Category Archives: Accountability

Why Have Committees?

Posted on by

I wonder what Councillor Crain will do. At the September 25 council meeting, he said he would be supporting the motion, regarding Bolger’s request; that he was on the heritage committee, so he thinks it’s only fair that they follow recommendations from their committees; without them he’s not sure why they would even have committees if they’re not going to listen to it. 

Well now admin is recommending Council NOT APPROVE the recommendation from the Environmental Advisory Committee as presented, and; 

Council DIRECT Administration to ensure the current Official Plan update includes policies to allow for the introduction of various climate friendly development requirements to ensure the Town is creating the necessary means in which to require these types of investments in development.

Shouldn’t the committee recommendation go before council and then council direct admin for a report?

Read the October 23 Supplementary Agenda.

Why Go In-Camera?

Posted on by

Amherstburg is highlighted twice as case examples in the same Ontario Ombudsman Open Meetings Guide for Municipalities that I shared yesterday:

Matters that can be discussed in closed session under another Act – s. 239(2)(g)

Town of Amherstburg (June 2018): While staff suggested this exception applied because a request for proposals (RFP) could have been discussed in private under the Police Services Act, there was no evidence that council considered the application of this exception, or that the RFP had been discussed in closed session by the town’s police services board.

Security of municipal property – s. 239(2)(a)

Town of Amherstburg (June 2018): Discussion about seeking bids for policing services did not fit within the exception, as it did not deal with potential threats, loss, or damage to municipal property.

Must all municipal meetings be open to the public?

Yes, with some limited exceptions.

Twelve of the exceptions are discretionary, meaning it is not mandatory to close meetings to deal with these subjects. When in doubt, open the meeting. (original emphasis).

Meetings may be closed if the discussion is about:

  1. The security of the property of the municipality [s. 239(2)(a)]
  2. Personal matters about an identifable individual, including municipal employees [s. 239(2)(b)]
  3. A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality [s. 239(2)(c)]
  4. Labour relations or employee negotiations [s. 239(2)(d)]
  5. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality [s. 239(2)(e)]
  6. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose [s. 239(2)(f)]
  7. A matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another piece of legislation [s. 239(2)(g)]
  8. Information supplied in confidence to the municipality by another level of government [s. 239(2)(h)]
  9. Third-party information supplied in confidence to the municipality, which, if disclosed, could significantly prejudice a competitive position or interfere with negotiations (e.g., a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, fnancial or labour relations information) [s. 239(2)(i)]
  10. Information (e.g., a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, or financial information) that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value [s. 239(2)(j)]
  11. A position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to negotiations [s. 239(2)(k)]
  12. Educating or training members of the council, a local board or committee [s. 239(3.1)]

    Mandatory exceptions:
    Meetings must be closed if they are about:

  13. The consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if the council, board, commission or body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that Act [s. 239(3)(a)]
  14. An ongoing investigation respecting the municipality by the Ontario Ombudsman, an appointed municipal ombudsman, or an appointed closed meeting investigator [s. 239(3)(b)]

Lack Of Audio = Lack Of Transparency

Posted on by

I asked CAO Critchley for an explanation for the August 10 Amherstburg Heritage Committee meeting audio starting at 45:40. Just to be sure it wasn’t my computer, other residents verified the same.

This morning Critchley answered, “A technical issue prevented the capture of audio for the first portion of this meeting but was able to be resolved later in the meeting.

The Ontario Ombudsman Open Meetings Guide for Municipalities states:

What are the objectives of the open meeting rules?

The open meeting requirements set out in section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 permit the public to observe municipal government in progress. The Supreme Court of Canada answered this question in its decision in the 2007 case, London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc. The judges noted “the public’s demand for more accountable municipal government” and stated that open meetings are essential to “robust democratic legitimacy” of local administrations. They also observed that s. 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 “was intended to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government by ensuring the open and transparent exercise of municipal power.” (original emphasis).

Also from the Guide:

“The democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions does not spring solely from periodic elections, but also from a decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law.”

– Hon. Madam Justice Louise Charron, Supreme Court of Canada

Santa Is Not Ableist!

