Category Archives: Accountability

Lena Lazanja’s Campaign Policy: Transparency or Selective Engagement?

Posted on by
Reply

Social media has become the new town hall. Political candidates share their ideas, debate town issues, and—most importantly—answer questions from the people they want to represent.

But my recent experience with council candidate Lena Lazanja points to a bigger problem: candidates using social media settings to filter who gets to hold them accountable.

The May Question

This situation started back in May, when I first engaged with Ms. Lazanja to ask a question about removing barriers for Amherstburg’s Open Air weekends. In her email response she explicitly stated:

“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.”

The July Block

On July 14, I participated in a discussion on her campaign page, replying to a comment left by Arms Bumanlag. Shortly after posting, the burg watch was completely blocked, and my comment was deleted.

To ensure I had my facts straight, I verified the block by checking the page from a personal account and having another local user confirm the deletion. I immediately sent Ms. Lazanja an email on July 14 to establish the facts:

“This will confirm that earlier today, July 14, 2026, I commented on the Lena Lazanja for Amherstburg Council campaign facebook page in response to Arms Bumanlag’s comment. Shortly thereafter, I was unable to access the above page as the burg watch. I visited the page using my personal facebook page and observed my comment was deleted. While still on the campaign page, I switched back to the burg watch and a notification appeared, stating the content was no longer available. Another Facebook user verified that my comment was deleted. I believe I have verified that, as the burg watch, I was blocked from accessing the campaign page of Lena Lazanja.”

Three days later, on July 17, she finally responded. Rather than deny the block, she pointed to a rule she set for herself, stating that she pinned a post explaining she blocks pages designated as “Political Organizations” because she is not affiliated with them.

“As I stated to the public in my last post on this matter, which is pinned at the top of my campaign page, I have blocked social media pages designated as ‘Political Organizations’, as I am not affiliated with any political organizations as an Amherstburg Councillor candidate.”

On paper, that might sound like a candidate trying to stay independent. But in practice, it’s just splitting hairs. A page label doesn’t change the fact that a real local resident is behind the account asking genuine questions about our town.

The September Contradiction

Fast forward to September 24. It turns out that Ms. Lazanja’s rule about avoiding “Political Organizations” only applies to some pages, but not others.

She has commented and engaged on Amherstburg Votes 2026. Up until last week, that page was publicly and clearly categorized as a “Political Organization”—the exact type of page Ms. Lazanja claimed she absolutely could not be affiliated with.

What makes this even more troubling is the issue of anonymity. While the burg watch is run openly by me, a local community member, Amherstburg Votes 2026 is completely anonymous. The public has no idea who is actually running it, yet Ms. Lazanja has chosen to legitimize that platform with her engagement while locking out a transparent community watchdog.

Seeing the clear double standard, I emailed her on September 24 asking a simple question:

“You stated to the public in your pinned post at your campaign page that you have blocked social media pages designated as ‘Political Organizations’, as you are not affiliated with any political organizations as an Amherstburg Councillor candidate. However, you’ve answered on the anonymous Amherstburg Votes 2026 which is clearly publicly categorized as a political organization. Would you explain the inconsistency?”

While I received no reply to my email, the anonymous page itself suddenly reacted. On Monday, September 28, just days after my private inquiry to the candidate, Amherstburg Votes 2026 quietly altered its description. It now claims it is “not a political organization, not a club, not a group – just an information hub for Amherstburg politics.”

Fortunately, the burg watch has a screenshot of the original “Political Organization” designation from right before the email was sent. The sudden rebranding of an anonymous page directly following a private inquiry to a candidate raises serious questions about who is coordinating behind the scenes.

Screenshot 1: The “Political Organization” Proof

Screenshot taken prior to September 28 showing 'Amherstburg Votes 2026' officially categorized as a Political Organization by Facebook.
Screenshot taken prior to September 28 showing ‘Amherstburg Votes 2026’ officially categorized as a Political Organization on Facebook.

