Category Archives: Accountability

Outstanding Town Litigation Excludes Amherstburg Police Service

Posted on by

The Monday, December 15, 2014 Council Agenda (still, unfortunately, found off site) includes a Report to Council regarding the Council Update on Outstanding Town Litigation.

There is fine print indicating what is not included, but the Amherstburg Police Service is not mentioned.

In a December 2011 post, Amherstburg Police Chief Berthiaume Tight-lipped About Deployment, I mentioned how Chief Tim Berthiaume stated, “the amherstburg police service does not ‘breakdown’ legal expenses.”

If the police service legal fees regarding outstanding litigation are excluded from the Report to the Town, should the police service then submit its own Report to the town but this time with a breakdown of fees – for prosecutions, defending claims, complaints, etc.?

Brampton mayor to launch full probe of city hall

Posted on by

Brampton’s newly elected mayor Linda Jeffrey will ask former Ontario Auditor General Jim McCarter to review the city’s books and plans to invite the provincial ombudsman, Andre Marin, to investigate the city as soon as Bill 8 gives him the power to do so.

“Both individuals have strong credentials and years of experience that will benefit our city. Just as the Deloitte review of the previous administration highlighted problems that needed correcting, these reviews should help us identify what needs correcting and will help establish the necessary foundation Brampton needs so we can move forward,” said Jeffrey.

Jeffrey announced the accountability moves at her inauguration Monday night, as she formally takes over the office from the scandal-plagued former mayor, Susan Fennell.

Full story at the Toronto Star.

Procedural By-law Status Unknown

Posted on by

Commentary by Linda Saxon

This was written in response to Anthony Leardi’s comments in his RTT Guest Column November 5, 2014.

I do not believe the issue is the Mayor’s postponement of meetings since the council approved procedural by-law clause provides him with the authority to do so; that is not a loophole.

And yes, ‘everyone still gets a pay cheque’ because of his or her salaried positions, elected or otherwise, regardless of how many meetings were held or cancelled.

As for the lawyer being called, council was free to accept or reject his advice.

Since the clerk did not adhere to the mandatory clause to call a meeting according to both the Municipal Act and the procedural by-law, the issue is why council allowed the non-compliance and what, if any, action it took as a result.

A new procedural by-law was to have been approved back in August but due to a lengthy meeting, there was a motion to defer the report and by-law to September 8, although it was not included on that agenda.

There was no notice to the public regarding the draft Procedural By-law because apparently there is no requirement for notice.

Regardless, I submitted my comprehensive review to members of council on September 7.

On October 7, I requested the status on my procedural by-law submission that no one had responded to.

On October 20, I submitted my review to the clerk, who acknowledged that it would be added to the next scheduled meeting, which I assumed was November 3 as a result of the petition.

The 2008 Procedural By-law has not changed in six years, so why the current council would approve a new one defies logic.

Hopefully, the new council will examine job descriptions, areas of responsibility, codes of conduct and actually be transparent and accountable.

The True Cost of Police Body Worn Cameras

Posted on by

Finally, the true technology related cost of the cameras is revealed, as reported in Hamilton News:

“Ferguson’s comments followed a presentation on the cameras made to the board on Monday by police staff that indicated the cost to introduce them could be about $3.8 million in the first year and total approximately $14.8 million over five years. The costing includes hardware, storage infrastructure, software and staffing. Based on a five-year lifespan for the hardware, the initial investment would reoccur at the end of the fifth year.

The presentation also highlighted various legislation and privacy issues that would need to be addressed if officers were to wear the cameras that can record video and audio.”

Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau wants no part of officers wearing body-worn cameras and questioned the cost.

Amherstburg Police is scheduled to conclude its study by the end of 2014 and select a body worn camera for patrol officers or shelve the project if not feasible for APS needs.

Hard to imagine this technology is feasible and affordable in Amherstburg when large services dismiss it due to high costs, including the cost of transcription to submit evidence in court.

the burg watch is 3 years old

Posted on by

Three years ago, the burg watch began chronicling how well the Mayor, Councillors, and staff performed; it was intended to be a reference for voters heading to the polls who would be inundated with campaign material.

