drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
own safety—and, by extension, the safety of their loved ones—to help those who became infected. Such heroic efforts must not be lost amid this discussion."
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
inconsistent implementation among the prisons, which left some staff and visitors entering prisons unscreened."
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
provide us with a single document, originating from just one prison."
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
it would not provide the staff-level testing information we had requested; it based its decision now on its 'belief that disclosure of this information would be a violation of the ... (CMIA).'”
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
contradicts its past practice of providing our office with several different types of confidential information since we became an independent agency in 1998."
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
concerns with providing records pertaining to incarcerated persons who tested positive ... even though the CMIA provides a similar clause prohibiting [disclosure]."
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
prisons were left to their own accord to implement their
screening processes."
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
faulty or had batteries that malfunctioned during
the screener’s shift;"
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…
drive.google.com/file/d/15sXet4…