Category Archives: Flip Flop

Richmond Street Corridor Sidewalk Rehabilitation Funding Debate

Posted on by

On January 29, 2024, Deputy Mayor Gibb moved and Councillor McArthur seconded a motion to prepare a tender for downtown core sidewalk repairs, to consult four advisory committees, including the Accessibility Advisory Committee Regarding Barrier Free Routes of Travel, and funding not to exceed $31,000 (excluding HST) was to come from the AODA Compliance
Reserve Fund.

On April 10, the Accessibility Advisory Committee endorsed the proposal for the maintenance but objected to using the AODA Compliance Reserve Fund and carried a motion that a reconsideration of the funding source for reduction and reassignment, by 50 percent, BE CONSIDERED by Council.

On May 13, council considered it. Deputy Mayor Gibb had a few words: I’m starting to feel a little bit uncomfortable to hear the accessibility committee talking about you know, their funding or their reserve. This is I just want to remind Council this is our job is to determine where the money is spent. You know I’m not going to oppose Councillor MacArthur’s motion because it’s it’s valid. But I don’t know the last few things I heard just kind of made the hair in the back of my neck stand up. So this is it’s it’s up to council where this money comes from. Just that’s just my opinion.

In the end, council’s flip flop and carried motion was that 50% of the funding COME FROM the AODA Compliance Reserve Fund and that the other 50% of the funding come from another source such as the tax stabilization fund for the Richmond Street Corridor sidewalk rehabilitation.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb’s Flip-Flop On Traffic Study

    Posted on by

    The short version; the detailed version follows. Deputy Mayor Gibb voted in favour of a motion, it passed unanimously, and he or Mayor Prue were to bring it up at county council ‘at the first available meeting’ (May 1); they didn’t. Instead, Gibb introduced it as a Notice of Motion at the May 15 county meeting. Meanwhile, Gibb wanted it reconsidered at the May 27 town council meeting. It was reconsidered, Councillor Crain suggested it should go to committee, which would require a motion, which failed. Councillor Pouget wondered about the motion’s wording change. Gibb made a motion to ask for a report from staff before they ask the county and that motion was defeated too. Crain made a motion to adjourn; Prue advised he could do that but that would mean this whole day didn’t happen because they have confirmatory by-laws to pass. Crain wanted to make a motion to approve confirmatory by-laws but Prue asked if there was any other new business. Councillor Allaire was acknowledged but then a motion was needed to extend the meeting past the 10:00 pm deadline because otherwise the meeting would be automatically adjourned. The motion to extend the meeting carried.

    The more detailed version is:

    April 22.
    At the April 22 council meeting, Councillor Pouget introduced a motion that carried for Mayor Prue and Deputy Mayor Gibb to ask County Council to include the Town of
    Amherstburg, when they initiate the Town of Lasalle’s Traffic Study of County Road 20,
    in particular the stretch of highway between County Road 10 intersection heading north
    to the River Canard Yacht Club.

    Councillor Pouget provided the reasons for the motion were excessive speed, unsafe conditions for motorists and pedestrians and a section of highway 20 in LaSalle has been reduced to 50 kilometers per hour to provide better safety in a housing density similar to our request.
     
    Mayor Prue passed the gavel and said LaSalle’s mayor did raise this at the last county council meeting and she cited one of the reasons for LaSalle needing a traffic study and a slowdown on highway 20 in LaSalle was all the extra traffic that is being generated out of Amherstburg. Prue took the gavel back, members voted, the motion carried and Prue said the deputy mayor or I will bring it up at the first available meeting.

    May 1.
    The first available county council meeting was May 1.

    During the May 1 County Council meeting, LaSalle Mayor Meloche read aloud her motion and mentioned Amherstburg but neither Prue nor Gibb brought forward the Amherstburg town council motion. Gibb and Prue voted in favour of the County Council motion and it carried unanimously.

    May 15.
    Gibb brought up the Notice of Motion at the May 15 County Council meeting and mentioned the April 22 Amherstburg council meeting motion and it was worded differently. Gibb said direction was given to Mayor Prue and myself to request the County of Essex conduct a traffic study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road Three. This notice of motion is to request Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on this section of County Road 20 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.

    Councillor Pouget’s motion, as recorded in the minutes is: That our Mayor and Deputy Mayor TO ASK County Council to include the Town of Amherstburg, when they initiate the Town of Lasalle’s Traffic Study of County Road 20, Town of Amherstburg – Regular Council Meeting in particular, the stretch of highway between County Road 10 intersection heading north
    to the River Canard Yacht Club.

