Category Archives: Commentaries

Amherstburg Police Contract Negotiations Underway?

Posted on by

Amherstburg Police Chief Berthiaume’s power point presentation to the Amherstburg Citizens for Responsible Government (ACRG), incorporated the group’s questions about the police contract.

No answers were included so I emailed, “do you have any notes that you could send me whereby you answered the group’s questions?” Berthiaume responded, “No I do not.”

Some of the slides contain clip art images of card-playing smileys and bulls.

Slide 20, titled “1 Against 5” presumably depicts the Board against the 5 contracts. A huge bull is prominently displayed in slide 21; although there is no title, one can speculate its meaning.

Following the presentation, the ACRG noted a correction on its website, “according to the Chief contract negotiations have not yet started; when?”

Amherstburg Police Services Board members were listed: John Sutton, Frank Cleminson, Wayne Hurst, Pauline Gemmell.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had to address whether an Application by James Saxon alleging discrimination because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code should be deferred pending the outcome of collective bargaining between the Amherstburg Police Services Board and the union representing the applicant.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, in its Interim Decision of June 23, 2014 concluded that “There is no parallel proceeding in this case that is underway that would cause the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application.”

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Public Input Not Welcome?

Posted on by

On Friday, I emailed Paula Parker, Amherstburg’s Manager of Municipal Governance (of this post) to request copies of minutes pertaining to council’s decision to form and appoint members to the CAO selection committee as well as minutes of the committee meetings.

I also inquired if there was a notice to the public regarding the procedure by-law similar to the development charges by-law and nuisance smoke by-law.

Ms. Parker’s auto response advised, “I am out of the office on scheduled vacation, I will return to the office on Monday, Sept 8, 2014. I will mot have access to emails, however I will respond to your requests once I return. If your email is urgent in nature please contact Nicole Rubli at nrubli@amherstburg.ca or Tammy Fowkes at tfowkes@amherstburg.ca.”

Given that council will consider its proposed procedure by-law on September 8, the date of Ms. Parker’s return, I emailed both Ms. Rubli and Ms. Fowkes.

Instead, CAO Phipps replied as Ms. Parker emailed him to respond: “Hi Mike, As I am away from the office for the week, can you either reply to or assign this response to someone for me? Thank you, Paula Sent from my iPhone”

Phipps: “Thanks Paula and enjoy your vacation. This is my response to Ms Saxon.

With respect to the CAO hiring process, this matter was discussed in a closed session of Council and you are not entitled to any information from any of those sessions.

There was no notice to the public regarding the draft Procedural By-law. Incidentally, there is no requirement for notice.”

Consistently inconsistent.

Why is a CAO responding to simple inquiries from ratepayers who are paying for a bureaucratic structure at town hall?

Why advertise and welcome input for some by-laws and not others?

Why would a CAO instruct administration not to speak to members of the media, but then use the town website to set forth his version of the alleged facts?

Open and transparent but refuse to disclose information about the contentious leaving/staying CAO and the hiring of a new CAO?

Phipps’ email to me, copied to council, contained errors and omissions that have yet to be corrected but his email to Graham Hobbs is allegedly covered by the Town confidentiality statement so it cannot be shown.

The 2008 Procedure By-law has remained the same since 2008; why not let the new council update it and decide if it wants to hear from the public?

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Town Outsourcing Human Relations, Insurance, Benefits Administration?

Posted on by

A little over two weeks ago, I made an inquiry regarding “the role of AON Hewitt in relation to the town; the date the service was acquired; the annual cost and the length of the contract.”

According to its website, “Aon is the leading global provider of risk management, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human resources solutions and outsourcing services.”

As expected, a bureaucratic process ensued:

Paula Parker, the town’s Manager of Municipal Governance, asked me to clarify “whether you mean Insurance or Human Relations?  Once I have a better understanding, I may better answer your question.”

