Mayor DiCarlo confirmed that it was a Board decision to provide a cheap silver retirement badge to Sgt. Jim Saxon and he did anticipate it might be an issue. Nothing changed.
Two sets of badges were ordered – one in silver for all retiring officers in 2013/2014 and another in gold for everyone but Sgt. Saxon.
As of November 18, 2014, APSB members were John Sutton, Frank Cleminson, Pauline Gemmell and Wayne Hurst.
Also posted to bullyinginpolicing.com on the saxon page.
Part 4 of this series was delayed pending the outcome of my January 17 request to Mayor DiCarlo. A simple question resulted in a complicated process without an answer; more on that below and in a future post.
Orangeville Mayor Brown issued a formal Statement on Orangeville Council’s OPP decision the day after and it is posted on the town of Orangeville’s site.
January 17 to DiCarlo, one of the questions submitted regarding the Windsor Police takeover was: would you please provide me with any official statement you issued as mayor regarding the vote in favour of the windsor police takeover.
January 20, Mayor DiCarlo’s response was: Unfortunately I do not keep personal records of the information you are requesting as the Town is responsible for such. Please forward your requests to the CAO’s office.
January 20 to DiCarlo: just to clarify, i’m not requesting personal records and i do not believe the town is responsible for an official statement you may have issued as mayor. my question is simply did you issue one in relation to the windsor police takeover?
January 20 from DiCarlo: I understood what you were requesting. Any official statements I made would have been forwarded by/through the Town, not me personally. I don’t keep copies of those. If they were made to the media, they would be available in the media. I do not keep a record of all of my media interviews. I cannot provide records of information I do not keep. However, the parties I referred to do keep those records, thus my referral to the CAO’s office.
January 20 to Miceli: since the mayor has referred me to contact you, i’m requesting any official statement the mayor issued regarding the vote in favour of the windsor police takeover.
January 27 to Miceli: followup
February 12 to council: request that council consider creating a protocol to answer inquiries from taxpayers and media; mentioned a couple of examples of exchanges with town employees, including Miceli not answering January 20 and 27 emails.
February 12: DiCarlo forwarded request to council to CAO Miceli with an FYI notation.
February 18 from Miceli, in part: I will request that all information you seek be made through MFIPPA process and the Clerk will determine the appropriate dissemination of information. This is the proper way to handle your requests.
February 18 to Miceli: not all requests require a formal FOI request when dealing with an open government; since I believe one is unnecessary in this instance, my requests stand. the mayor claimed you have the records so you will have to decide whether or not to honour my requests.
Any municipality wishing to request a contract proposal for the provision of policing services by the OPP must submit a council resolution requesting a proposal for the cost of OPP policing to the Ministry.
Orangeville
First request:
January 2014 Council Resolution to request costing proposal from OPP.
April 2017 OPP Costing Analysis presentation to Council.
Second request:
December 2018 Council Resolution to request a costing proposal from OPP.
January 2019 Town’s request approved and an initial meeting with OPP was held.
Amherstburg
December 2014 Resolution to obtain an OPP Costing.
January 2017 Resolution, in part, to work with the OPP on the OPP costing.
No initial meeting with OPP was held.
Fall 2017 cancelled.
theburgwatch compared the main framework of police costings in Orangeville and Amherstburg.
Disclaimer: this Amherstburg Orangeville Comparison Police Costing is provided for informational purposes only. theburgwatch.com makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.
As mentioned in the post, Windsor Police Takeover One Year Later, theburgwatch requested DiCarlo to expand, specifically, on what the ‘quite a bit of service’ is and submitted the following to him:
“according to an am800 article re the one year anniversary of the windsor police takeover, you mentioned, “From what I can tell, on the surface, we’re actually getting more for our money which was really the key that we were looking into this for. Initially, it was really just saving money, but it looks like we’ve added quite a bit of service for cost savings.” for the burgwatch, would you expand, specifically, on what the ‘quite a bit of service’ is.”
A. “I spoke to all of the news outlets about this issue, so I’ll have to try and recall the context. That I remember for that particular article, the context of the statement was in relation to feedback received from residents regarding the increased presence of police officers across the town.”
The Windsor Star also reports how pleased Mayor DiCarlo is, “Our goal was to try to ensure residents felt no difference … For those who were concerned about a drop in service level — That just didn’t happen. I would say that it appears we have improved service levels.”
Blackburn News reports how pleased Mayor DiCarlo is with the Windsor Police takeover.
DiCarlo is quoted in this article, “We have access to a lot of services that we never did before. Obviously Windsor Police is a much bigger operation with a lot more to offer,” said DiCarlo.
Have we not always had access to a lot of services?
It was my understanding that since the Amherstburg Police Services Board was obliged to provide adequate and effective policing we either had all the services that were required or had access to them through the OPP and/or Windsor.
Obviously, the OPP is an even bigger operation that also has a lot to offer but no OPP costing was obtained for comparison sake.
