cardona Arias Chief Electoral Officer

BB - Ben Bullock City Solicitor

CG - Colleen Graham, Director Corporate Communications

KA - Kelly Allard City Council Candidate

LH - Leigha Haney Solicitor (City Solicitor Dept)

LM - Laurie Manz City Employee

MK - Matthew Klasen Solicitor (City Solicitor Dept)

MW - Melissa Wagner City Employee

NC - Nicole Clarke City Employee

NJ - Nancy Jalbert Senior Paralegal

RO - Rex Osivwemu Solicitor (City Solicitor Dept)

SS - Shila Sharps City Councillor

SZ - Stephanie Zubreki Deputy City Clerk

TA - Tarolyn Aaserud- City Clerk, Acting City Manager

TP - Terra Petryshyn Corporate Communications Specialist

pgs 11-19 Email chain between KA and James Will (Parks and Rec) Not relevant to the issue.

pgs

pg 5 No date - MW - ACA Subject canceled: meet with KA, Importance High

Tuesday Sept 2

pgs 39-40 

2:45pm (redacted) 20(1) - election@medicinehat.ca, BB, TA, CC’d (redacted) 20(1) Subject Request to remove link to Kelly Allard Candidate website sent from external address “To all concerned;

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and request. (redacted) 32(1)(a)"

3:29pm ACA - (redacted) 20(1) body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

4:18:21pm (redacted) 20(1)-ACA from external address, body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

pgs 37-38

2:46pm (redacted) 20(1) - election@medicinehat.ca, BB, TA, CC’d (redacted) 20(1) Subject Request to remove link to Kelly Allard Candidate website sent from external address

“To all concerned;

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and request. (redacted) 32(1)(a)"

2:53pm BB - RO Forwarded body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:59pm RO - BB CC’d NJ body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

3:01:36 BB - RO, CC’d NJ body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

pg 8

3:05:17pm RO - ACA Subject formal complaint re candidate website, body redacted 32(1)(a)

pgs 30-31 

3:22pm ACA - TP, CG CC’d TA SZ Subject links to Ms Allard’s Campaign, body (redacted) 29(1)(b) 32(1)(a) 

3:35:59pm TP - ACA, CG CC’d TA, SZ links removed, asking if ACA would be reaching out to KA to inform her (Nobody did)

Wednesday Sept 3

pgs 32-36 

1:03pm Email chain ACA - BB, LH, MK, NJ, NC, RO Subject meeting with candidate, body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:43pm Response MK-NJ, NC body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:54pm MK-NJ body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:55pm NJ-MK body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:56pm MK-NJ body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:57pm NJ-MK body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

3:01pm MK-NJ body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

3:01:52pm NJ-MK body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

pgs 41-42 

3:27pm ACA - KA re appointment cancellation

3:30:59pm KA - ACA response

pgs 43-46 

3:42pm ACA - all candidates

E-mail chain sent to candidates, some candidates responded

Friday Sept 5

pgs 9-10

email chain re my ATIA request 10:05am - 3:48pm

pgs 20-21

8:27am Email chain SS - TA, CG Subject communication on website/ links for election, asking if linking to these sites might shift responsibility or accountability to the city (etc)

1:20:01pm Response TA - SS, CC’d CG, COUNCIL, LM, BB Subject communication on websites/links for election, complaint rec’d Aug 30 and again Sept 1” … from a resident concerned (redacted 20(1) on Kelly Allard’s campaign website (redacted) 20(1). As a result the link to Ms. Allard’s site was removed late Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, it was decided that it was inequitable that one link be removed  and that (redacted) 29(1)(b)...

pg 4 

10:05:37  From (redacted 20(1) to “FOIP” re my FOIP request

pg 2 

10:50 45 am  Email KA - TA re cancellation of appointment, KA was not happy

pg 7 

2:21:23 pm BB - (redacted) 20 (1) CCd TA, CG, NJ Subject- defamation threat Attachments redacted 20(1), Body redacted 32(1)(a)

pgs 22-23

2:21pm Email chain BB - (redacted) 20(1) CC’d TA, CG, NJ Subject defamation threat Body external Redacted 32(1)(a)

2:58:26 Response  (redacted) 20(1) - BB (redacted) 20(1) CC’d TA, CG, NJ (redacted) 20(1) sent from an external email body redacted 32(1)(a)

pgs 24-25 

2:21pm Email chain BB - (redacted) 20(1), CC’d TA, CG, NJ Subject (redacted) 20(1) External body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

2:58pm Response (redacted) 20(1) - BB (redacted) 20(1) CC’D TA, CG, NJ, (redacted) 20(1) Subject defamation threat

3:15:50pm Response BB - (redacted) CC’s TA, CG, NJ, (redacted) 20(1) Subject (redacted) 20(1) body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

pgs 26-27 

2:21pm BB-(redacted) 20(1) CC’d TA, CG, NJ Subject (redacted) 20(1) external e-mail, body (redacted) 32(1)(a)

pgs 28-29 

Sept 5 2:58:25pm (redacted) 20(1) - BB (redacted) 20(1) CC’d TA, CG, NJ (redacted) 20(1) Subject (redacted) 20(1) Body - sent from an external e-mail, rest of body redacted 32(1)

pg 3

3:57:38pm BB - MK Completely redacted - Subject 20(1), body 32(1)(a)

pg 5 No date 

pg 6 

3:57:38pm BB - MK Subject defamation issue, attachments (redacted) 20(1) Body 32(1)a