    May 27.
    At the May 27 town council meeting, Gibb introduced a reconsideration of the April 22 motion that he and Prue were to bring up at the ‘first available meeting’ which was May 1 and a lengthy discussion followed.

    Gibb explained his reason for the reconsideration was because he was concerned they were going to cede control of what happens to that road to the county. (this is confusing since it is a county road). He asked a few what if questions:

    • what if the county wants to change the speed limit to 50 kilometres an hour?
    • How is that going to affect companies like Diageo?
    • How is that going to change traffic patterns and have people move from County Road 20 perhaps onto our concession roads that that aren’t prepared for that kind of traffic?
    • How is that going to affect the commuting time of 1000s of people who commute on that road every day?

      He felt in their haste they may have opened themselves up to something that an upper level of government is going to force upon them before they’ve had a chance to discuss it amongst themselves. (But the chance to discuss it was on April 22 during the town council meeting).

    The vote to reconsider carried.

    Gibb thought they needed a ‘sober second thought’ and wanted to get a report from staff so they know what they’re getting into before it’s too late. (But wouldn’t county staff conclude their traffic study with a report to county council?)

    Councillor Pouget pointed out the unanimous April 22 motion and asked if Gibb hadn’t introduced the Notice of Motion that town council directed him to do in over a month.

    Gibb answered that the motion was introduced at the last county council meeting and then would be discussed at the next county council meeting.

    Pouget asked if Gibb was suggesting that this council passed this motion unanimously, he introduced it, didn’t introduce it when he should have the first meeting, skipped a meeting and then introduced it then and now go back to them and say maybe you don’t have to do that. Gibb said he generally doesn’t speak with that voice and that is categorically false what you’re saying.

    Prue called for calm because it was getting late (that’s what happens when meetings are inefficient). and he summarized: What has happened is that the deputy mayor issued the notice, he’s having second thoughts and wants to know council’s position. If Council doesn’t want to change its position that’s well within council’s right. If Council is happy then it just goes to the county and the county makes the decision. That’s what’s going to happen. There will be debate, and I will assure you if the debate goes forward, I will raise the same issues and I’m sure the deputy mayor will raise the issues that we would like to be consulted down through the process because we are a little afraid if it goes from 70 and 80 kilometres to much lower that it may have ramifications on our concession roads.

    The April 22 motion was back on the table and was read aloud: That our mayor and deputy mayor to ask county council to include the town of Amherstburg when they initiate LaSalle’s traffic study of County Road 20 in particular the stretch of highway between county road 10 intersection heading north to the River Canard Yacht Club.

    CAO Critchley emphasized the importance of being consulted.

    Councillor Crain thought it might be appropriate to have the economic development committee review the suggested idea to change the speed limit and Prue advised that would require a motion to amend the original one. The motion failed.

    Pouget noted a discussion regarding adding Texas Road.

    Gibb said they have a Doctorate in traffic studies on town staff and asked that they maybe get a report and he would prefer a report from staff. Gibb made the motion to get a report from staff before they ask the county to make any changes and said if that fails, then he’s done.

    Crain wanted to make a motion to adjourn. Prue said he could but if you do it, it means this whole day didn’t happen because they have confirmatory by-laws. Crain moved to approve confirmatory by-laws but Prue asked if there was any other new business. Councillor Allaire was acknowledged but they needed a motion to continue before 10:00 pm when they’re automatically adjourned.

    June 5. County Council Agenda 15.2 Traffic Study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road 3

    Chris Gibb brought forward the following Notice of Motion at the May 15, 2024 meeting of Essex County Council:

    At the April 22, 2024 meeting of Amherstburg Town council direction was given to Mayor Prue and Deputy Mayor Gibb to request the County of Essex conduct a traffic study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Rd 3. 

    This notice of motion is to request Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on this section of County Rd 20 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.

    Recommendation:That Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on County Rd 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road 3 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb And Councillor McArthur Flip-Flop On Gallery Members Speaking

    Posted on by

    It was only two weeks earlier, at the September 11 council meeting, that both Gibb and McArthur spoke against and voted against allowing gallery member Larry Amlin to speak; both voted to allow Bolger to speak at the September 25 council meeting.