In November 2011, the burg watch blogged about:

Amherstburg’s Mayor Wayne Hurst’s mention in a MACLEANS Magazine article, “Canada’s Lousy Mayors;”

Council’s contravention of the Municipal Act following the Ombudsman Review Of Closed Meeting;

Difficulty with navigating the town’s web site, after having pointed out issues since 2002;

Council’s flip flops on:

  • its decision to allow a man convicted of sex crimes to purchase naming rights at the town’s new arena
  • the decision to install railings at the United Communities Credit Union Complex, which was expected to lose $895,000 by the end of December 2011
  • the recommendation to hire an engineer to investigate what caused more than 500 homes to flood during a severe storm in August.

Today, some issues remain unaddressed but there is a new council and hopefully, a new era in municipal politics. Not only has administration been uncivil and unwilling to provide access to information, but there has been an unprecedented amount of criticism directed toward those community residents who have exercised their democratic rights.

the burg watch has also received criticism for informing the public of certain issues and was threatened with legal action, but it will continue in the spirit of freedom of expression.

Job Experience Needed?

Posted on by

Is previous council experience really needed? Four years ago, three candidates without any council experience were elected to council: Ron Sutherland, Carolyn Davies and Bart DiPasquale. During the past four tumultuous years, residents witnessed:

  • a high rate of staff turnover
  • a record amount of debt
  • flip flops on the:
    • financial audit
    • St. Joseph’s Church in River Canard
    • Sandwich Street repaving
    • installation of railings at what is now the Libro Centre
  • the discussion of the sale of a municipal asset – essex power shares
  • public input not being welcomed
  • two references to ‘lynching’ regarding a public meeting
  • Ombudsman Ontario’s finding that council contravened the Municipal Act by voting in a closed session in March 2011
  • Ombudsman Ontario’s Report that confirmed council repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law. Council discussed issues in closed session that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act, and also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors in December 2011
  • UCCU Centre naming scandal and subsequent lawsuit
  • no commitment to the cost-saving OPP policing option
  • grants for the tourist booth and Laird Avenue and not Texas Road
  • the decision to close the tourist booth due to budget
  • 5 CAOs in four years
  • the hiring of CAO Phipps, his notice to leave and then his decision to stay
  • a council approved secretive process to hire CAO Miceli
  • a lack of provincially mandated policies
  • a lack of commitment to accessibility, including the town’s website.

Is this the experience the community wants to continue with? Tomorrow’s the big day – it’s up to the voters to decide what they need.

Councillors Refuse To Rate Themselves Update

Posted on by

A November 11, 2011 sticky post, Councillors Refuse To Rate Themselves, pointed out that, with the exception of Carolyn Davies, not one member of council responded to the yearly request during the 2010 to 2014 term, “if you would provide a comment regarding how you think you have performed.”

Yet here we are at the end of the fourth year of the term being inundated with endless campaign promises of transparency and accountability.

November 3 Council Meeting On, Off, On And Off Again

Posted on by

Commentary by Linda Saxon

An October 20 post that the November 3 meeting would be held was subsequent to a petition to Paula Parker to call a special meeting following Mayor Wayne Hurst’s postponement of meetings.

A day later, the town posted a notice on its website that the November 3 meeting was postponed and rescheduled to Monday, November 17, 2014.

Are the Municipal Act and the town’s procedural by-law both not being complied with? Both are quite clear and specifically contain a mandatory clause for when the clerk shall call a meeting:

Section 240. of the Act: Subject to the procedure by-law passed under section 238,
(b) upon receipt of a petition of the majority of the members of council, the clerk shall call a special meeting for the purpose and at the time mentioned in the petition.

Procedural By-Law Section 9. b) the clerk shall summon a special meeting upon receipt of a petition of the majority of the council members for the purpose and at the time and date mentioned in the petition.

The issue is not the Mayor’s postponement, but who is making decisions that circumvent Council members’ legislated authority to call a Special Meeting and what will be done about it.

Craig Pearson, The Windsor Star, reports CAO Miceli also said that, after discussing the councillors’ petition with a town lawyer, he determined a special meeting was not warranted. “I advised all the members of council that calling for a special meeting is not to deal with regular town business,” Miceli said. “It’s to deal with special issues. What they (the councillors) proposed to discuss at that meeting did not meet the criteria for a special meeting.”

