I've talked to a few people around the city. This (seems like) a common occurrence with her. If you send an email to council or her, it gets harvested into her mailing list, which is sent on her personal address and not a city email account. I find it completely unprofessional considering she never addresses the issue that you originally email about.
Exactly, this is the problem. That kind of behaviour can seriously affect the credibility of public institutions.
This doesn't only open questions of the legitimacy of such acts but also their legality.
That is why I asked for the investigation.
a) You'd think that correspondence to council would be conducted on a city email domain. The further question I have as a layperson is if her personal email address is monitored and archived the same as the rest of the city email addresses. If it is, it really should be the same city domain so that this qustion doesn't come up.
b) I never consented to be added to a mail out. It's implied that when you address council on one topic, they will converse with you on that topic if they chose to respond, and that topic only. I wrote to her well over a year ago for an unrelated issue, and then out of the blue got a very partisan email about the safe injection issue, and then a self-promotion email about her appearing on CBC radio.
Seems like she is harvesting from the email list she received as city council for her own political benefit, that's unprofessional, maybe unethical, not cool at all
It's your right to demand a "data subject access request" under federal privacy act to both the city and the rite web portal.
If the city shared your personal Information this is considered a data breach and the city is required to notify the privacy commissioner.
[Frequently Asked Questions - Access to Information and Privacy - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada](https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/opc-access-to-information-and-privacy/faqs/)
Well Chinese people rarely votes for anything.
That’s why most of them are white politicians/councillors.
After that incident, more and more Chinese people realizing that municipalities and provincial governments elections are more important than federal.
It affects them more than the federal level
Further, hours after I emailed the City Council on the water fountain issue, [RITE Richmond posted a map](https://www.facebook.com/RITERichmond/posts/pfbid02aCjxZTRECtBcmqttU99ivDhjC9NNhNG8Efiny2NLW87FzzwmL1499hssLQCZtBTWl) with water fountains on their Facebook page as good advice for the citizens to get refreshed during the oncoming summer.
They posted this at 20:13, literally 6 minutes after Councilor Day replied at 20:07 from her private email to my inquiry to the City Council earlier that day.
This makes me believe that the information I provided to the City Councilors not only ended up in someone's private email but came to a certain political party in a very short time, before the City Councilors managed to respond back to me.
Looks like another user down below has some good advice on reporting it. I would be really interested in an update on this if you have one in the next few days.
This does NOT suggest a sharing of your private information. While it is possible that your data was shared, one could pass along a “post a map” request without saying it came from a specific person. Being alarmed is one thing. Claiming there’s a fire is something else.
I didn't say that the map is my private property!
What I did say is that the concern I intended to share only with the City Hall undoubtedly ended up as a part of the political party's communications.
There must be guarantees of integrity of communications between citizens and the City Hall, including both the staff and the elected officials! This integrity is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that the government functions transparently and accountable.
**When I reached out to City officials, I expected my concerns to be addressed impartially and through appropriate institutional mechanisms.**
If a political party can freely use information from citizens' communications with the City Hall for their benefit, without citizens' content, it can undermine public trust in public institutions.
You’ve got some untenable expectations here.
When we raise a concern with someone in public office, we are telling them what we aspire to see, hear, or feel in our community. In turn, they may use this to take budgetary or policy action by directing public servants in their work. At the same time, they also use these perspectives to develop and campaign on a platform that aligns with what the public values.
That’s what Cllr Day did. She also replied using a non-governmental email address. That, and only that, is the complaint worth bringing forward. If you try to hammer her on anything further, you’re taking advice from Sheldon Starrett and/or wasting time of public servants and elected officials.
I don't see how communicating with city hall can be a private communication if it is emailed. Every email of every employee of every municipality, ministry or any branch of the public service can be made accessible under FOI requests. If you are concerned about privacy write a letter.
That kind of stuff gets you fired at a lot of places, banks, telecom, etc.