I replied “just to clarify, any and all roles of AON Hewitt in its relationship to the town.”

Ms. Parker, “Thank you for the clarification Mrs. Saxon, I have copied Michelle Rose, Manager of Human Resources, as she may be better able to assist you with this portion of your request.”  (I also made an inquiry relative to the procedure by-law; more on that will be posted on a future date).

I emailed Ms. Parker, Ms. Rose and all council members, “it’s been two weeks since i asked the question below about AON Hewitt; is it any wonder people complain about a lack of transparency?”

Ms. Parker, “I apologize for the delay in response.  It is my understanding that the Town does not have this information and Michelle Rose, Manager of Human Resources, is trying to obtain the information you have requested from AON Hewitt.   However, has not received the information to date. When I have any other information on the status of your request, I will certainly notify you.”

How could the town not have this information? Either a relationship exists or it doesn’t.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Who Does What

Posted on by

Re: Accountability – it is fast approaching! by Ken Thrasher July 30, 2014 RTT

I’ve been called a naysayer too, and a thorn in the side as well as a critic; my all time favourite is the accusation that some of us were tearing this community down, brick by brick; shame on those who undertake tactics to discourage residents who wish to exercise their democratic freedoms.

Since January of this year, there have been approximately two dozen correspondence items regarding an accessibility policy question to council and the accessibility advisory committee, but my question remains unanswered.

Absent a motion by council, two weeks ago Mr. Phipps emailed a summary to council and me; not only does it contain errors and omissions that need to be corrected, but also he decreed “Administration will take no further action on this matter unless it is once again raised at a Council meeting.”

How many times do I have to request that council and/or the accessibility advisory committee address my concern? Then again, I’ve requested an accessible town website for twelve years and I’m still waiting for that and it was a decade long battle for me to get the library elevator installed.

The roles of council, head of council, and municipal administration are clearly defined in the municipal act so there should be no misinterpretation of who does what.

Council is to represent the public and ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of council; to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality; to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality.

As chief executive officer of a municipality, the head of council shall promote public involvement in the municipality’s activities.

Municipal administration is to implement council’s decisions and establish administrative practices and procedures to carry out council’s decisions.

Regarding the hiring of a new CAO, why and how was the panel selected? What are the members’ qualifications? Was there an Information and Privacy Commissioner privacy assessment, considering residents are panel members who will access personal information? Is it a conflict of interest for Phipps to be a member? Did council rescind his notice to leave? Why would council acquiesce to the CAO, who changed his mind and wants to stay?

Unlike Mr. Thrasher, the only Councillor who consistently and professionally responds to my concerns is Councillor Pouget. When others did respond, my inquiries were forwarded to staff. I’m beginning to wonder why we need a council, let alone all the staff.

As for the new council, the electorate needs to ask the candidates specific questions because, for the most part, campaign literature contains limited marketing material.

Linda Saxon
as printed in the River Town Times

Phipps Flip Flops – Will The Town Pay Two CAOs?

Posted on by

On May 9, 2014, Mary Caton reported in The Windsor Star that Amherstburg CAO Mike Phipps confirmed Friday that he intends to leave his position before reaching the end of his two-year contract with the town. “I am meeting with council shortly because we’ve got to get a plan in place,” he said. Phipps said he intends to see the town through the impending municipal election and municipal review. “I feel an obligation to hang in there,” he said. “To see that the election is run properly and legally.”

The town advertised for a new CAO and invited applicants to submit a resume by June 30.

In a July 16 Windsor Star article, Phipps said he’s staying put. Candidates for the position are undergoing a council approved vetting process that includes a five-member panel made up of Phipps, human resources manager Michelle Rose, another county CAO that Phipps wouldn’t identify, a “fairly senior” local business leader and a resident.

Why was a panel needed? How was the panel selected? What are the members’ qualifications? Was there an Information and Privacy Commissioner privacy assessment, considering residents are panel members who will access personal information?