Special meetings of council 2014 were held to consider issues ranging from zoning by-law amendments and drain improvements to the Sale of Shares Offer from Entegrus Inc.

Since there is no criteria for a special meeting in either the Municipal Act or Procedural By-Law, and since both contain clear language, I would argue that there is no basis whatsoever for any objection to a majority of council calling a special meeting.

Town Hall Removing Election Signs

Posted on by

The Municipal Elections Act does not regulate signs, but an amended town Election Policy does and the candidates have been put on notice through a series of emails:

October 10, Paula Parker, Manager of Municipal Governance for the town emailed the candidates:

In light of a few election sign complaints, please note that all signs should be placed on private property.

Section 70(4) of The Municipal Elections Act specifically prohibits a municipality from making a contribution to a candidate’s election campaign. The Act also prohibits a candidate, or someone acting on the candidate’s behalf, from accepting a contribution from a person who is not entitled to make a contribution.

Contributions, as defined in section 66(1) of the Elections Act are; money, goods and services. As such, any use by a candidate of the Corporation’s resources for his or her election campaign, would be seen as a contribution by the Town to the candidate, which is a violation of the Act.

As a result of the above noted, and as per the recently amended Town of Amherstburg Election Policy (attached again for your reference), please refrain from putting signs on municipal property. (this includes municipal road allowances)

If you have any questions regarding where your signs should be located, administration is always here to help. Feel free to call or email.

October 20 at 12:08 pm, Paula Parker advised the candidates that the town was still receiving complaints about election signs and that effective 12 pm on the following day, the policy would be enforced and signs on municipal property would be removed. Signs removed by the town would be available for pick up on October 22.

October 20, Aldo DiCarlo emailed Paula Parker that it would be helpful to know whose signs have been complained about.

October 20 Paula Parker responded: The purpose of the previous email was to provide all candidates with information as it relates to the Town’s Election Policy.  In cases where a contravention of the Town’s Election Policy were noted, the Town has been proactive and has directly contacted those candidates affected.

This email also serves as a reminder to all candidates that the Town will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action where necessary.

October 21 Marc Renaud notified Paula Parker that signs were removed on Fort and Balaclava without notification.

October 21 Paula Parker advised that yesterday’s email served as notice that signs would be removed today at 12pm if they were on Town property and available for pick up October 22.

October 21 Glenn Swinton emailed Paula Parker: Having not received ANY such notification, I will assume that all of my issued signage is compliant and exactly where I left it.

October 21 Paula Parker replied: On August 11, 2014, Council adopted the Election Policy. The report advised Council that the Election Policy would supersede the Town’s Sign By-law in accordance with Section 70(4) and 66(1) of the Municipal Elections Act. All candidates were advised of these sections of the Act via email on Friday, October 10, 2014. The Town will continue to enforce the Election Policy up to and including Election Day. We are asking all candidates to abide by the Council approved Election Policy.

I hope that you can appreciate that the Town does not only manage its responsibilities through a complaint driven process, but also takes the necessary steps to enforce Town policies as required, with a proactive approach. Elections are sensitive in nature and the Town must govern itself accordingly.

October 21 Glenn Swinton responded: Please don’t patronize me by trying to suggest the town takes a proactive approach on policies. Without beating a dead horse on the subject please note,

Your “Election Policy” as amended August 11, 2014 clearly states:

12-b) “Election signs shall be removed if a complaint is received about a specific sign;”

12-c) ” The candidate shall, within 24 hours after receiving verbal instructions from a municipal official, remove a sign that contravenes the above. The Town reserves the right to remove election signs if the candidate fails to remove the contravening sign/signs within the 24-hour time frame.”

By way of your own policy I suggest the Town of Amherstburg has illegally removed campaigning signs outside of the “election Policy” provided from your office. Since this chain of emails has been shared with all, including the current Council members of Amherstburg that are seeking re-election, perhaps one of them could jump in and direct their staff on the laws they have passed for the taxpayers.

This is ridiculous.