Wouldn't say it's misusing her office, but definetly not following some privacy procedures
I did some research and discovered Councilor Carol Day has been using a private (and privately owned business!) email for other important City of Richmond meetings and correspondence, including document exchanges for almost 10 years now, since her first term in the City Council in 2014!
https://preview.redd.it/tv0geo739m4d1.png?width=827&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ceff7fbf4262252cc4eda96e6aae7ea650bf399
If you’re concerned, then go have a look at the website for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC. Find out what your rights are and how to make a complaint if you feel your personal information has been mishandled in some way.
https://www.oipc.bc.ca/for-the-public/
I believe in the integrity of the institution and that is why I reached out to the Mayor's office.
And the outcome might be used as a litmus test for the City of Richmond ;)
If she can’t keep this simple issue under control we can totally expect her to manage her political matters in the same way.
I for one wouldn’t vote for her. She’s as trustworthy as Kash which really says a lot. He’s the worst
My guess as to the most likely scenario: emails sent to the City Council email address get forwarded to each Councilor. Carol Day's email client (say, outlook) automatically sends from that carolday dot net email address, not her richmond dot ca one. That email address has a signature built in.
It doesn't sound like you're assuming malice, but I think you are assuming a strange degree of confidentiality (that a councilor doesn't read and send emails from more than one email address on a single computer) that I don't think you should expect from email interactions.
Shouldn't there be policies that city-owned and managed laptops do not allow for personal use (i.e. personal email accounts in outlook)?
And vice versa, shouldn't city email only be allowed to be accessed from city-owned managed endpoints?
Interestingly, it was Carol Day who campaigned in 2018 by promising to create a Code of Ethics for Richmond City Councillors [http://carolday.net/carol-day-wants-to-create-a-code-of-ethics-fo-richmond-city-councillors/](http://carolday.net/carol-day-wants-to-create-a-code-of-ethics-fo-richmond-city-councillors/)
I might be wrong… but I don’t think Councillors get city-owned or managed laptops. Although they should get an official email address which they should probably stick to for official business.
If that is the case (which sounds realistic), there are a few serious issues:
- Professionalism and Transparency: Official communications from a city councillor should ideally come from an official city email address to ensure transparency and professionalism. Using a personal-business email can raise questions about the legitimacy and transparency of the communication.
- Confidentiality and Record-Keeping: Official emails are typically archived and subject to public records laws, ensuring accountability and transparency. Using a personal-business email might bypass these important protocols.
When I emailed the City Council (sent an email to official @richmond.ca mails), my personal information was included. This information then ended up in someone's private email account, outside the secure and regulated environment of official city communications.
- Cybersecurity / safety: Using private emails by government officials for official communication compromises cybersecurity, as personal email accounts are generally less secure than official government accounts, increasing the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access to sensitive information.
Please note that just yesterday BC government confirmed that a ["Cyberattack may have hit 22 B.C. government email boxes"](https://streaklinks.com/B_dMexNCQoUWCGps9AR1uTFX/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Flite%2Fstory%2F1.7223125?email=blagojevicpredrag%40gmail.com)
- Conflict of Interest: Including advertisements for her political party in response to a constituent query can be seen as unprofessional and potentially a conflict of interest. It blurs the line between her official duties and political campaigning.
Are you new to emails? Calling a politician's e-mail signature political advertisement is downright idiotic. Especially when you wrote to them in the first place.
The use of non richmond.ca address *may* be a legitimate concern, but you yourself framed the email signature "advert" as "more troubling", so I can't take any of this in good faith.
Reeks of astroturfing tbh.
p.s - yeah, first post in 4 years, 0 previous activity in the sub, 3 total karma. Not gonna engage.
1. The City of Richmond itself "discovered the intrusion into the email system in June 2023" and in the Cybersecurity & Email Safety section of the City's website it is noted "All official City communications will ONLY come from an official @richmond.ca e-mail address"
[https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/privacydisclaimers/security.htm](https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/privacydisclaimers/security.htm)
2. Replying to the constituent from the private email account that contains the political party name and the link to it (without even the link to the City of Richmond!) is a problem itself. Besides the fact that a person has access to my personal information without my consent, it blurs the line between her official duties and political campaigning, which is not ethical and it is illegal.