The article ends with a quote from Phipps: “So we thought, if we can get the right person that at least this council is satisfied with … I have faith we’ll get the right person,” he said.

Who is “we?” Has Council agreed to rescind his notice to leave plus hire a new CAO?

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Who’s Beating A Dead Horse?

Posted on by

Council will once again consider the horse and carriage in the Navy Yard Park issue at its June 23 meeting. The agenda can be found on an external link, despite my requesting it be placed elsewhere and in another format.

In his May 20, 2014 report to council, shamefully, Dean Collver, Director of Community Services states, “Administration is recommending that horse and carriage vendors, licensed to operate as a business in the Town of Amherstburg, be permitted to enter KNYP for the purpose of special occasions tied to the park’s gazebo facility.”

Collver provides a background, although accessibility issues are blatantly missing. I raised the issue of accessibility in this letter, which makes me wonder if, once again, my concerns were ignored. I also emailed everyone on council, “I’m writing to express my disappointment with council’s actions regarding this matter, with the exception of Councillor Pouget. It is unfathomable that the parks department widened sidewalks to accommodate a business that was in violation with the town, yet I endured a ten year battle with the town to obtain equal access to the library, which, ironically, the town takes credit for in its annual accessibility plan as an accomplishment.”

Collver lists others consulted, which did not include a public hearing for public input regarding an exemption to a town by-law nor did it include members of the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee. I let the Committee know last fall that the horses and buggy request for by-law exemption is an example of a by-law that could have been included in the plan and should have been addressed by the committee. I never received a response.

In the council approved Amherstburg multi-year accessibility plan, Mayor Hurst states, in part, “Council and Administration, along with our Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee are working together to identify, remove and prevent barriers.”

So the question is: does council intend to accept administration’s recommendation, contradict this statement and defy legislation? As I have previously mentioned, both business owners and the town are subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

 

Council Could Cut More

Posted on by

monica wolfson’s updated April 16 windsor star blog post reports that amherstburg town council has not yet adopted its budget and will continue deliberations on april 24.

I would rather decide for myself which, if any, charitable organizations I would support than have council arbitrarily direct taxpayers’ money to some charitable organizations like the House of Shalom, a facility that is not accessible to everyone.

It isn’t the first time that council considered directing visitors to the Gordon House instead of the Front Road centre, nor is it the first time I objected. As a town-owned facility, the municipality is obliged to consider accessibility pursuant to provincial accessibility legislation; additionally, the town could be susceptible to a human rights complaint given the lack of accessibility at the Gordon House.

I would have thought the town learned its lesson after my decade long battle and subsequent human rights decision resulting in the library elevator. A recent HRTO decision against 1762668 Ontario Inc., owned by Rennie and Anne Rota, confirmed a landlord’s responsibility.

Cutting council’s portion of the budget would hinder communication with constituents – really? How many times do councillors respond to emails and/or telephone calls?

Policing costs and/or any proposed cuts to the police budget are missing. In an April 8, 2014 CKLW post, Police Chief Tim Berthiaume was confident council will approve the police budget, saying his force is one of the most cost-effective in the province.

The 2012 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario included a Cost Comparison of Municipal Police Services, 2011; the estimated per capita cost of police services for a population between 15,000 and 49,999 was:

  • Municipal Police Service $284.00
  • OPP – with contract $150.00
  • OPP – no contract $131.00

According to OPP estimates, municipalities with and without contracts save on average anywhere from 35% to 60% by using the OPP instead of having their own police forces.

Since the Amherstburg Police collective agreement expires the end of 2014, now is the most opportune time to obtain an OPP costing and delete the OPP takeover clause. Amherstburg taxpayers have long supported a police department hierarchy unparalleled by similar-sized OPP detachments. If council had acted sooner, say at least 12 years ago, it might not have had to entertain the selling of Essex Power shares for $12 million.