Posted on by

Although not everyone could complete a timed 5k including Santa at 1,752 years old.

Amherstburg town council approved the Super Santa Walk/Run for November 18 at its June 26 meeting; the video of that discussion seems to be unavailable – one can view the item before and after it.

In a July 25 email to accessibility at ERCA, I asked if Santa was ableist and if the Santa Run/Walk excludes persons with disabilities. I shared my thought that holding a timed race/walk seems contrary to ERCA’s policy, ‘to provide for service delivery in a way that preserves the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities.’

I also asked if no one thought to name the event Walk/Run/Roll without it being timed to see how fast participants can walk/run.

I received an auto response from Danielle Stuebing and nothing further.

On September 28 ERCA announced the event on its website and Danielle Stuebing was quoted, “While the event has always been inclusive, based on feedback received, this year ‘Wheel’ has been added to the title to ensure it is abundantly clear that all are welcome,” Breault Stuebing adds. “For this event, ‘wheel’ refers to wheelchairs, scooters used for mobility assistance, walkers and strollers.”

So how hard is it to add one word?

ERCA’s website advertises it as walk/run/wheel and then omits the wheel in the description.

Visit Amherstburg also omits the word wheel and advertises it as Super Santa Walk/Run.

Councillor Allaire’s website includes an announcement that omits the wheel.

Race Roster website announces the walk/run/wheel and also omits the wheel in the description; the logo, also used on Allaire’s site, omits the wheel.

People With Disabilities Are Not ‘Special’

Posted on by

During the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting, Frank DiPasquale made comments about Brittany Bolger that, to me, were offensive.

The heritage committee was discussing the street naming policy when the town’s heritage planner mentioned other municipalities implement an asset naming policy and Councillor Crain was working on a motion wording.

Listen to the audio.

DiPasquale mentioned generally they use those who served in our military and those who gave up their lives and he agrees with that. He mentioned when Mr. Bolger came and wanted to name his subdivision after his daughter, Brittany, and I believe Council followed through with that, the concern was that he had she is an individual with special needs and disabilities, she soldiers on every day with a positive attitude. He didn’t think there’s not anyone in uniform alive or not that would not tip their hat and be honoured to have their street named after this young lady. He suggested there’ll be other examples of that coming in the future where there’s people that may have special needs or special challenges and he thought they should keep that in mind too.

DiPasquale was a 2022 municipal candidate that, like all other candidates, should have received accessibility materials from the town.

Once again, I emailed council members that this clearly indicates the need for more training, although he should have received it by now. I also shared:

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT DISABILITIES:

Pity

People feel sorry for the person with a disability, which tends to lead to patronizing attitudes. Persons with disabilities generally don’t want pity and charity, just equal opportunity to make their own way and live independently.

Hero Worship

People consider someone with a disability who lives independently or pursues studies to be brave or “special” for overcoming a disability. Most persons with disabilities do not want accolades for performing day-to-day tasks.

Worth repeating: the late disability activist Stella Young says it all so well; one of my favourite videos.

Councillor Crain Didn’t Correct Errors

Posted on by

On October 3, I emailed council members: the august 10 heritage committee meeting minutes are listed on the october 12 heritage committee meeting agenda for approval, although council approved the august 10 heritage committee minutes at the september 25 council meeting. councillor crain mentioned he was on the heritage committee and he did move a motion at the august 10 committee meeting, but the minutes do not reflect that his motion carried. i believe councillor pouget is correct in stating that public minutes should be corrected at public meetings, as per rules of order, so i trust this will be given consistent attention.

Wrong.

At the October 10 council meeting, Councillor Pouget was the only one to note the motion wasn’t marked as being carried.

The clerk said yes, there was a typo. That was more than a typo – it was an omission. Meeting chairs ask if there are any errors or omissions, not if there are any typos.

Even though Pouget noted the error, the same erroneous August 10 Heritage Committee minutes were on the October 12 Heritage Committee agenda.

While Councillor Crain was present at the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting, he didn’t mention the error of the missing ‘motion carried’ or his misquoted motion.