Why This Matters to Voters

When a candidate uses a public social media page to run a campaign, that page becomes a public forum. Using technicalities to block an open, local watchdog page while actively participating on a completely anonymous political page isn’t about maintaining independence. It looks a lot more like selective engagement.

Amherstburg residents deserve transparency that cuts through semantic loopholes. If a candidate claims a policy applies to everyone, it should apply to everyone.

Open Air: Sonya Elliott on “Adjusting the White Barricades”

Posted on by
Reply

As our tracking of candidate stances on the downtown summer street closures continues, today we look at a highly revealing exchange with council candidate Sonya Elliott.

After emailing the remaining candidates on the ballot to ask if they would commit to removing the barriers that deny residents with disabilities equal access during Open Air, Elliott’s initial response was a brief, two-word reply: “Good question.” When pressed directly with a follow-up asking for her actual answer, she sent a response that exposes a misunderstanding of physical accessibility.

Elliot’s Position: Widening the Barricades for Wheelchairs

“Good morning. If by barriers you are talking about the white barricades that block the streets, I see no problem in having them adjusted so that a wheelchair could easily go around them and yet still block the traffic.”

Key takeaways from her response include:

  • A Literal Interpretation of “Barriers”: Elliott assumes that when residents with disabilities talk about “barriers” during Open Air, they are referring exclusively to the physical barricades used to close the roads.
  • The Wheelchair Workaround: Her proposed solution to making the four-month event footprint accessible is to simply widen the gap between the road-closure barricades so that a person using a wheelchair can physically bypass them on the street.

The Reality: It is difficult to overstate how concerning this response is. Elliott’s only suggestion for barrier removal is literally to slide a road barricade over a few inches to let a wheelchair squeeze past.

For many people with disabilities, their vehicle is their assistive mobility device.

The barrier of Open Air has absolutely nothing to do with whether a wheelchair can roll around a barricade. The barrier is that the entire street grid is entirely locked down to vehicles. When you ban cars from Dalhousie and its intersecting streets for 16 weeks, you immediately strip away essential curbside parking, accessible drop-off zones, and direct proximity to pharmacies, banks, and businesses.

Telling a person with a severe mobility challenge that they are welcome to roll around a barricade completely ignores the fact that they cannot even get downtown in the first place because their vehicle has been banned from the core. It treats a pedestrian-only zone as a mandatory default, and assumes that people with disabilities are perfectly capable of navigating a sprawling outdoor festival footprint on foot or by wheel—so long as the town leaves a gap in the barriers.

What Do You Think?

Sonia Elliott believes that adjusting the physical road barricades to let a wheelchair pass is a sufficient solution to the Open Air accessibility crisis.

Does this response show a fundamental failure to understand how vehicle-reliant residents navigate our town? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. .

The Burg Watch Launches the 2026 Municipal Candidates Accessibility Audit

Posted on by
Reply

The Burg Watch has officially issued a formal written accountability audit invitation to certified candidates running for Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Town Council in Amherstburg with an email.

For too long, municipal accessibility barriers have been brushed aside with generic campaign platitudes or buried in procedural runarounds at Town Hall. This audit is designed to force candidates to put their actual governance positions on the record before you vote.

How the Audit Works:

  • October 2 (5:00 PM): The firm deadline for candidates to RSVP and publicly commit to participating.
  • October 14: The exact, hard-hitting questions are released to all participating candidates simultaneously.
  • October 16 (5:00 PM): A strict 48-hour window for candidates to submit their unedited, 200-word responses.
  • October 17: The final Audit Results Guide will be published right here, side-by-side, coinciding with the town’s final advance voting day.

We will be testing them on four critical local governance themes:

  1. Downtown Infrastructure & Public Space Access
  2. Digital Communications & Public Feedback Mandates
  3. Municipal Committee Governance & Policy Accountability
  4. Local Transit Mobility & Residential Housing Supply

Any candidate who chooses to ignore the invite or misses the deadline will be permanently marked on our public voter guide as 🟥 FAILED TO RESPOND / REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE.

