Amherstburg town hall displays the inaugural Essex County Accessibility Flag for National AccessAbility Week along with the ‘accessible entrance at back’ lawn sign.
The 54 year old wheelchair access symbol was intended to indicate access. A more inclusive symbol to display on a flag would be the Hidden Disability Symbol Canada.
Sunday, May 29, 2022 – the start of National AccessAbility Week; inclusive from the start is this year’s theme and this photo is my contribution to raising awareness of the need for inclusion in our community.
Amherstburg’s Open Air event where, for the third year, barriers prevent the almost 5,000 persons with disabilities from equally participating in their community: barriers to the downtown core, including the post office, banks, hair salons and parking to allow for games, patios, entertainment to occupy the streets.
Unlike Amherstburg, Essex County is allowing plenty of time for feedback – almost 7 weeks! You have until June 30. Not days like Amherstburg and then it closed early.
The county’s administrative team and the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee will review the feedback received during the preparation of the 2023-2027 Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, which will then be presented to county council for final approval.
The Town of Amherstburg approved a DRAFT plan. Shameful.
I watched today’s rescheduled Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting.
Committee members still stray off topic, but did finally have a discussion regarding keeping track of money allocated to projects and decisions regarding the same. For quite some time I have wondered why resolutions were not passed and recorded in the minutes for reference. In the future, an unfinished list of sorts will be used. Why it took so long I have no idea, especially when a few members sit on other town committees.
I didn’t hear the committee members deal with an AODA Alliance tips for committee members that I forwarded through town clerk Valerie Critchley. I also sent it to members of council so they would be better informed; see below.
“This Update gives members of AACs and SEACs practical tips on how to give as strong a voice as possible to disability issues. We identify seven areas of concern and then provide a fuller explanation for each point below. In summary, here is what all members of AACs and SEACs should know:
1. AACs and SEACs should set their own meeting agendas! Don’t let city staff or school board staff set their advisory committee’s agenda or tell them what topics are “in order.”
2. Members of AACs and SEACs must remain free to also be disability advocates in private and public.
3. Inaccessible virtual meeting platforms and application forms are not allowed.
4. Public deputations to an advisory committee should not be artificially limited to five minutes.
5. Municipal and school board bylaws cannot hog-tie the work of an AAC or SEAC.
6. Members of the public are free to talk to or exchange emails with advisory committee members about accessibility issues, including those on the advisory committee’s agenda. (emphasized for council’s attention).
7. AACs and SEACs have an absolute right to have their recommendations and advice shared directly with all the city council or school board trustees whom they are appointed to advise, and not just to a sub-committee.
Please share this Update with members of the AAC and SEAC in your community. Urge your member of city council and school board trustee to read this and to send it to all members of their AAC or SEAC.”
Videos of meetings increase transparency and accountability but, according to deputy clerk Tammy Fowkes, “Currently, it is only Council meetings that have the IT resources to create and publish the videos.
The minutes are the official records for both Council and Committee meetings. The Town does go a step above for Committee meetings and records the audio to be placed on the website. Technical requirements to produce videos for each Committee meeting is very involved and requires many resources that are currently not available.”
The audios, if they’re posted, create barriers when members mute the audio, the audio is a poor quality, and members do not identify themselves. What accommodations are in place for people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing?
I would like to counter all the accolades with a dose of reality.
Shame on Anne Rota for recommending a report for adoption that omits compliance with provincial legislation.
Rota’s Report referenced under-utilized parking for employees but plans to continue offering those spots. However, the alleged under-utilized accessible parking in the King’s Navy Yard Park lot will be reduced. The rationale for this differentiation was unclear, until the council meeting when Ms. Rota stated this reduction would allow for a turn around to be created instead. Further, the plan is to add three accessible parking spaces in three locations at the outside perimeter.
Shame on council for approving a plan that fails to meet its obligation to consult with the public.
Mayor DiCarlo advised, in April 2021, the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee was not consulted with respect to Open Air Weekends and only one person with a disability was consulted in the design of the footprint.
It is mandatory, pursuant to O. Reg. 191/11: Integrated Accessibility Standards for the town to consult on the need, location and design of accessible on-street parking spaces and shall do so with the public and persons with disabilities as well as its Accessibility Advisory Committee.
My submission to members of council, prior to the council meeting, wherein I asked if the town would discriminate against persons with disabilities, quoted the provincial legislation regarding public consultation, and objected to the arbitrary placement of accessible parking spaces, especially in a distant perimeter, and accessible spaces that cannot be accessed due to road closures, was ignored.
Given council’s duty to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality, I must question the $90,000. taxpayer funded expenditure that creates barriers to persons with disabilities.