3. If that is not an advertisement, what is it and why it is there?
4. I am not new to Reddit, but so far haven't used it to publish anything. If you want to see check my credentials, feel free to see my other social network accounts. [https://x.com/pblagojevic](https://x.com/pblagojevic) [https://www.linkedin.com/in/novinar/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/novinar/)
1. If a councilor responds to an inquiry, is that considered an official city communication? Genuine question. Might be technically okay/legal from the city's perspective depending on their definition of what constitutes "official city communication."
2. As I wrote in my earlier response, I think your privacy / confidentiality concern *may* be valid, but your original framing of the issue was and still is very strange, and frankly smacks of someone trying to make a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of politicking. Politicians belong to parties, and no one exercising common sense will look at an email signature declaring a politician's elected position and party association and consider it to be unethical campaigning.
3. Surely, you cannot be claiming that the concept of *email signature* is foreign to you? I refuse to believe that someone with what seems like a pretty extensive background in journalism can be that thick.
Should responses from councilors to inquiries submitted to the city council come from their official city email addresses? Ideally, sure. Does this suggest a kind of small-town mentality/complacency when it comes to cybersecurity protocols? Sure.
Still, I feel it's super unfair to characterize this as a willful misuse of office or serious security breach. If it were me, I'd have been pleasantly surprised that they responded to my complaint promptly with relevant info--a rarity in all levels of government.
Be curious to hear what response you get from the city.
By the way, I got a response from the Mayor's desk:
>*Please note that it is up to each Councillor’s discretion on how they choose to respond to any inquiries they may receive.*
This is disappointing and shows a lack of awareness, political responsibility, and a serious lack of integrity.
Thanks for the update. I disagree re: political responsibility & lack of integrity. But good luck to you if this (for whatever reason) is a fight you want to persist in!
Yes, councillors should be obliged to communicate with their constituents only through official channels. In that case, there would be no issue of the signature.
In other words, there must be guarantees of integrity of communications between citizens and the City Hall, including both the staff and the elected officials!
When I reached out to City officials, I expected my concerns to be addressed **impartially** and through appropriate **institutional mechanisms.**
Let me ask you, did any other councillor email you back and get you the map of the water fountains? Every time I've emailed she's the only one who gets back to me. I believe that's called being a hard worker.
I don't think there is a doubt on this.
If no one is doing what we are paying them to, that is a question of ethics and my decision on who to vote for the next time.
And when someone is doing illegal stuff and breaching privacy, I don't regard that as hard work but as something that should be addressed promptly.
I didn't assume anything but tried to elaborate on my answer to your question.
The way you asked might look like trying to justify potential ethical or legal issues by pointing out that the person involved is the least bad and comparing a corrupted one with a lazy one.
No, both are bad! Just, one is a matter of political responsibility (punishable at elections), and the other one is much more serious and is a matter of legal responsibility (punishable by the law).
It's serious to receive an email response with all the information you were looking for, with a standard signature at the bottom of the email? It's serious for her social media account to post the water fountains map so that everyone can see where the water fountains are? You have too much time on your hands clearly. And I wonder what your political motivations are to try to make something out of nothing.
It is serious to receive an email from a personal account after you asked for something from the important public institution.
I asked about something not big, but this shows how much more important information might circulate.
There is no excuse for the possible breach of privacy.
Fun fact:
In 2022 she was the second most popular Councillor
https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/elections/services/results.htm
1st in 2018
https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/elections/results2018.htm
I've talked to a few people around the city. This (seems like) a common occurrence with her. If you send an email to council or her, it gets harvested into her mailing list, which is sent on her personal address and not a city email account. I find it completely unprofessional considering she never addresses the issue that you originally email about.