Stay tuned. On October 3rd, we will publish the official list of exactly which candidates agreed to be transparent with the disability community, and who opted out.

Open Air: Bill Fryer Says “It’s Done”

Posted on by
1

As we continue tracking candidate positions on Open Air, today’s post features mayoral candidate Bill Fryer’s position on the summer street closures.

When asked about barriers surrounding Open Air, Fryer responded with a clear, direct message:

“Good morning and my response to your question and concerns that apparently have not been addressed will be taken care of as part of my plan to address all of the issues you have been fighting for, for who knows how long. Open air is a matter the entire community wants input and at this point has been a burden for many residents. I believe I have mentioned this issue a few times already.”

This aligns closely with his official campaign profile published by the River Town Times, where he went on record stating bluntly: “Open Air, as far as I’m concerned, is done.”

Fryer’s position:

  • An Unaddressed Burden: Fryer explicitly identifies the recurring summer layout as a burden for many local residents.
  • Opposing the Main Thoroughfare Closure: In his public campaign statements, he has criticized the weekly closure of a critical thoroughfare like Dalhousie Street, noting it creates severe traffic and accessibility issues.
  • A Promise for Direct Action: Fryer notes that these ongoing community concerns “will be taken care of” under his platform.

By calling the recurring closure an unaddressed “burden,” he reflects the frustration felt by residents who are locked out of their own downtown core for four months every summer.

What Do You Think?

Bill Fryer states that the weekly closure of our main artery has run its course and promises that these accessibility barriers will be taken care of under his leadership.

Do you agree with Fryer that the current Open Air footprint is an unnecessary burden on the community, or do you prefer the scaled-back compromises proposed by other candidates? Let me know in the comments.

Open Air: Dhaval Prajapati’s Pivot to “I Support Open Air”

Posted on by
Reply

As we continue tracking candidate positions on Open Air, today’s post features Dhaval Prajapati’s pivot from neutrality to endorsing closed streets.

When I originally shared Prajapati’s response to my inquiry here on the blog back in June, he took a very safe, middle-of-the-road reply. He claimed to be completely neutral, publicly telling us that it was important to “take the time to review the facts before forming a position.”

However, his campaign platform has since taken a completely different direction. After maintaining that public stance of neutrality for nearly three months, Prajapati posted an official “WHERE I STAND” declaration on his Facebook page on September 18, explicitly stating: “I like Open Air” and “I support Open Air.”

The Candidate’s Position: The Business Model and Superficial Inclusions

In his new public policy statement, Prajapati shifts entirely away from his previous “fact-finding” persona and lays out a clear plan to entrench the event by turning it into a self-sustaining business model.

Key takeaways from his updated position include:

  • Definitive Support for the Footprint: Prajapati openly praises the festival, writing: “From June to September, we close part of downtown on weekends and turn it into a pedestrian area… I like Open Air.”
  • The Fiscal Focus: His primary goal for the event is financial sustainability. He wants a full accounting of staff hours, expenses, and revenues, with the objective of securing more vendors and corporate sponsorships so that the event stops relying on taxpayer subsidies.
  • An Afterthought on Accessibility: After dedicating the majority of his platform to revenue generation, sponsorships, and vendor opportunities, he closes with a brief, single-sentence about accessibility: “I want to make it better… while also making sure accessibility, including accessible parking and access to downtown businesses, is part of the planning.”

The Reality: A Complete Reversal of Platform Promises

Prajapati’s swift pivot exposes a frustrating trend in campaigning. When a candidate tells an accessibility community publicly that they are “still learning” and “haven’t formed a position,” only to turn around months later and fully endorse the event, it breaks the trust established with voters who are looking for genuine consultation.

Furthermore, his updated platform reveals exactly where his priorities lie. Accessibility is treated as an optional checkbox to be tossed into the “future planning” phase, while the structural decision to lock down the street grid is treated as a done deal.

