About theburgwatch

Amherstburg's first local blogger since 2011, writing about town council and issues.

Opinion – Denials of delegation requests increasing

Posted on July 12, 2026 by theburgwatch

Residents’ requests to speak to council have increasingly been denied.

This council seems ok with that.

“The content of the procedure by-law is generally up to the council,” said an Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers Ontario (AMCTO) spokesperson in an email.

This council had no input on it. The public had no input.

But this council did rubber stamp administration’s revised procedural by-law in August 2023.

Residents pushed back but council wouldn’t reconsider.

The by-law states, “The Town of Amherstburg actively encourages public engagement by inviting members of the community to participate in Council and Committee meetings, fostering a sense of inclusivity and transparency in local governance.”

But does it?

Deputy Mayoral candidate Bill Petruniak wanted to speak to council Monday night about proposed changes to the town’s Official Plan.

The clerk’s denial included a reference to previous public consultations – accordingly, no further public deputations are possible at this time.

Petruniak’s response back to the clerk was:

“Thank you for your explanation, sir. The premise of my delegation was to highlight the reality we live in. We are in the 21st century and still attempting to do business like we did 30 years ago. Technology is accelerating exponentially and if Amherstburg does not embrace it and process decisions more quickly we will be left behind. No longer can we rely on higher levels of government to bail us out. Both our federal and provincial bodies are in worse financial shape than Amherstburg. Amherstburg must start governing in a proactive manner or perish. Lead, follow or get out of the way; only the fittest will survive. Taking 17 years to revise the official plan was ridiculous. Hopefully the next council can make some positive changes to Amherstburg’s operational procedures.”

Paradoxically, one of the six goals of the town’s Official Plan is, ‘Establish a framework for community engagement.’

One of the goals of the town’s Strategic Plan, also approved by this council, is, ‘Increase effective communication and engagement with residents.’

A few residents were denied an opportunity to speak to the Economic Development Committee in January of this year.

The committee was advised that both must be true: there would have to be a report or by-law before the body and there would have to be an action or recommendation.

Deputy CAO Melissa Osborne mentioned delegates could speak at a future meeting, but they wouldn’t be allowed to address town council on the same issue.

No such rule exists in the procedural by-law. I asked.

CAO Critchley only sent me the section that states, “Delegations appearing before Council, who have previously appeared before Council on the same subject matter, shall be limited to providing only new information in any subsequent delegation request.” (emphasis added).

My January 2024 delegation request was denied.

I had been advocating for a Routine disclose policy for four years and wanted to speak to the AMCTO’s submission regarding the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Deputy clerk Sarah Sabihuddin advised, “it does not directly relate to a report or by-law, and therefore, it does not qualify as a delegation under the procedural framework.”

Alternatively, Sabihuddin said I could send my concerns to council. “Should a member of Council wish to bring this up during New Business and make a request for an Administrative Report on this item then once this report comes back onto the public agenda then you would be able to delegate at that time as per the procedural by-law,” emailed Sabihuddin.

Ironically, my April 2026 request to speak about civic engagement and the multi-year accessibility plan was also denied.

Also not found in the procedural by-law was a section pertaining to administration’s most recent precedent – “demonstrate how the requested action is connected to the matter under consideration.”

Council will be discussing some contentious issues Monday night including their in-camera decisions about Windsor Police, BYOB legislation, a day care centre near 320 Richmond Street.

The July 13 council meeting will take place at 6 pm in town hall council chambers and is also live steamed at islive.ca.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Dhaval Prajapati

Posted on July 5, 2026 by theburgwatch

Sometimes they play favourites and don’t answer my questions. But I’m continuing the 2014 tradition. For now, I’m only asking about Open Air and will set aside a page just for their Open Air answers – IF they answer.

The Burg Watch: Why I Stand Up for Our Community

Posted on July 2, 2026 by theburgwatch

As Amherstburg’s first local blogger since 2011 and creator of the burg watch, my goal has always been to keep our community informed.

Through the burg watch I challenge the status quo because our community deserves better than the minimal efforts and performative gestures like promoting proclamations and raising flags.