These are typos: the October 12 Heritage Committee agenda states:

8. CORRESPONDENCE

  • That the following correspondence BE RECEIVED:
  • That the following correspondence BE RECEIVED:

and

8.2 River Town Tiles Article – River Canard Bridge Plaque

Where Are Third Quarter Reports?

Posted on by

Nancy Atkinson, on behalf of the Amherstburg Residents’ Forum was a delegate to council on June 12 to present three residents’ concerns.

As a result, council carried resolutions:

June 12, 2023 Council Resolutions:

Resolution #20230612-007
Moved By Councillor Pouget
Seconded By Councillor Allaire
That Council DIRECT Administration to bring a full report regarding no parking at the clock at Kings Navy Yard Park. The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried.

Report coming to Council in Q3 2023.

Resolution #20230612-008
Moved By Councillor Pouget
Seconded By Councillor McArthur
That Council DIRECT Administration to bring back a report regarding a Routine Disclosure Policy.
The Mayor put the Motion.Motion Carried.

Report coming to Council in Q3 2023.

Councillor Pouget Questions Cheque Registry

Posted on by

Just like the September 11 council meeting agenda, the October 10 Regular Council Meeting agenda listed UNFINISHED BUSINESS but linked to the cheque registry.

At the October 10 council meeting, Councillor Diane Pouget asked questions about the Cheque Registry that was mistakenly labelled Unfinished Business so the majority of the public would not be aware of this document.

Mayor Prue noted the error that the UNFINISHED BUSINESS was actually the cheque registry list and asked if anyone had any questions on the cheque registry list.

Councillor Pouget asked about listings on page 9 pertaining to Anne Marie Frauts Professional Corporation Legal Fees for:

  • 40,000.00
  • 3495.23
  • 5425.77
  • 232,000.00
  • 4340.62                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 For a grand total of $285,261.62 just for the month of August

I believe it was the treasurer that answered, since staff often don’t identify themselves, this is legal fees and a professional corporation for the legal fees and has been discussed in camera with council.

Mayor Prue said he didn’t hear that and asked it has to be or it has been? I didn’t hear who answered but Prue then said twice, it was, it was ok.

Councillor Pouget said she didn’t recall hearing of that legal corporation.

The total does not include the legal fees for Mousseau DeLuca, so it appears the total for legal fees is $323,894.89.

Councillor Pouget campaigned ‘to regain the loss of trust by many of our taxpayers.’ Following her motion to reinstate accounts payable on public agendas, council and administration discussed it for about fifteen minutes at the December 5, 2022 council meeting. Read the full post: Accounts Payable On Agenda: A Matter of Trust. Deputy Mayor Gibb was the lone dissenting vote.

Is it any wonder the public doesn’t question any items under Cheque Registry, when it is labelled Unfinished Business?

Delegations On October 10 Council Meeting REVISED Agenda

Posted on by

Interesting. Shirley Curson-Prue, Mayor Prue’s wife, will delegate on behalf of the Belle Vue Conservancy regarding the Belle Vue Expression of Interest. Curson-Prue is vice-chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee that met in-camera on September 21 to review Expressions of Interest.

Mike Lavigne will also delegate on Item 14.3 Belle Vue Expression of Interest.

There are no speaking notes attached to Curson-Prue’s delegate request form or Mike Lavigne’s request form.

A new inconsistency? Speaking notes were insisted upon as part of delegates’ requests and were routinely attached to the agenda and attaching speaking notes was mandatory for the online request form to be accepted.

CAO Critchley did highlight the following in an email:

The Clerk may, from time to time, establish or amend procedures related to the Delegation Process, provided that such procedures do not conflict with the provisions of this By-law.

Then there will be a Presentation – a concepl drawing is attached without any related information.