As a candidate, Prajapati claims he wants to ensure “access to downtown businesses,” yet he openly supports a pedestrian-only footprint that completely eliminates vehicle navigation. For residents who use their vehicles as non-negotiable assistive mobility devices, you cannot “plan” accessibility into a closed street. The closed street is the barrier. By declaring his unyielding support for a four-month vehicle ban after previously claiming he needed to study the facts, Prajapati proves that able-bodied entertainment and revenue generation remain his true priorities.

What Do You Think?

Dhaval Prajapati started his campaign by publicly stating he was neutral and looking at the facts, then turned around on September 18 and told the public he firmly supports Open Air.

How do you feel about a candidate changing their core position mid-campaign after previously committing to neutrality? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and stay tuned as we continue to put candidate positions on the record.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Stephanie Pouget-Papak

Posted on by

Question: 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?

Stephanie POuget-Papak answer: Thank you for your patience as I work through my emails.

Open Air is a contentious issue that has left our community divided. The answer to your question is not as simple as “yes” or “no.” I have had the opportunity to experience Open Air from several different perspectives:

– As a family member: I have visited the downtown with my family and enjoyed the activities.

– As someone enjoying an evening out: I have experienced the restaurant scene with my spouse and had positive experiences.

– As a historian: I designed the Sunday Heritage Tours and led several Coffee and Culture discussions that received positive feedback from both tourists and local residents.

– As a business owner (speaking only from my own experience): I witnessed a decline in daytime visitation, difficulties for some seniors in accessing the building, and the financial impact that accompanied those challenges.

– Through an accessibility lens: Having had to learn how to walk again at age 15 following bilateral knee surgery, I understand that accessibility needs are not always visible. There are still days when I experience mobility challenges, and the lack of nearby parking had at times made it difficult for me to reach my former workplace, forcing me to work from home or take the day off. I think people sometimes forget that not everyone with accessibility needs qualifies for, or has, an accessible parking permit.

– As a citizen: I have also experienced the frustration of being unable to access side streets and becoming stuck in traffic on the main road when trying to run unexpected errands.

I have seen the benefits that Open Air brings in the evenings, particularly for our restaurants. These businesses employ many local youth and contribute to job creation in our community. In the tourism and hospitality sector, the revenue generated during peak season often helps businesses survive the slower off-season months. When businesses remain strong, they contribute to the tax base, which helps reduce pressure on residential property taxes.

This weekend I spoke with a family whose grandparent uses a wheelchair. They told me that they look forward to visiting downtown during Open Air because it helps their loved one “get out of the house” and enjoy being around people. At the same time, I recognize that not everyone has the support of a caregiver or the same ability to navigate the event comfortably.

I believe our lived experiences shape our opinions, needs, and emotions. Because of that, Open Air is unlikely ever to be an issue on which everyone agrees completely.

Would I advocate for eliminating Open Air? No. However, I also do not believe the current model fully reflects the diverse needs of our community. I think it can be improved in ways that better support accessibility while continuing to benefit businesses, tourists, and residents who enjoy the program.

Realistically, any new or long-term decision should be informed by a review of the 2026 season’s data, including attendance, economic impact, accessibility concerns, and associated costs. With that in mind, here are a few ideas worth exploring (not promises):

– Keep the same number of weekends, but limit closures to Friday and Saturday evenings, when foot traffic is highest.

– Convert Dalhousie Street to one-way traffic during Open Air, allowing one lane for restaurant patios and the other for accessible drop-off and pick-up areas, subject to safety and cost assessments.

– Reduce the overall number of Open Air weekends to create a stronger concentration of activity and demand, although this option may not adequately address the accessibility concerns being raised.

With more than 23,000 residents, we have more than 23,000 different needs and perspectives. My challenge is not to choose one group over another, but to find a balanced approach that supports accessibility, local businesses, (in this case) tourism, families, youth, elderly, and the overall well-being of the community.