    Mayor Prue acknowledged there were no delegates at the September 25 meeting, just one Presentation – Mr. Norbert Bolger. Prue then asked Bolger to come forward and stated just before he did, he needed a motion from council to bring forward items 13.2 and 19.1 which both deal with the matter at hand; it carried and Prue told Bolger the floor was his.

    Bolger then stated he was not going to make a presentation; he was just going to be there to answer any questions; he explained that he sent a letter in to the town and everybody has it. He also said he’s talked to some members of council regarding the naming of the street, one of the streets in Brittney’s Gate. He went to the heritage committee and got their endorsement on it so he was there for the final endorsement from council and if there’s any questions he’d be happy to answer.

    Prue asked if there were any questions of Mr. Bolger, stated there were no questions, and as Prue thanked him, Bolger took his seat in the gallery and Prue said it was back to council.

    Prue asked if there was any discussion on the issue and there was for approximately 8 minutes; Councillor Pouget spoke, then Councillor Crain, Councillor Courtney, Prue passed the gavel and directly addressed Bolger, who went back up to the podium, then Crain again, Clerk, Deputy CAO, and then Bolger raised his hand and said something inaudible. Prue said it would require the unanimous consent of council.

    The motion to allow a member of the gallery to speak carried.

    After Bolger briefly spoke, Pouget asked a question and Bolger returned to the podium to answer her question; Prue didn’t call him out of order – Prue echoed Bolger’s answer.

    Related: September 11 Council Meeting RECAP Part 1

    Deputy Mayor Gibb’s Flip Flop On Belle Vue

    Posted on by

    Beside sharing another personal anecdote during a council meeting, Deputy Mayor Gibb wanted to say that he publicly said in the past that he wouldn’t spend taxpayer money on Belle Vue, but his wife has reminded him many times throughout their marriage that stubbornly sticking to your point when things change isn’t the wisest idea. He thinks this is a good investment; it’s good for the town so he’s going to support this motion. He just wanted to publicly address that.

    From the August 14 agenda:

    13.1 Belle Vue Expression of Interest – Planning for Next Steps:

    It is recommended that:

    1. Council APPROVE funding in the amount of $37,076 to complete various work related to the next steps in the Belle Vue Expression of Interest (Project #721002); and,
    2. Council APPROVE the funding of $37,076 from the balance of the previously approved funding in the General Reserve (0400) for Belle Vue Manor.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb’s Flip Flop On Council’s Direction

    Posted on by

    Deputy Mayor Gibb was given council’s direction, made no objection, said ‘we will do our best’ but then didn’t second Mayor Prue’s motion at a county council meeting.

    The December 5, 2022 motion, by Councillor Pouget, carried was: to request that our mayor and deputy mayor address county council at their next meeting regarding County Council’s proposed 2023 budget with a 4.76% tax increase. Pouget explained, this is more than double the 2022’s increase of 2.1% and includes the use of 31 million from reserve funds to offset the increase. 

    Mayor Prue said, we don’t need to be instructed but I don’t have any problem with being instructed by council.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb said he agreed with the mayor, and said ‘we will do our best.’ (emphasis added). He also mentioned, the one thing I’m going to suggest is the county has quite a bit of reserve funds so perhaps we can release more reserves funds that might be a higher and better use to use them in a time of hyperinflation.

    Listen to the December 5 motion and discussion: audio:

    February 27, 2023 follow up: Pouget asked Gibb, why didn’t you second our mayor’s motion? That’s what you were directed to do.

    Gibb said in his opinion, that’s not the way to lower taxes is to let your roads get worse because it’s just going to cost you more in the future. So, at the end of the day, they brought down the tax rate by using reserves that they had prudently put aside to do just that. I don’t see why you would spend less money on roads today, so that you have to spend double or triple in three or four years down the road that makes no fiscal sense to me. So on that specific issue, that’s why I didn’t support the mayor’s motion. (emphasis added).

    Was Gibb clear about whose motion it was? Pouget said, it wasn’t the mayor’s motion, it was our motion, but Gibb answered, Your motion is fine, but ..

    Listen to the February 27 motion and discussion: audio

    Councillor Crain’s Flip Flop On Open Air Barriers

    Posted on by

    @LindenCrain, remember this campaign question? Will you remove barriers during Open Air weekends that block people with disabilities from driving to the bank, local stores, bars, and generally driving through town?

    Crain’s answer: “Yes. It is important that all members of the community can experience Open Air.”

