Memorial University has refused to release the results of its “A Survey on the Inclusion of the Ode to Newfoundland in Memorial University Convocation Ceremonies.” In a February 25, 2025, email, University Privacy Officer Maggie Noseworthy stated that a decision was made to refuse access to the requested records due to two exemptions in the ATIPP ACT: s.29(1)(a) (policy advice or recommendations) and s.35(1)(g) (disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body).
Noseworthy said that the Ad Hoc Committee for the Ode to Newfoundland was formed to “investigate, consult, discuss and consider the incision of the Provincial Anthem ‘Ode to Newfoundland’ at Convocation ceremonies.” She stated that the requested information is undergoing analysis and is part of the material being used in the report writing phase. She said that the committee will provide a final report and recommendation to the Senate, where a decision will be made.
She argued that the information contained within the records forms the basis for the recommendation for Senate and that “the premature disclosure of this information could reasonably prejudice the decision making process.”
Regarding s.29(1)(a) of the Act, while the committee can use the survey results to help inform their recommendation to the Senate and to assist in writing their final report, the survey results themselves do not constitute policy advice or recommendations.
Regarding s.35(1)(g), Noseworthy did not provide any explanation as to how disclosure would be harmful to the financial or economic interest of Memorial.
Disclosure is not premature and will not prejudice the decision making. The more information the Senate and the public have, the better, instead of selectively chosen responses summarized in a report. The ad hoc committee has been accused of bias, and several committee members have resigned.
Acting Associate Dean of Undergraduate Programs, Faculty of Education, and Associate Professor David Gill stated that a cynical person could think the “obvious biased representation [of the committee] was a deliberate attempt to sway the outcome of the deliberations and report regardless of the evidence, submitted statements, public consultations, and tradition.”
Professor Craig Purchase said, “It becomes more evident each week that the ad hoc committee is, in the end, wasting my time as the outcome is functionally set… No one was appointed to the ad hoc committee with any specific expertise on this issue, except those that represent the group that wanted the anthem removed…”
On several occasions in the past, Memorial responded to access requests for survey results with records, including before reports were finished and published. For example, Memorial provided the Provost search consultation results and the EDI-AR strategic plan consultation feedback. The records for the latter were provided before the EDI-AR Office released its “What We Heard” document and its strategic plan.
A complaint has been filed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Matt Barter is a graduate of the Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty at Memorial University of Newfoundland, holding a degree in Political Science with a minor in Sociology. He enjoys reading thought-provoking articles, taking walks in nature, and volunteering in the community.
Leave a Reply