How did Danielle Smith know about an anonymous letter alleging dirty deeds at the city of Edmonton before it arrived? - Alberta Politics

To say this strains credulity understates the matter considerably.

Yet this is precisely what Alberta Premier Danielle Smith claimed on her Your Province, Your Premier freebie Corus Radio program Saturday - an assertion that warrants detailed clarification by the government. 

When she made this claim - which is either incorrect or evidence of serious administrative malpractice - Ms. Smith was blowing off a question by her show's subservient host about a mystery letter supposedly sent to the province in late March alleging something fishy is going on at the City of Edmonton. 

This claim is mixed up in the United Conservative Party's continuing hostility to Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi, a former federal Liberal Cabinet minister, and a number of city councillors who hold views too progressive for the Smith Government's taste.

It seems likely the UCP would love to find an excuse to remove the council and place the city under a single administrator as a past Conservative government did in 1999 to a school board of which Ms. Smith was a member. 

Since the story of the mystery letter is so murky, it may help to clarify what's happened if we put what's been said up to now in chronological order. 

March 27 news conference

On March 27, at a news conference about an unrelated topic, reporters raised questions about the UCP's apparent animus toward Edmonton City Council. 

One journalist, Breanna Karstens-Smith of Global News, braced Ms. Smith about allegations of fraud and bullying within the city government that she said had been made by a senior advisor to the premier. 

In response, Premier Smith brought up the mystery letter.

Here is the relevant portion of the news conference:

Ms. Karstens-Smith: "Has your government received any reports or complaints that the City of Edmonton is awarding contracts to one of the councillors' associates or partners?"

Premier Smith: "Um, I would say I've heard that a letter is coming in to the minister of municipal affairs. I've not seen that letter. But it's, I'd maybe direct you to the minister of municipal affairs to see what his comment is on that."

Ms. Karstens-Smith: "Yesterday … your chief of staff was telling reporters that he'd heard of fraud and bullying within the city of Edmonton. Presumably he would bring those concerns and allegations to you. So what has your government done about those allegations?"

Premier Smith: "Look, I mean, I don't want to prejudge what may or may not be in a letter that we've been told that we'll receive and so I just wouldn't mind seeing the letter and talking to my municipal affairs minister and seeing if there's anything more that we need to do. But at the moment, I've not seen the letter, we've not received it yet, I've just been told it's on the way."

Ms. Karstens-Smith: "Are fraud and bullying the correct words?"

Premier Smith: "I would just say I don't want to mischaracterize because I don't know the full details and so I'd rather just wait and see what the letter says." 

March 28 Global News story

Ms. Karstens-Smith's news story the next day quoted the premier saying the province had "received a number of reports that do have us concerned," but did not mention any letters other than several written by Mr. Sohi seeking provincial funding for housing, shelters, transit safety measures and the like. 

Soon after, though, Global News asked Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver if he'd seen the letter, the existence of which had been revealed by Premier Smith. 

Mr. McIver responded: "Just, five minutes ago, received the letter. It's unsigned. So that's not helpful."

Well, that may not have been helpful to Mr. McIver, but it's helpful to us. 

Obviously, the premier knew the letter was coming before it was received, yet the letter is said to be anonymous. 

How did the premier know that a letter from persons unknown was about to be received? 

To that, Ms. Karstens-Smith revealed in a story a few days later, Mr. McIver further responded: "That's just a great question. I don't have an answer."

Why was the premier's chief of staff making serious allegations to reporters about practices that could be unethical or illegal in the city of Edmonton? What is the evidence? Did he act with or without the premier's knowledge when he did that? 

This situation is curious, to say the least, and deserves a clear explanation.

FOIP request for the letter

On April 2, Global News reported on Mayor Sohi's complaint that decades of neglect have led to Edmonton's current financial troubles and his call for equal treatment with other Alberta cities.

Again, however, there was no mention in that story of the mystery letter, the existence or non-existence of which was continuing to create a buzz on social media. 

Then, last Friday, Ms. Karstens-Smith reported that her attempt to procure a copy of the letter through a Freedom of Information request resulted in a statement from the government that it couldn't find the letter.

According to her story, the response she received said "a thorough search conducted by Municipal Affairs staff did not yield any records responsive to your request."

The Global story continued: "After three days of asking this week about why that might be, Global News was sent a statement that did not address why a Freedom of Information search cannot find the letter." Since then, Global's calls about its FOIP request have not been returned.

Premier Smith's radio show

On Saturday, Your Province, Your Premier host Wayne Nelson gently lobbed a polite request for an explanation about this to Ms. Smith.

Ms. Smith said: "We were told that there was some ethics concern and so, look, when we receive an ethics concern about a municipal council member, we forward that on to the ethics officer at the municipal level because that's the appropriate thing to do." (Told by whom? The supposedly anonymous author of the letter? Or someone else?) 

"If a council member received a concern about an MLA, they would forward it on to the provincial ethics officer," the premier continued confidently. "So the letter was received in Ric McIver's office and it was forwarded on to the Edmonton ethics commissioner." 

This is not necessarily what would happen. 

Regardless, why was there no FOIP record? 

Mr. Nelson politely asked again. (Now, remember, as has been noted here before, when the word "look" pops up in one of Ms. Smith's discourses, it's a sign a whopper may be imminent.)

"As I understand, it was an anonymous letter," Ms. Smith said, explaining nothing. (She still hasn't seen it? But she said in March she wanted to see it.) 

"Look, with some allegations that could be defamatory if not true. So, I think it's best for us to put it forward and leave it in the process. I don't think we would make every single piece of correspondence that comes into every single office available. It wasn't a government document. It wasn't produced by us. That's my understanding of how the FOIP law works."

Documents can be withheld, or redacted, for reasons outlined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. But the requestor must be informed of the reason. 

Global News, however, was not told the letter was withheld because it contained harmful information that might not be true. It was told the letter could not be found. How is that possible?

The sniff test

Does Premier Smith expect Albertans to believe that the letter was sent to the office of the Edmonton integrity commissioner with no cover letter explaining how it came into the government's hands or why it was being forwarded?

Perhaps another FOIP request should be filed seeking the cover letter and related correspondence. 

Does Alberta's premier seriously expect anybody to believe that the letter was casually disposed of after it was sent? 

Nothing about this explanation passes the sniff test.