    Well now I can’t.

    Remember these questions?

    how will you fulfill the obligation to remove barriers?

    Crain’s answers, in part:

    • Follow regulations outlined in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. 
    • Always remain available to address concerns any resident faces in the Town of Amherstburg.
    • Work closely with Town Administration to establish procedures and measures that ensure those with disabilities have the opportunity to experience all our community has to offer.

    Did Councillor McArthur Flip Flop on Accessibility?

    Posted on by

    I’m calling Councillor McArthur’s attitude about accessibility issues a flip flop.

    Councillor McArthur commented during the discussion of Councillor Pouget’s December 12, 2022 motion regarding accounts payable being placed back on public agendas. McArthur said he would caution against one option because that’s kind of circumventing accessibility provisions. He said if it’s important information that’s important to get out there, then it’s important for everybody and it needs to be accessible. He said they can’t do an end run around it.

    So why did he remain silent on the issue of Open Air barriers and the removal of them? It’s especially concerning since he’s council’s rep to the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee.

    Then-Councillor Now Mayor Prue On Gordon House Accessibility

    Posted on by

    This is what I call a flip flop. Then-Councillor Prue spoke about the Gordon House not being accessible, campaigned to ensure all town buildings are accessible to facilitate an open and inclusive municipality, then agreed the Gordon House should be repaired – not a word about accessibility during that discussion. No answer to a question about it either. 

    Then-Councillor Prue made these comments at a December 2021 council meeting:

    very brief questions, the act, the Ontarians with Disability Act, is nearly 20 years old, and January 1, 2025 everything’s supposed to be in place and I’m just wondering, do we have time or what are the plans for this year we’re going to be at 2022, what are the plans for this year for the buildings that are not accessible? This one is not accessible. The tourist facility at the Gordon house is not accessible. The two that come immediately to my head these are big capital expenditures or maybe we have to move I don’t know but have we got time to do it? Are you putting Are you going to recommend a lot of money for this year or possibly next year’s budget because a fair amount is going to have to be spent because we can’t wait any longer. (emphasis added). (audio) 

    January 2022, then-councillor Prue commented:

    I don’t know that we have not done everything as a council we should have done to help the many people who live in Amherstburg to have accessibility to our town and to its services. I’ve said this to council before I was the initial speaker in the legislature on this and I was very unappreciative of the fact it was taking 21 years to come to fruition, but that’s about to happen now.

    2022 Campaign website Prue working for you: Priorities included Ensure all town buildings are accessible to facilitate an open and inclusive municipality.

    February 12, 2023 Email to all members of council when agenda was published:

    it’s hard to rationalize the grant application to spruce up the Gordon House. ‘Inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ seem to be the newest buzz words, but we can’t be an inclusive, welcoming community if we exclude people with disabilities. why is the tourism department not based in the tourist booth on the highway where the building is actually welcoming without barriers? will heritage once again take precedence over accessibility?

    February 13, 2023 Mayor Prue commented during the discussion of grants, including funding for the Gordon House to complete the painting and siding, install a storage shed and replace windows.

    any other discussion? Seeing none I’ll pass the gavel just for a second. I’m going to vote with the recommendation that’s just been made because this I have never been on this council or seen anybody on this council even in the past look away from money that a senior level of government is going to give to the municipality. This does not bind us to anything. If they want to give us 50 or $100,000 or whatever it is, I think we should take it. You know we have the Gordon house is the oldest building. It’s in need of some structural repair. For sure we need an economic development slash communications officer. And if this helps us to move along, then I think we should and I’ll take the gavel back. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Carries. (emphasis added).

    February 15, 2023 Email to all members of council after the vote:

    i predicted council would confirm the importance of the Gordon House, but i would still appreciate an answer to my question: why is the tourism department not based in the tourist booth on the highway?

    Councillor Crain: Tourism Windsor-Essex operates the tourism booth during the summer months as an information centre.

    The burg watch: thanks, but that doesn’t answer my question.

    Copyright – this information is protected by Canada’s Copyright Act. Request written permission from the burg watch at gmail dot com.

    Disclaimer: the information is presented as is according to my notes. videos are available at the town’s website.

    Flip Flops

    Posted on by

    I’ve added a new flip flops page to the blog so there is a record of who flip flops and on what issues. I started this blog eleven years ago as a resource for voters because time passes and during campaigns, the focus on positivity seems to overshadow the perceived negativity.

    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