The provided HTML contains the following content:The provided HTML contains the following content: Paragraph 1: – A quote from Commissioner Kruzeniski expressing concern about the SHA’s failure to respond to an access request within the legal timeframe. Paragraph 2: – Information about two previous cases where the Commissioner recommended compensation and changes to the SHA’s procedures. Paragraph 3: – Details of a third case involving a COVID-related request that exceeded the legal deadline by three weeks. Paragraph 4: – A statement from Deputy Commissioner Aldridge explaining the challenges faced by the SHA as the largest local authority and trust organization. Paragraph 5: – Confirmation that these three reports are the first instances this year where the Commissioner has identified problems with the SHA’s FOIP responses. Paragraph 6: – A written response from the SHA acknowledging the delays and stating that accountability is essential. Paragraph 7: – The SHA’s admission that processing times have not always met timelines and their commitment to improve efficiency. Author Byline: – The article is attributed to Lisa Schick of CKOM News. Footer: – An empty footer. Additional HTML Elements: – Dividers and wrapper elements that are not visible in the actual content. – A script tag related to Facebook integration.
“The SHA has not provided any explanation as to why it did not respond to the applicant’s access request within the statutory timeframe. I urge the SHA to provide both my office and the applicant with an explanation as to why it did not respond to the access request within the statutory timeframe,” Kruzeniski wrote.
In the April case, he recommended reimbursing the registration fee. In the June case, Kruzeniski said the health authority had to ensure it had the resources to respond to access requests within the timelines.
In the third case, the health authority exceeded the legal deadline for a new COVID-related request by three weeks.
Diane Aldridge, deputy commissioner in the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s Office, said it’s important to note that the SHA is the largest local authority in the county and the largest trust organization. As such, the organization is subject to both LA’s FOIP and HIPA laws.
“There’s a lot of work that goes into finding that data and because it’s such a large organization, it takes a fair amount of organization, training, understanding and having the right people in the right positions to make sure those timelines are met,” Aldridge said.
She also noted that these three reports were the first time this year that the Commissioner had found such problems in the SHA’s responses.
The health authority was unable to find anyone to answer questions within the deadline and instead sent a written response.
It was stated that accountability is essential to the SHA and that the organization receives many FOIP requests involving sensitive information that require a high level of control.
“We recognize that in limited circumstances our processing times have not met associated timelines,” the statement said.
The SHA did not provide a reason why the second FOIP request took so long.
“We acknowledge the OIPC’s recommendations and strive to process all LA FOIP requests within the appropriate timeframes. We continue to work to create more efficient ways to respond to these requests,” the health authority said.
Through