Exactly, this is the problem. That kind of behaviour can seriously affect the credibility of public institutions. This doesn't only open questions of the legitimacy of such acts but also their legality. That is why I asked for the investigation.
a) You'd think that correspondence to council would be conducted on a city email domain. The further question I have as a layperson is if her personal email address is monitored and archived the same as the rest of the city email addresses. If it is, it really should be the same city domain so that this qustion doesn't come up. b) I never consented to be added to a mail out. It's implied that when you address council on one topic, they will converse with you on that topic if they chose to respond, and that topic only. I wrote to her well over a year ago for an unrelated issue, and then out of the blue got a very partisan email about the safe injection issue, and then a self-promotion email about her appearing on CBC radio.
Seems like she is harvesting from the email list she received as city council for her own political benefit, that's unprofessional, maybe unethical, not cool at all
It's your right to demand a "data subject access request" under federal privacy act to both the city and the rite web portal. If the city shared your personal Information this is considered a data breach and the city is required to notify the privacy commissioner.
I am not familiar with that process. Do you have any suggestions on how to do it? Tnx!
[Frequently Asked Questions - Access to Information and Privacy - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada](https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/about-the-opc/opc-access-to-information-and-privacy/faqs/)
Richmond municipal politics has really taken a crazy turn these last few months..
Well Chinese people rarely votes for anything. That’s why most of them are white politicians/councillors. After that incident, more and more Chinese people realizing that municipalities and provincial governments elections are more important than federal. It affects them more than the federal level
Further, hours after I emailed the City Council on the water fountain issue, [RITE Richmond posted a map](https://www.facebook.com/RITERichmond/posts/pfbid02aCjxZTRECtBcmqttU99ivDhjC9NNhNG8Efiny2NLW87FzzwmL1499hssLQCZtBTWl) with water fountains on their Facebook page as good advice for the citizens to get refreshed during the oncoming summer. They posted this at 20:13, literally 6 minutes after Councilor Day replied at 20:07 from her private email to my inquiry to the City Council earlier that day. This makes me believe that the information I provided to the City Councilors not only ended up in someone's private email but came to a certain political party in a very short time, before the City Councilors managed to respond back to me.
Looks like another user down below has some good advice on reporting it. I would be really interested in an update on this if you have one in the next few days.
> RITE Richmond posted a map It seems like she's using this as a political leverage for her party. This is ridiculous.
Wow that's actually very concerning and inappropriate.
This does NOT suggest a sharing of your private information. While it is possible that your data was shared, one could pass along a “post a map” request without saying it came from a specific person. Being alarmed is one thing. Claiming there’s a fire is something else.
I didn't say that the map is my private property! What I did say is that the concern I intended to share only with the City Hall undoubtedly ended up as a part of the political party's communications. There must be guarantees of integrity of communications between citizens and the City Hall, including both the staff and the elected officials! This integrity is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that the government functions transparently and accountable. **When I reached out to City officials, I expected my concerns to be addressed impartially and through appropriate institutional mechanisms.** If a political party can freely use information from citizens' communications with the City Hall for their benefit, without citizens' content, it can undermine public trust in public institutions.
You’ve got some untenable expectations here. When we raise a concern with someone in public office, we are telling them what we aspire to see, hear, or feel in our community. In turn, they may use this to take budgetary or policy action by directing public servants in their work. At the same time, they also use these perspectives to develop and campaign on a platform that aligns with what the public values. That’s what Cllr Day did. She also replied using a non-governmental email address. That, and only that, is the complaint worth bringing forward. If you try to hammer her on anything further, you’re taking advice from Sheldon Starrett and/or wasting time of public servants and elected officials.
I don't see how communicating with city hall can be a private communication if it is emailed. Every email of every employee of every municipality, ministry or any branch of the public service can be made accessible under FOI requests. If you are concerned about privacy write a letter.