A truly inclusive community removes barriers that prevent people from equally participating in their own community.

I’ve written about the barriers that need to be removed to end the exclusion. For example, the lack of accessible amenities like infrastructure, recreation, and civic engagement.

My disability rights advocacy isn’t a political hobby; it’s a commitment to a human right to belong.

Standing up for what I believe in and trying to hold our administration and council accountable has resulted in pushback and isolation. But I’d rather face criticism for defending our community’s right to equity than be liked for staying silent while residents are excluded from their own town.

I am proud of the conversations the burg watch has generated. I’ll continue to watch, write, and advocate—because a stronger, fully accessible Amherstburg benefits the entire community.

I appreciate the friends and allies that have joined me along this journey.

graphic image of brown wooden sign with white text that reads welcome to Amherstburg - a community for everyone with greenery at the base of the posts. — graphic image of wooden sign with text: welcome to Amherstburg – a community for everyone.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Tony Pietrangelo

Posted on June 30, 2026 by theburgwatch

Sometimes they play favourites and don’t answer my questions. But I’m continuing the tradition I started in 2014. For now, I’m only asking about Open Air and will set aside a page just for their Open Air answers – IF they answer.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Chris Gibb

Posted on June 29, 2026 by theburgwatch

Opinion – Dangerous signage

Posted on June 28, 2026 by theburgwatch

One single sentence about a sign became a saga of 16 emails over 10 days.

Signs keep us safe so if they pose a danger, I’m concerned. I thought others would be too, especially because it was on town property.

According to a sign by-law memo to council, “Construction Zones: Temporary routes around construction must also be accessible.”

Also, if barriers exist, the town wants to know about them, right? I’ve learned the operative word is ‘if.’

The bright yellow sign at Richmond and Bathurst grabbed my attention on June 10. I knew it wasn’t compliant with the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 7 – Temporary Conditions, which contains best practices for traffic control in work zones.

I immediately emailed the one sentence, “the attached photo of the sign at the Bathurst and Richmond intersection is not compliant” to CAO Critchley and Councillor Diane Pouget.

I usually copy the other council members on my emails, but they rarely respond. So, this time I just copied Pouget since she’s the only one who has consistently represented residents.

McArthur said, “Whether Councillor Pouget is on council or not on council, if I have a problem that I need town hall to solve, I’m going to councillor Pouget okay, and this community knows that.”

Yes, I know that.

red text of sidewalk closed use other side on yellow sign on interlocking brick sidewalk.

“Use alley” is added in marker on either side of the word ‘side.’

Critchley: “Thank you for your email. We will look into this today,” June 11.

Critchley: “This situation has been reviewed. There are no issues with the signage provided and it does not violate any legislation. While not a standard sign, it nevertheless conveys the messaging intended, and is placed in such a way as to provide notice to allow those using the sidewalks to transition to the sidewalks that remain open for the intended purposes.” June 15.

the burg watch: “Thanks. It’s unfortunate that the town is ok with non-compliant signage that creates a barrier for people with vision disabilities and therefore does violate legislation.” June 15.

Critchley: “This initial sign is a warning that the sidewalk is closed beyond. If you carry on beyond that signage you will see a full barrier and fencing, closing off the area that someone with a visual impairment would identify with their cane when approaching. There are often practical limitations to the possible scenarios that may exist with a given solution in the world, but the Town follows best practices, provincial regulations and the guidance of upper levels of government in its actions.” June 15.

the burg watch: “A person with a visual disability would encounter the barrier at the initial non-compliant sign. Best practices include compliance with the Ontario Traffic Manuals.

As you know, MTO-approved traffic signs follow precise guidelines outlined in Ontario Traffic Manuals (OTM) that make signs legally enforceable.

Under OTM Book 7, temporary construction signs must strictly use black text on an orange retroreflective background, or black text on a white background for specific regulatory tabs. Red text on yellow does not adhere to official MTO/OTM standards and is a barrier for some people with vision disabilities.