I would be interested in hearing your personal experience and what specifically makes Open Air difficult for you to navigate (for example, the parking, walking, distance etc…) this could help form a better argument should the opportunity arise.

Thank you again for reaching out and sharing your concerns.

Candidates that haven’t answered yet:

Molly Allaire
Frank Cerasa

Mickle Park Playground – How Useable?

Posted on by

As posted in June 2023. Amherstburg’s accessibility committee ENDORSED this playground, despite the barriers.

Below is an email to Councillor Pouget and Councillor McArthur on June 12 in advance of the council meeting.

After watching the June 5 Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting, and reading some of the documents, I have some concerns regarding the recommendation to ENDORSE the playground design proposed for Warren Mickle Park’s playground redevelopment.

I’m writing to both of you because Councillor McArthur is council’s rep on the AAAC and Councillor Pouget consistently represents the interests of people with disabilities.

Ms. Heidi Baillargeon advised the AAAC an RFP resulted in three proposals that went through a Review and Scoring committee, and this was the design that was selected for installation at Warren Mickle Park. Ms. Baillargeon also advised the AAAC that it is partly a ramp structure, there are a number of accessible components, and that ‘a wheelchair can only go up to the first deck.’

It is preferable to use person first or identity first language and not refer to the assistive device alone.

How did a Review and Scoring committee approve this proposal?

What Makes a Playground Inaccessible? (aoda.ca)

  • Multilevel platforms
  • Stairs
  • Narrow walkways
  • Monkey bars
  • Bucket swings
  • Swings
  • Slides (plastic or metal)

Would someone please explain how the proposed Warren Mickle Park will be AODA compliant and inclusive if children with disabilities can’t access or use all the equipment? 

From the Parks Master Plan 2018, “It is essential that parks are inclusive and barrier-free, as guided by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). To ensure that the parks system is able to serve people from all segments of the community, accessible seating, washrooms, shade (structures and trees), parking, connections to key destinations and safety must be prominent considerations.”

While Ms. Baillargeon mentioned the CSA Z614:20, a safety standard, there was very little discussion regarding the AODA, Regulations, inclusive playground guidelines and mandatory public consultation.

The Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation of the AODA mandates public consultation as follows:

“When constructing new or redeveloping existing outdoor play spaces, obligated organizations shall consult on the needs of children and caregivers with various disabilities” and shall do so in the following manner: 

1. designated public sector organizations and large organizations must consult with the public and persons with disabilities. (emphasis added).

2. Municipalities must also consult with their municipal accessibility advisory committees, where one has been established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act. 

Outdoor play spaces, accessibility in design 

80.20 When constructing new or redeveloping existing play spaces that they intend to maintain,obligated organizations shall,

(a) incorporate accessibility features, such as sensory and active play components, for children and caregivers with various disabilities into the design of outdoor play spaces; and

(b) ensure that outdoor play spaces have a ground surface that is firm, stable and has impact attenuating properties for injury prevention and sufficient clearance to provide children and caregivers with various disabilities the ability to move through, in and around the outdoor play space. O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.

There was also no discussion regarding the 2021 survey that no children under the age of 18 participated in. 

Will the four benches be accessible? Will the bike racks be accessible? Will there be any braille elements? Will accessible washrooms be installed? Will accessible parking spaces be available? Will accessible signage and wayfinding be installed? The concept plan 2021 included a picnic area and in answer to the question, What park amenities would you like to see at Warren Mickle Park, 50 (74.6%) said picnic table: will accessible picnic tables be installed?

Also of concern is an AAAC member’s comments regarding the slide: he could only see one problem with it – that is you put it in this park and people find out about it, they’re gonna want it in all the other parks and that means retrofitting. Then the member asked about the cost for that.

In is my understanding that AAAC members identify barriers and ‘provide advice and recommendations to Council on accessibility issues within our community’ and council makes budgetary decisions for what accessible projects it prioritizes.