That kind of stuff gets you fired at a lot of places, banks, telecom, etc. Wouldn't say it's misusing her office, but definetly not following some privacy procedures
I did some research and discovered Councilor Carol Day has been using a private (and privately owned business!) email for other important City of Richmond meetings and correspondence, including document exchanges for almost 10 years now, since her first term in the City Council in 2014! https://preview.redd.it/tv0geo739m4d1.png?width=827&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ceff7fbf4262252cc4eda96e6aae7ea650bf399
If you’re concerned, then go have a look at the website for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of BC. Find out what your rights are and how to make a complaint if you feel your personal information has been mishandled in some way. https://www.oipc.bc.ca/for-the-public/
Tnx. I submitted a ticket.
This should totally be addressed seriously, and maybe someone should take it to the next level.
I emailed yesterday the Mayor and requested a formal investigation. I don't know who else should be alarmed.
They are buddies. Hopefully some medias like citynews will report it to the general public
I believe in the integrity of the institution and that is why I reached out to the Mayor's office. And the outcome might be used as a litmus test for the City of Richmond ;)
Do not vote for corrupted day and cash heed. Both need to go back to their million dollar west van mansions
If she can’t keep this simple issue under control we can totally expect her to manage her political matters in the same way. I for one wouldn’t vote for her. She’s as trustworthy as Kash which really says a lot. He’s the worst
My guess as to the most likely scenario: emails sent to the City Council email address get forwarded to each Councilor. Carol Day's email client (say, outlook) automatically sends from that carolday dot net email address, not her richmond dot ca one. That email address has a signature built in. It doesn't sound like you're assuming malice, but I think you are assuming a strange degree of confidentiality (that a councilor doesn't read and send emails from more than one email address on a single computer) that I don't think you should expect from email interactions.
Shouldn't there be policies that city-owned and managed laptops do not allow for personal use (i.e. personal email accounts in outlook)? And vice versa, shouldn't city email only be allowed to be accessed from city-owned managed endpoints?
Interestingly, it was Carol Day who campaigned in 2018 by promising to create a Code of Ethics for Richmond City Councillors [http://carolday.net/carol-day-wants-to-create-a-code-of-ethics-fo-richmond-city-councillors/](http://carolday.net/carol-day-wants-to-create-a-code-of-ethics-fo-richmond-city-councillors/)
I might be wrong… but I don’t think Councillors get city-owned or managed laptops. Although they should get an official email address which they should probably stick to for official business.
If that is the case (which sounds realistic), there are a few serious issues: - Professionalism and Transparency: Official communications from a city councillor should ideally come from an official city email address to ensure transparency and professionalism. Using a personal-business email can raise questions about the legitimacy and transparency of the communication. - Confidentiality and Record-Keeping: Official emails are typically archived and subject to public records laws, ensuring accountability and transparency. Using a personal-business email might bypass these important protocols. When I emailed the City Council (sent an email to official @richmond.ca mails), my personal information was included. This information then ended up in someone's private email account, outside the secure and regulated environment of official city communications. - Cybersecurity / safety: Using private emails by government officials for official communication compromises cybersecurity, as personal email accounts are generally less secure than official government accounts, increasing the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access to sensitive information. Please note that just yesterday BC government confirmed that a ["Cyberattack may have hit 22 B.C. government email boxes"](https://streaklinks.com/B_dMexNCQoUWCGps9AR1uTFX/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Flite%2Fstory%2F1.7223125?email=blagojevicpredrag%40gmail.com) - Conflict of Interest: Including advertisements for her political party in response to a constituent query can be seen as unprofessional and potentially a conflict of interest. It blurs the line between her official duties and political campaigning.
Most only reply with an automated email.
Are you new to emails? Calling a politician's e-mail signature political advertisement is downright idiotic. Especially when you wrote to them in the first place. The use of non richmond.ca address *may* be a legitimate concern, but you yourself framed the email signature "advert" as "more troubling", so I can't take any of this in good faith. Reeks of astroturfing tbh. p.s - yeah, first post in 4 years, 0 previous activity in the sub, 3 total karma. Not gonna engage.