For a proper sidewalk closure, the correct standard is to use the TC-40 “Sidewalk Closed” warning sign or the TC-40T “Sidewalk Closed” tab.

The TC-40 must be accompanied by a directional arrow (left or right) to guide pedestrians safely toward an alternate route.

OTM compliance would optimize pedestrian safety and reduce liability risks. June 15.

Critchley: “This sign is NOT a Town sign and has been placed in relation to a private project. As such, the sign does not have to follow MTP standards. If you have an issue with the sign, please reach out to the contractor doing the work. June 16.

the burg watch: “Thanks. Given that the sign is on town property directing town residents, I assumed the town would take an interest in ensuring compliance and pedestrian safety, including persons with disabilities.” June 16.

the burg watch: “Out of concern for pedestrian safety, including persons with disabilities, I’d like to contact the contractor. Would you please provide me with the contact information. Thanks” June 17.

the burg watch: “You advised, if I have an issue with the sign to reach out to the contractor. I have an issue but I wonder if the town and town council share my concern about the safety of persons with disabilities on town property. So, this afternoon I spoke to the contractor, who told me the town approved the project and supplied the signs, which he showed me. As I pointed out to you, the signs are not compliant so why is the town providing non-compliant signs that potentially endanger pedestrians?” to Critchley and all council members this time on June 18.

contractor holding sidewalk closed sign in red text on white background

Contractor holding sidewalk closed sign provided to him by the town.

Councillor Pouget: “When time permits, will you please advise if the signs, that Mrs. Saxon is referring to is compliant to keep our residents safe, especially those with disabilities? Are these the Town signs and if not compliant, will they be replaced for safety reasons?” emailed Critchley, copied council, on June 19.

Critchley: addressed to Pouget without acknowledging her title: Good Morning:

The sign is actually the responsibility of the contractor. However, as I have told Ms. Saxon, the sign is compliant.

Critchley: to me, cc council, “Good Morning:

As originally relayed, while the sign is non-standard, it is not “non-compliant.” Compliance refers to a legal requirement, the OTM is a guideline. In this instance, the contractor did not have a sign, and asked for this to be provided to assist their works. As the sign exists 10 feet behind a saw horse with retror-eflectivity barring the path, and fencing secures the entirety of the site, staff we comfortable utilizing it for this purpose. As you may not be aware, retro-reflectivity is used for headlights and other typically street based conveyances. As it is not typical for headlights to be on sidewalks, it does appear that the safeguards staff authorized are both adequate and appropriate.

Thank you for your concern. June 19.

the burg watch: “The non-compliant signs are a public safety hazard as well as non-compliant with the AODA. Why wouldn’t the town ensure the safety of its residents and mitigate all potential risks to the town? Why wouldn’t the town just implement best practices like so many other municipalities?

It has been claimed that input on barriers in the community are welcome and will be addressed yet once again it appears accessibility is not a priority.” June 19.

Critchley: Madam:

“The signs are not a public safety hazard.

If you can provide a reference to the section(s) of the AODA that you are concerned about we would be happy to review that.” June 19.

the burg watch: “Madam,

The signs are a public safety hazard if they are not legible, are not the correct colours, incorrect contrast, do not contain arrows directing pedestrians to an alternate route, and are a tripping hazard – those are the facts. I notified the town of the barrier and then it’s the town’s responsibility to address the concern. The AODA is readily available online for you to review.” June 19.

I noticed different signs on June 26.

Hand printed sign on Richmond Street and Bathurst stating use other side but wheelchair access is via Murray St. As a reader pointed out, Murray Street only has one useable sidewalk – on the north side – between Bathurst an dRamsay and it’s not in good condition either.

Hand printing on sign indicates last pedestrian crossing at Sandwich Street at Richmond next to the library.

I have submitted a freedom of information request for all the contractor’s documents/applications the town approved.

Open Air barrier follow up with Botsford

Posted on June 27, 2026 by theburgwatch

TJ Botsford’s answer to my question about removing Open Air barriers was, “The town of Amherstburg relies on an excellent Accessibility Advisory Committee to look into these matters. It is my understanding that the Accessibility Advisory Committee ensures all events including Open Air are accessible for residents in Amherstburg. If you have concerns, I would suggest that you contact the Accessibility Advisory Committee.”