There seems to be some misinformation regarding the police budget and the responsibilities of the police services board and council, but both are clearly set out in the Police Services Act:

Estimates

  1. (1)  The board shall submit operating and capital estimates to the municipal council that will show, separately, the amounts that will be required,

(a) to maintain the police force and provide it with equipment and facilities; and

(b) to pay the expenses of the board’s operation other than the remuneration of board members.

Same

(2)  The format of the estimates, the period that they cover and the timetable for their submission shall be as determined by the council.

Budget

(3)  Upon reviewing the estimates, the council shall establish an overall budget for the board for the purposes described in clauses (1) (a) and (b) and, in doing so, the council is not bound to adopt the estimates submitted by the board.

Same

(4)  In establishing an overall budget for the board, the council does not have the authority to approve or disapprove specific items in the estimates.

Commission hearing in case of dispute

(5)  If the board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by the council is sufficient to maintain an adequate number of police officers or other employees of the police force or to provide the police force with adequate equipment or facilities, the board may request that the Commission determine the question and the Commission, shall, after a hearing, do so. 1997, c. 8, s. 26.

Council can do more and should do so – just say no to frivolous requests and spending.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

 

Aburg police have new way to clock staff hours

Posted on by

According to The Windsor Star, Chief Tim Berthiaume stated, “We’ll require all hourly employees … to swipe in and out at the beginning and at the end of their shift.” If the aim of the new clock is to tighten control over the management of employees’ work time, shouldn’t the Chief and Deputy Chief also have to swipe in and out? Wouldn’t they want to  participate so as not to give the appearance that they are exempt from accountability?

Read more: The Windsor Star

Will Councillor Sutton’s Motion Restore Public Trust?

Posted on by

time will tell if it’s posturing or an attempt to make real changes following the Ombudsman’s investigative findings that the town contravened the Municipal Act in its handling of several in-camera meetings in January 2011. according to the amherstburg echo, (full story), sutton believes his january 23 motion will serve as a starting point towards rectifying the damage done by the ombudsman report.

the damage was done by members of council who continued to participate in the practice, despite the Ombudman’s March 17, 2011 letter to the town, in which it stated, “In the future, Council should be vigilant in ensuring that the most appropriate exception or exceptions are cited in the resolution to proceed into closed session, and that all discussions taking place in camera fall within the cited exception(s). This ensures that the public is fully aware of why Council is proceeding into closed session, and increases the transparency of the Council process.” The letter further stated, “In the future, Council should ensure that no voting takes place during closed session, unless the vote is for a procedural matter and/or giving direction to staff, in accordance with s. 239(6) of the Act”.

sutton also mentioned that some of the errors found by the Ombudsman were clerical errors that have to be corrected; some clerical errors at the amherstburg police station had to also be corrected.

i requested an amherstburg police services board motion regarding my correspondence to the board, but i received a criminal records check of another individual that was emailed to me in error. during the course of an Information and Privacy Commission Ontario investigation, i learned that Chief Tim Berthiaume explained that the secretary scanned and attached the email and attachment without confirming the contents. Additionally, the board explained that unfortunately, it was not until my second email that the person responsible for the error understood the situation. i had emailed twice that i was not interested in any personal information but my own. in an october 28, 2011 letter, the IPC analyst advised that she was satisfied with the assurances that the board would continue to take any steps they felt appropriate to obtain my confirmation that the record had been deleted.

chief tim berthiaume sent two letters requesting that i immediately delete and confirm that it has been deleted as soon as possible. in his june 28, 2011 letter, he stated, in part, “the amherstburg police service takes privacy issues very seriously.” how ironic that my june 2011 inquiry to the board related to a breach of my information and the board decided to dismiss it; read john sutton’s letter. note: clerical errors in the letter are not mine.

it will take time to restore the public trust.  council should act as councillor pouget suggests: thank the Ombudsman, take the report seriously and take the free training – that would be a good starting point.