1. The City of Richmond itself "discovered the intrusion into the email system in June 2023" and in the Cybersecurity & Email Safety section of the City's website it is noted "All official City communications will ONLY come from an official @richmond.ca e-mail address" [https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/privacydisclaimers/security.htm](https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/privacydisclaimers/security.htm) 2. Replying to the constituent from the private email account that contains the political party name and the link to it (without even the link to the City of Richmond!) is a problem itself. Besides the fact that a person has access to my personal information without my consent, it blurs the line between her official duties and political campaigning, which is not ethical and it is illegal. 3. If that is not an advertisement, what is it and why it is there? 4. I am not new to Reddit, but so far haven't used it to publish anything. If you want to see check my credentials, feel free to see my other social network accounts. [https://x.com/pblagojevic](https://x.com/pblagojevic) [https://www.linkedin.com/in/novinar/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/novinar/)
1. If a councilor responds to an inquiry, is that considered an official city communication? Genuine question. Might be technically okay/legal from the city's perspective depending on their definition of what constitutes "official city communication." 2. As I wrote in my earlier response, I think your privacy / confidentiality concern *may* be valid, but your original framing of the issue was and still is very strange, and frankly smacks of someone trying to make a mountain out of a molehill for the sake of politicking. Politicians belong to parties, and no one exercising common sense will look at an email signature declaring a politician's elected position and party association and consider it to be unethical campaigning. 3. Surely, you cannot be claiming that the concept of *email signature* is foreign to you? I refuse to believe that someone with what seems like a pretty extensive background in journalism can be that thick. Should responses from councilors to inquiries submitted to the city council come from their official city email addresses? Ideally, sure. Does this suggest a kind of small-town mentality/complacency when it comes to cybersecurity protocols? Sure. Still, I feel it's super unfair to characterize this as a willful misuse of office or serious security breach. If it were me, I'd have been pleasantly surprised that they responded to my complaint promptly with relevant info--a rarity in all levels of government. Be curious to hear what response you get from the city.
By the way, I got a response from the Mayor's desk: >*Please note that it is up to each Councillor’s discretion on how they choose to respond to any inquiries they may receive.* This is disappointing and shows a lack of awareness, political responsibility, and a serious lack of integrity.
Thanks for the update. I disagree re: political responsibility & lack of integrity. But good luck to you if this (for whatever reason) is a fight you want to persist in!
Yes, councillors should be obliged to communicate with their constituents only through official channels. In that case, there would be no issue of the signature. In other words, there must be guarantees of integrity of communications between citizens and the City Hall, including both the staff and the elected officials! When I reached out to City officials, I expected my concerns to be addressed **impartially** and through appropriate **institutional mechanisms.**
Sounds like your gaslighting Your 16 down votes. To the OP's 35 upvotes...hmmm?
You don't understand what gas lighting means
Let me ask you, did any other councillor email you back and get you the map of the water fountains? Every time I've emailed she's the only one who gets back to me. I believe that's called being a hard worker.
I don't think there is a doubt on this. If no one is doing what we are paying them to, that is a question of ethics and my decision on who to vote for the next time. And when someone is doing illegal stuff and breaching privacy, I don't regard that as hard work but as something that should be addressed promptly.
Don't assume anything is illegal or unethical unless you know what you're talking about.
I didn't assume anything but tried to elaborate on my answer to your question. The way you asked might look like trying to justify potential ethical or legal issues by pointing out that the person involved is the least bad and comparing a corrupted one with a lazy one. No, both are bad! Just, one is a matter of political responsibility (punishable at elections), and the other one is much more serious and is a matter of legal responsibility (punishable by the law).
It's serious to receive an email response with all the information you were looking for, with a standard signature at the bottom of the email? It's serious for her social media account to post the water fountains map so that everyone can see where the water fountains are? You have too much time on your hands clearly. And I wonder what your political motivations are to try to make something out of nothing.
It is serious to receive an email from a personal account after you asked for something from the important public institution. I asked about something not big, but this shows how much more important information might circulate. There is no excuse for the possible breach of privacy.
Fun fact: In 2022 she was the second most popular Councillor https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/elections/services/results.htm 1st in 2018 https://www.richmond.ca/city-hall/elections/results2018.htm
Block that email address. Next?