I reached out on Facebook and followed up with an email:

I asked on your Facebook post about Open Air: what specifically led to your opinion that there is an excellent accessibility committee? Is it your understanding or a fact that the committee ensures all events are accessible?

Botsford: “Residents who wish to serve on the Accessibility Advisory Committee must meet specific eligibility criteria, as required by mandate. It is, therefore, my understanding that those selected possess the knowledge and experience necessary to effectively advise the Town on accessibility barriers and related concerns. I trust that the individuals currently serving on this committee carefully consider the needs of residents and take the time to regularly review and reassess accessibility issues as circumstances and community needs change over time.”

4 Months to Municipal Elections 2026

Posted on June 26, 2026 by theburgwatch

“Voting isn’t the most we can do. But it is the least.” Gloria Steinem

VOTE on Monday, October 24, 2026.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Lena Lazanja

Posted on June 25, 2026 by theburgwatch

the burg watch: As you know, Open Air remains a contentious issue, especially because of Councillor Crain’s motion to not revisit it until the end of this term. Will you remove barriers that deny people with disabilities equal access to the community when streets are closed during Open Air weekends?

Lena Lazanja: In the planning/application stages of public events in Amherstburg, accessibility concerns are addressed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee to ensure that all events (including Open Air) are made accessible for residents/public.

To be clear, to provide “accessibility” (for Open Air) the event organizers should focus on the proactive design and/or modification of products, devices, services, or environments to ensure they can be used equitably by everyone, including people with disabilities.

The purpose of providing an equitable environment is to remove physical, technological, and systemic barriers, allowing all individuals independent and equal access.
Sometimes, such barriers are not immediately recognized by event planners. For example, socio-ecomomic barriers are often overlooked, due to it being “invisible”.

Many times, barriers are only fully recognized once an event is underway, through lived experience.

For this reason, it is critical that organizers and committees frequently re-evaluate event plans. refer to the public’s feedback, to fully understand accessibility issues and address them properly, as they come to light.

As a Councillor, I would assume that the Accessibility Advisory Committee was adept at ensuring all events including Open Air are accessible in Amherstburg, because that is their job. However, should new concerns arise, based on evidence and public input, it would be negligent of me if I did not look into the matter further.

Creating and maintaining accessible environments is a team effort, so that everyone is able to enjoy what Amherstburg has to offer.

Linda, I hope this answers your question.
Also, I would be willing to continue to participate in your blog postings by answering any questions you might have throughout the campaign months ahead. However, I would appreciate you removing my/other candidates names from a “did not respond” section. Campaign time is a very busy time, and sometimes candidates are so inundated with information and requests, that some things slip through the cracks. We are not required to answer blog requests for public posting. Since it is voluntary, I know that we would appreciate not being singled out…as in my case, it makes me appear as though I refuse to reply, rather than a simple oversight.
I appreciate your support on this.
Also, for future reference, my last name is Lazanja (you have misspelled my name on your blog)

the burg watch: I did not include you, as you state, in a “did not respond” section.

I will not remove your name or other candidates’ names because I reported factually, the “candidates that haven’t answered to date.”

You may not be familiar with my blog but in a 2014 post I acknowledged, “While the candidates have never been obliged to answer, by doing so allows for scrutiny beyond the campaign marketing materials. Some candidates’ answers are thorough, well thought out and responsive; others have ignored requests for specificity and others are misinformed.”

I will always continue the tradition of naming candidates that aren’t responsive. Readers have a right to know if their concerns will ‘slip through the cracks,’ regardless of the excuse.

I’m sure you can appreciate people not coming to your facebook page and telling you what content you should or should not be sharing with your readers.

I have corrected the misspelling of your name, but I left your misspelling in place – another tradition to record verbatim responses.Answers and questions back from other candidates will be posted in future posts.Candidates that haven’t answered to date:
Frank Cerasa