While the article also mentioned, “the town realized a half a million dollars in savings by switching over to the Windsor Police Service,” we never knew if we might have saved significantly more through a switch to the OPP. After all, one of the corrective actions listed in the Deloitte Report 2014 was, “look for shared service opportunities with neighbouring municipalities,” which could have easily meant to share OPP policing with the majority of Essex County.
An am800 report, Amherstburg Mayor happy After One Year With New Police Service, quoted DiCarlo, “I’ve heard from almost nobody still opposed,” he says. “I’ve heard from a lot of people who were concerned early on and after the switch many of them have said that it turned out to be a really good idea. From the feedback I’m getting from the residents, it has made a very noticeable difference.”
“From what I can tell, on the surface, we’re actually getting more for our money which was really the key that we were looking into this for. Initially, it was really just saving money, but it looks like we’ve added quite a bit of service for cost savings.”
theburgwatch requested DiCarlo to expand, specifically, on what the ‘quite a bit of service’ is.
After having read the Windsor Star article (the article) that reported Berthiaume is suing the town for stat pay, some questions came to mind so I’m looking forward to the trial with the hope that answers will be provided.
Are taxpayers on the hook for the lawsuit?
Under the Legal Indemnification section of his agreement, s. 15 (b) states:
“Upon retirement the Board shall continue to provide legal indemnification in all matters presently before the courts or future matters arising as a result of Chief Tim Berthiaume’s responsibilities of the Amherstburg Police Service. These matters being directly associated to his position as the Chief of Police of the Amherstburg Police Service.”
Was Berthiaume eligible for stat pay?
His agreement with the Amherstburg Police Services Board, signed on April 15, 2014 by John Sutton, Wayne Hurst, Frank Cleminson, and Pauline Gemmell, effective until June 30, 2019 states:
“Statutory Holidays
12.2 The Chief shall be allowed to work a statutory holiday and take another day off in lieu subject to the approval of the Board.”
Was it necessary for him to work stat holidays? And, if he did work them, why didn’t he just take a day off in lieu as required by the Agreement?
Did Berthiaume work any stat days during his 6-month paid hiatus in a defunct position?
The Amherstburg Police was abolished on December 31, 2018 and the Windsor Police contract became effective January 1, 2019. According to the article, Berthiaume advised he would not transition until after the expiry of his existing contract effective the end of June 2019.
Why would the Board agree that Berthiaume would “take another day off in lieu” while former Board members support his claim that he is owed money in lieu?
The Agreement states:
“Employment, 2.2, “The Parties agree that the salary and working conditions of this agreement shall be reviewed on an annual basis as per the provisions of the Police Services Act. In accordance with section 115(2) and 31)1)(d) of the Act it is the Board’s duty to annually determine the remuneration and working conditions taking the Chief’s submissions into account. This provision may be waived if remuneration and working conditions, by agreement of both parties, are agreed to for a period of more than one year.”
When Windsor Police was awarded the contract, did the Board review Berthiaume’s Agreement knowing the Amherstburg Police would cease to exist on December 31, 2018?
The article referred to former Board member Rozankovic who said a contract is a contract and the board was committed to paying Berthiaume until his expired at the end of June.
Was the Agreement in conflict with the Police Services Act?
Section 16 (a) of the Agreement states, “Any term or provision of this Agreement that is in conflict with the Police Services Act or any successor act or regulations thereunder is void and of no effect.”
40 (1) A board may terminate the employment of a member of the police force for the purpose of abolishing the police force or reducing its size if the Commission consents and if the abolition or reduction does not contravene this Act.
(2) The Commission shall consent to the termination of the employment of a member of the police force under subsection (1) only if,
(a) the member and the board have made an agreement dealing with severance pay or agreed to submit the matter to arbitration; or
(b) the Commission has made an order under subsection (3).
(3) If the member and the board do not make an agreement dealing with severance pay and do not agree to submit the matter to arbitration, the Commission, if it is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition of the police force or the reduction of its size, may order the member and the board to submit the matter to arbitration and may give any necessary directions in that connection.
What did OCPC decide?
In its last paragraph of the decision, OCPC consented to the abolition of the APS under section 40 of the PSA subject to the following conditions:
Was the matter mediated?
Section 3.1 of the agreement states, “In the event that the Chief and the Board are unable to agree to salary and benefit terms in subsequent years of this contract, either party shall have the right to refer the matter to a mediator selected jointly by the Chief and the Board. Should an agreement not be reached through the mediation process, either party may refer the matter to an independent arbitrator selected jointly by the Chief and the Board. Each party will bear their own costs of mediation and arbitration with the costs of the mediator and/or arbitrator being shared 25% for the Chief and 75% for the Board.
Why was Berthiaume’s contract not ended as a result of the abolition on December 31, 2018 pursuant to PSA s.40?
Seriously?
According to the Windsor Star article by Doug Schmidt, Berthiaume is claiming unpaid statutory holiday pay covering an 18-month period that includes a 6-month paid hiatus.
Eight years ago, the burg watch was the first site to create a permanent record council’s performance as a reminder to voters heading to polls.
