Category Archives: Accountability

Amherstburg Police Services Board Ignored Question About Legal Fees

Posted on by

The October 21, 2014 Amherstburg Police Services Board Minutes, attached to the December 15, 2014 Council Agenda, do not include my October 4 request to the Board to place my correspondence on its meeting agenda.

I followed up on Sutton’s September 17 letter and requested, “the date(s) of scheduled negotiation meetings and also to request if a decision has been made to hire a consultant and if so, if there was a competitive process and if there was, i’d like an electronic copy of the notice/advertisement for a consultant.

i would also like to know the legal cost to the board/taxpayer with regard to the human rights tribunal of ontario discrimination application by j. saxon.”

I emailed again on October 28, “as you will note from the email below of october 5, i requested my correspondence be placed on the board’s agenda for the next meeting.

i understand the board held a meeting on october 21 and therefore i’m writing to request what the board’s action was regarding my requests.”

No response was received; no surprise and no accountability?

Instead of ratepayers receiving correspondence from staff advising of outcomes, like in the good old days before we became an amalgamated metropolis, citizens are forced to search information via inaccessible web sites and lengthy 300+ page documents with no links to individual reports.

Enough already! Essex County can do it, why can’t Amherstburg?

Commentary by Linda Saxon

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.