Commentary by Linda Saxon as published in the River Town Times December 1, 2021
The Town of Amherstburg Code of Conduct states, in part:
Every Member shall conduct themselves with decorum and respect at council, committee, local board and other meetings, and in accordance with the provisions of the Procedural By-law, this policy, and other applicable laws.
My personal observations of a meeting of council and the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee follow.
Members:
do not always go through the Chair.
talk over each other.
grandstand.
belabour the point.
go off-topic.
share irrelevant personal anecdotes.
use acronyms.
do not appear prepared.
Staff:
monopolize the discussion.
interject their opinions to lead the discussion.
belabour the point
General:
The committee’s agenda was posted the day before the meeting.
There was no link to the live feed of the committee meeting.
Off camera speakers do not identify themselves for home viewers.
Minutes do not accurately reflect content of meetings. (read the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Committee post.)
There was no link to today’s Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting on the town’s site, although it was live streamed; the agenda was available in html format only and it was posted one day prior to the meeting.
There will be a very limited timeframe, deadline December 7, for asking people if they ‘feel’ the Town’s amenities meet their accessibility needs. The general questions the Accessibility Committee reviewed are at the end of this post.
Asking people how they feel, in general terms, is not the same as the legislated stipulation to review and update the town’s accessibility plan in consultation with persons with disabilities, aside from an accessibility advisory committee.
I’m guessing the survey’s short time frame and plan to present to town Council on December 13 is because the last multi-year plan on the town’s website is from January 2013.
The committee reviewed the brief questions:
Commentary by Linda Saxon
edited: this was sent to members of council on November 21, prior to the November 22 meeting
Aside from the spelling and grammatical errors, and the ‘boots on the ground’ reference, I have some concerns regarding Anne Rota’s recommendation that council approve the 2022 Open Air weekend in principle.
Will the Town of Amherstburg discriminate against persons with disabilities?
The report notes 50 downtown employee parking permits were not used to full capacity at times, but the same amenity would be offered in 2022.
Yet, administration noted the accessible parking lot at the Kings Navy Yard Park (KNYP) was under-utilized and Administration recommends those spaces be reduced to two.
I fail to see the rationale for the differentiation.
Public Consultation Is Mandatory
Mayor DiCarlo previously advised only 1 person with a disability was consulted.
Pursuant to provincial legislation, the Town of Amherstburg is obliged to consult the public and persons with disabilities, as well as its Accessibility Advisory Committee on the need, location and design of accessible on-street parking spaces.
According to the report, Administration would recommend the addition of 3 accessible parking spaces at the other 3 entrances and mentions future consultation with only the Accessibility Advisory Committee.
The arbitrary placement of accessible parking spaces, especially in a distant perimeter, is unacceptable, as are accessible spaces that cannot be accessed due to road closures.
While the report includes the total number of parking spaces, there are no locations listed, no percentages of accessible spaces stated, and no types of accessible spaces mentioned.
Economic Development was the primary objective of Open Air weekends.
Rota states, “By using the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries; Regional Visitor Profiles figures indicated that; A one day spend of a tourist is $79 p.p. and overnight spend of a tourist (40km+) is $244 p.p. We can then conclude the following of Open Air Weekends 2021:
Total # of visitors 64,310
Day visitors 52,091 (81%) spends $ 79 p.p. per day for a total of $4,115,189
Overnight visitor (19%) 12,219 spends $244 p.p. per day for a total of 2,981,436
Total visitor spending $7,096,625.”
However, the Ministry’s regional figures are based on Region 1: southwestern Ontario, which includes the municipalities in the Windsor, Essex, Lambton, Elgin, Middlesex and Haldimand Norfolk areas. (see map here: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/images/regions_maps/Region01.pdf and below)
Additionally, the statistics are based on pre-COVID 2018 data – prior to restrictions.
Therefore, the conclusion regarding tourist spending for Open Air 2021 is flawed.
Financial Matters
The proposed budget is generalized with no line-by-line details. As a taxpayer, and in the spirit of accountability and transparency, a detailed request for approval is warranted.
Risk Analysis
In my opinion, Council should not approve this report in principle; it is flawed and contains proposals that are contrary to provincial legislation and fiscal responsibility.
Privacy and Accessibility are two concerns when using the Amherstburg Fire Department website.
Privacy
The site lacks a Notice of Collection and use of personal information.
Section 29(2) of the provincial MFIPPA Act state that when collecting personal information, unless an exception applies, an institution must provide the individual to whom the personal information relates with notice which includes specific details on the following three requirements:
In response to a concern that personal information was shared with unaffected parties, Fire Chief Montone stated, “When you make an inquiry to my office, I have always, and will always include members of my staff and the corporation I represent who are very aware of the confidentiality and sensitivity required and expected…”
Accessibility
As for accessibility issues, Aaron Peterson, Web & Print Boutique responded, “The website passed WCAG Level AA when we built it.”