The admin’s recommendations that:

  1. The Loop Family Amico Belle Vue Expression of Interest proposal BE APPROVED to proceed to next steps in the evaluation process and;
  2. Administration BE DIRECTED to request the Belle Vue Conservancy pause any further efforts until such time as Council has made a final decision on the proposal and;
  3. Administration BE DIRECTED to facilitate discussions between the Belle Vue Conservancy (BVC) and proponent to ensure there is agreement and direction on the recognition of donors, handling of unspent donations and various antiques identified for potential use at Belle Vue Manor; and, 
  4. The execution of the confidentiality agreement BE APPROVED for the Expression of Interest to proceed to the next steps of the process.

It seems excessive that the town posts an agenda, revised agenda, and an addendum that is called a supplementary agenda, in both html and pdf when one universal document would suffice. Besides, the revised agenda duplicates addendum items.

Councillor Crain – Street Naming Policy Review

Posted on by

AUGUST 10 HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETING: Crain is on the heritage committee and was present for the agenda that included three documents for item 8.2 Brittany’s Gate – Street Naming Request:

  1. Brittany’s Gate – Street Naming Request
  2. Appendix A – Letter from Norbert Bolger
  3. Appendix B – Street Naming Policy

Crain took part in the August 10 committee discussion about the street naming policy and also moved a recommendation to council that the heritage committee reviews the updated street name and street naming policy and inventory list once completed by administration before the final amendments are adopted at a regular council meeting.

Heritage committee chair Simon Chamely thought it would be brought back for the September 21 meeting, although that meeting was in-camera to deal with expressions of interest.

When Shirley Curson-Prue asked if it would be an October issue, clerk answered that it would depend on how far along the policy is in its review; most likely it would be more like October than the next meeting.

Chamely asked if they were able to do that; is that not writing policy?

Crain answered and referenced the recommendation; it’s not that they write the policy its that they review and if there are certain aspects of the policy that they don’t believe should be there, then they can provide a recommendation to council saying, hey, maybe we should be taking out this line because it creates this restriction. So not that they’re writing anything at all; that’s what the clerk’s office and Adam will be working on. It’s more of just review, similar to any policy that’s reviewed by council. You’re providing an outside perspective on where amendments could be made.

The motion was read aloud again: recommendation to council that the heritage committee reviews the updated street name and street naming policy and inventory list once completed by administration, before the final amendments are adopted at a regular council meeting.

August 10 minutes state the motion: That the Heritage Committee REVIEW the updated Street Naming Policy and inventory before final adoption by Council which, as mentioned in this post, More Erroneous Minutes, did not indicate that the motion carried.

SEPTEMBER 25 COUNCIL MEETING: Crain was present where the agenda included three documents for item 13.2: Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street:

  1. Brittany Gate – Street Naming
  2. Appendix A – Street Naming Policy
  3. Appendix B – Street Name Inventory (unused names)

During the September 25 discussion of Brittany’s Gate, Crain asked staff if the current street naming policy that they have in place, he couldn’t recall, looking for clarification, is that policy out of date and currently being reviewed.

By this time, Crain would have heard the word ‘review‘ six times, including using it in his August 10 motion and he would have read it once in the August 10 minutes on the September 25 council agenda.

The clerk answered: there is a review ongoing for the policy. It’s not currently out of conformance with existing policies. but there has been some discussion around ways to streamline some of the processes involved.

Deputy CAO Osbourne jumped in to add that there will be a report coming forward to council she believed October 10 or the second meeting in October.

And the item is on the October 10 agenda after all. Crain’s August 10 motion for the heritage committee review the updated policy and list before adoption by council seems redundant since the committee meets October 12 to once again discuss the same issue.

The October 10 council meeting agenda includes:
Agenda item 14.2  Municipal Street Naming Policy Update 2023

  1. Street Naming Policy Update 2023.pdf
  2. Appendix A – Municipal Street Naming Policy
  3. Appendix B – Historical Street Name Inventory List
  4. Appendix C – Alternate Street Name Request Application

The October 12 Heritage Committee meeting agenda also includes:
Agenda item 7.2  Municipal Street Naming Policy Update

  1. Municipal Street Naming Policy Update Report 2023
  2. Appendix A – Municipal Street Naming Policy DRAFT
  3. Appendix B – Historical Street Name Inventory List
  4. Appendix C – Alternate Street Name Request Application