Early posts were about council’s contravention of the Municipal Act following the Ombudsman Review Of Closed Meeting, flip flops and a lack of commitment to accessibility.
In 2014, the burg watch provided an historic opportunity for residents to question the candidates directly. Despite being threatened with legal action and negative comments, I feel it was a worthwhile endeavour even if not everyone responded as that indicates, to me, their future behaviour.
In 2018, posts referenced another Ombudsman’s Report of council’s and the JPAC’s contravention regarding in camera meetings on the Policing RFP and council’s decision to choose Windsor Police Service without obtaining an OPP costing as promised.
Thank you to those who support the burg watch.
Everybody’s talking about the new group in town. And it’s not all flattering.
Why is there such a kerfuffle over the creation of the Amherstburg Taxpayers Association that is, as stated on their blog, “a group of residents concerned about our taxes, and how they are managed and spent”?
A quick read of the River Town Times and social media provides some answers but raises more questions.
Was the town’s Procedural By-Law adhered to? Section 12.1 of the town’s procedural by-law, “No By-law shall be presented to Council unless the subject matter has been considered and approved by Council.” If council had first directed Administration to research the topic and bring it back to council, the confusion regarding the interpretation or applicability of any legislation or definition of lobbyist might have been avoided.
Was the town’s Accountability and Transparency Policy adhered to? “This policy applies equally to the actions or decisions to be undertaken or made by Council, Staff, Committees, Agencies, Commissions and Local Boards, so as to try to increase the accountability and transparency of the municipal decision making process.”
Is the practice of reading a by-law three times in one evening counter productive and contrary to the principles of transparency and accountability?
Why did this by-law appear before council so quickly when other items drag on for a decade – like the accessibility of the library? the town’s website? or years – like the council meeting streaming? In 2014 webcasting was deferred to the 2015 budget.
As for increased accountability and transparency, isn’t that what politicians promise?
During the 2018 campaign, CBC’s Jonathan Pinto asked candidates questions. Only those that addressed accountability and transparency are set out below in this post. Read the full article at CBC.
What is your most relevant experience for this position?
Marc Renaud
I’ve dedicated myself to understanding municipal politics and community issues. Based on my experience, I believe council can serve the needs of the community better. If elected, I plan on bringing a more responsible and accountable council to the taxpayers of Amherstburg.
Donald McArthur
I covered councils for nearly 20 years as a journalist and I’ve written editorials blasting politicians for breaking promises or meeting behind closed doors. I know how the system works and I want to put the people into politics by engaging my constituents online and in person.
What is the single biggest issue in your municipality?
Patricia Simone
Whether it’s policing, infrastructure or taxes, the residents need representation at Town Hall. This means having councillors that show up, talk to residents, know the issues and are willing to debate them. If elected I will be that councillor.
Peter Courtney
The biggest issue in our municipality in my opinion is the lack of transparency surrounding the process, planning and procedures for new business development in our town. (ie, Wendy’s, Duffy’s property, and Centennial Park).
In yesterday’s post I asked members of council if any violation of the employee code of conduct, section 15, was addressed?
Just to recap, section 15.0 Confidential Information:
The following information must not be used or disclosed, except in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”):
Today, McArthur’s response regarding the breach of personal and sensitive information of 40 police officers, employees and family members is:
“It is my understanding that the disclosure of personal information was inadvertent and that it is the opinion of the Clerk, the Treasurer and the Director of Corporate Services, who conducted an investigation, that the inadvertent disclosure was not a Code of Conduct violation.
It is my understanding as well that the Town advised the Information and Privacy Commissioner of this issue and notified the affected individuals. It is also my understanding that the Town took steps to help guard against similar inadvertent disclosures in the future.”
Nowhere in the Employee Code of Conduct does it state not to worry, it was an inadvertent disclosure. Carry on.
Council members have been asked: regarding the town hall employee’s disclosure of Amherstburg police officers’ personal information, including 40 names, addresses, telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, next of kin, spouses’ cell phone numbers, start dates and birthdays, was any violation of the employee code of conduct, section 15, below, addressed?
Section 15 of the outdated 2007 CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY FOR STAFF/EMPLOYEES:
15.0 Confidential Information
The following information must not be used or disclosed, except in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”):
No Employee shall benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the use of information acquired during the course of official duties that is not generally available to the public.
Personal information controlled by the Town must be used or disclosed in compliance with the MFIPPA.
Employees must protect the following examples of information regarding the Town and others from illegal and unauthorized use:
Paula Parker forwarded a request for any RFP Police Services Addenda to Bobbi Reive, Financial Planning Administrator, who disclosed all four addenda.
Addendum #2 contained Amherstburg police officers’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, next of kin, spouses’ cell phone numbers, employment start dates and birthdays.
The town advised the Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario that it implemented remedial measures, including the amendment of the town’s request for information procedures to ensure that any information shall be verified, at least twice, prior to its release to the requester in order to prevent inadvertent disclosure of confidential information.