Paula Parker and John Miceli mentioned third party vendors at a September 14, 2020 council meeting, In response to a request for a list of vendors Ms. Parker stated, while this review is underway and not yet complete, I cannot at this time provide a thorough list. A report is expected to be available in 2021 with suggestions from Administration for efficiencies in service delivery and a streamlined approach to web content delivery.”
An FOI request on the matter is outstanding.
All members of council were asked, How necessary is it to block access to the post office during the open air weekends? Isn’t the post office an essential service as opposed to a retail establishment? It’s especially important for use by persons with disabilities; I’m not sure if you considered that, seeing as only one person with a disability was consulted.
Only Councillor Marc Renaud responded: I have been downtown for most open air weekends. There is unblocked access to Canada post parking at Precision Jewellers.
Follow up comments with further questions: You must have not witnessed an enthusiastic crossing guard on Friday afternoon stopping traffic from travelling west of Ramsay Street to park in front of the post office or the jewelry store. You also might not have seen an irate driver squeal his tires as he left the area after she stopped him.
Your personal anecdote offers little to address a very important issue regarding the controversial open air weekends. Given that the mayor confirmed only one person with a disability was consulted, i’m not assured that accessibility is a priority.
Perhaps you could explain why accessibility features, now being considered in this evening’s report, were not included at the time of procurement and renovations for the community hub? Did the AAAC inspect the site plans? With regard to spending taxpayer dollars, the tenants are equally liable for half the accessibility expenditures so why are taxpayers being asked to pay their share?
No one responded to date.
This week’s River Town Times article on a new Open Air survey reports that this year traffic is blocked off on Richmond Street from Ramsay to Dalhousie Street. Therefore, access to Canada Post is blocked.
September 24, 2021 Toronto: On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 10 a.m., the Divisional Court of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice will hold a public virtual hearing for the oral argument of a case brought by blind lawyer, law professor, and volunteer disability rights advocate David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance, against Ontario’s Minister for Seniors and Accessibility, the Honourable Raymond Cho. In Lepofsky v, Cho,. Lepofsky asks the Court to issue a declaration that Minister Cho violated section 10(1) of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). This is the first time someone has gone to court to contest the sufficiency of the Ontario Government’s implementation of the AODA, and to get a judicial interpretation of the AODA.
The case is scheduled for about two hours. It will be livestreamed to the public on Youtube at https://youtu.be/LuD6fKu0dlE As far as is now known, it will only be available online for livestreaming in real time.
Full press release at aoda alliance site.
Commentary by Linda Saxon submitted to the River Town Times in response to the article “Local business owners adding new building to portfolio.”
While I appreciate Richard Peddie’s enthusiasm for ‘what historic Amherstburg once looked like,’ I disagree that ‘the town is not investing enough in heritage.’
The town was so committed to heritage that it remained silent throughout my ten-year campaign to make the Carnegie library accessible. The library retrofit cost continued to rise over a decade, as did legal fees for the town to resist any library changes. The Ontario Human Rights Commission highlighted the case in its Annual Report and the town credited others with my accomplishment.
In addition to ignoring my requests, the town disregarded funding initiatives that prioritized accessibility. When I questioned the marina, instead of changing the priority project to the library, the town withdrew its application.
In 2001, I requested that council include accessibility in the tender for library repairs; Instead, the town donated $710,000 for a replica of the HMS Detroit, for which taxpayers incurred a 9% tax hike over a two-year period.
The town attracted negative attention when it circulated its council resolution throughout the province to request an extension to the accessible website deadline that it knew about for several years. I had been requesting the town make its website accessible since 2001, along with other items that would have increased accessibility, but they were received, noted and filed.
Shamefully, only one person with a disability was consulted about the Open Air weekends and the town placed accessible parking in an unsafe location.
More recently, administration recommended an over-expenditure of salary and benefits expenses in the Clerks Budget Centre for additional staff overtime to deal with advisory committee commitments and AODA compliance. There were no details in the report so I can only wonder why AODA compliance was not routinely incorporated without overtime.
Too often heritage takes precedence over accessibility; sometimes accessibility is not even incorporated in the initial planning stages, all of which is contrary to the human rights code. Not everyone is aware that heritage buildings can be made accessible.
I do not believe that heritage should be ‘referenced in the budget.’ Elected officials have human rights obligations and must consider the health, safety and well-being of the community they serve, and provide services and things that the municipality is authorized to provide.
the burg watch 