Category Archives: Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies: Councillor Allaire – Transparency

Posted on by

Elected officials should be held accountable for statements, actions, and decisions made on behalf of the community. Amherstburg’s Code of Conduct Definitions include: Transparency in government implies openness, accountability and honesty.

During the April 14 council meeting, Councillor Allaire said she would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be,’ and ‘its challenges are inaccessibility.’ 

Unanswered questions: Would you please explain how this library is not accessible? Is this just your opinion? Or did you obtain an expert opinion? Can you cite an authority for your statement or a basis? And who is we? Are you referring to any standard regarding what you want it to be? Emailed April 15, followed up April 18 and 21.

During the April 29 council meeting, Allaire asked for a bit more transparency; she also mentioned more transparency, “which is what I would love,” at the May 12 meeting.

On June 14, I emailed Allaire that I believed she was not being transparent about her library accessibility issue statements. I reminded her that I emailed a couple of times but that she ignored my questions. I also quoted some of her statements about transparency at meetings: “I’m genuinely asking for a bit more transparency in adding it to our social media” and “I feel that the transparency was limited recently, and I think that that’s what the public really wants” and “I actually appreciate the fact that it keeps some sort of transparency.”

20 Year AODA Anniversary – Barriers In The Burg

Posted on by

Then-MPP Michael Prue stood in the Ontario Legislature twenty years ago today, on May 10, 2005, where the historic Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) unanimously passed. Watch the moment at about 4:26 into the video.

As Mayor, during a May 23, 2023 Amherstburg Council Meeting, Prue declared we have not brought it into force. Listen to the audio.

Unofficial transcript: 2025 we’re going to have to make everything accessible in this town, that’s the law. I was in the legislature 20 something years ago, and I spoke to this issue when the bill was presented in the legislature, and I scoffed at them. I scoffed at the liberals who were standing up waving this piece of paper around, saying we’re going to be accessible, because it could take 25 years to bring it into force. Well, in this town, we have not brought it into force. 

When the first dog park opened in Amherstburg, Prue was quoted as saying, it ‘reflects our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive community for all residents, including our beloved canine companions.’

During a January 27, 2025 council meeting, Prue referenced the AODA and said, ‘this town has not been compliant. And I have promised, as mayor, and the council has promised, that we will hence for, hence forward, going forward, always be AOD compliant. And I want people to know that the those who have disabilities have every right to use every one of the services in this town, the same as everyone else.’

For as long as barriers exist, and they do, no one should claim we are an inclusive community. It takes strong leadership and a strong commitment to remove the barriers and keep promises.

Inconsistencies: Meeting Notices

Posted on by

On July 25, I emailed council and CAO Critchley, today’s calendar listing includes the accessibility advisory committee meeting with no agenda link and no notice of cancellation. as you can see from the attached screen shot, it states the event has already occurred. would someone please advise if the meeting will be held?

Critchley replied, The calendar module has a known issue with the statement “the event has already occurred.” We have opened a service ticket with our provider. 

The meeting was tentatively scheduled and has been cancelled, the next meeting will be the fourth Thursday in August, August 22nd. The change has been noted on the page to reflect this cancellation. 

Anyone with interest in staying up-to-date for Town meetings can subscribe at: https://calendar.amherstburg.ca/council/Subscription to receive notifications as they are provided.

And I answered, Thanks. I already subscribe but received no cancellation notice. 

Inconsistencies: Deputy Mayor Gibb On Social Justice Issue

Posted on by

On June 25, 2024, during discussion of the Transit Service Agreement Renewal, Gibb said he thinks the other big thing that they’re not talking about is this is really a social justice issue. He continued that there’s a lot of people who can’t afford transportation or reliable personal transportation so he thinks this is a good deal for the people of Amherstburg; it’s the right thing to do so he’ll definitely be supporting it.

When I delegated on March 25, 2024 regarding OPEN AIR I stated, in part, ‘A Divisional Court affirmed that the AODA is “social justice legislation” that is meant to redress a history of discriminatory exclusions by identifying, removing and preventing barriers to participation in society.’ I requested council prioritize a commitment to the principles of governing legislation and ensure everyone is welcome to equally participate in our public spaces.

The number 1 complaint about Open Air is accessibility and Gibb stated on am800 that Open Air is accessible so we just want to invite all of Windsor and Essex County to come out to Amherstburg and get together and have a great time.

But not everyone can participate. Merry go round.

Thank Me, Blame Council!

Posted on by

I had been emailing council members since February and urging them to update the procedural by-law and at no point did anyone mention that a review was underway. In September I asked on what date did members of council give direction to admin to update the by-law?

CAO Critchley answered – August 14, 2023. Technically, that was the day council rubber-stamped the by-law so neither council nor the public had any input, unlike other municipalities. As an example, Port Hope where ‘staff will work with all members of Council to gather their individual input on meeting processes and specific elements of the procedural by-law to ensure the recommended draft by-law is reflective of all points of view on Council.’

When I requested an explanation for missing speaking notes from two October 10 delegates, Critchley answered that ‘Both delegates have indicated that they did not have additional materials to provide and both met the requirements of section 9.4 of the Town’s Procedural By-law. While we certainly welcome delegates to share additional information that they may have in advance, if the requirements of the procedural by-law have been met then the Clerk is required to register the delegation.

In fact I believe you had a concern in the past about the requirements for delegates to provide speaking notes and so when the recent revisions to the Procedure By-law were made, we took your concerns into account.’

It wasn’t just my concern. I shared the Centre For Free Expression’s response with council:

I have never heard of a municipality requiring the delegation speaker’s notes, much less the text of the speech, to be submitted ahead of the event. And, I have never heard of a requirement for a copy of the notes or speech text to be submitted with the application to appear. Sometimes when I appear before parliamentary bodies they request a copy of my submission ahead of time so they can distribute it to the committee members and, where there is simultaneous translation, to give a copy to the translators so as to help them. But, this is only after I have been accepted as a speaker and it is not a requirement.
While I feel it is both wrong and bad practice for your municipal council to do as yours is doing, it is not illegal to the best of my knowledge. It is something that should be fought in the court of public opinion.

ames L. TurkDirector, Centre for Free Expression
The Creative School
Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson University)

It also wasn’t my only concern. On several occasions I shared my concerns regarding accommodations for persons with disabilities who were unable to be attend meetings and I mentioned comparator municipalities. Ironically, council has considered comparators for staff wages, budgets, and recommending removing the cheque registry from the agenda. Two more inconsistencies.

My comparator chart was attached to the agenda.

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

Bolger’s Presentation/Delegation To Council September 25

Posted on by

Warning – long post; put the kettle on or skip the details and read the summary below.

SUMMARY

Bolger was a presentation which, according to CAO Critchley ‘is a form of delegation and delegation rules apply equally’; no delegation request form was on the agenda, no speaking notes, and no letter. Bolger’s letter was on the August 10 Heritage Committee meeting agenda; the RTT reported on Bolger’s letter and the committee meeting; the heritage committee meeting Brittany’s Gate audio portion is unavailable; Critchley advised Bolger would be available for questions and would not be making a formal delegation – he was placed under the “Presentations’ and the letter was available in the Council In Camera Share Point folder; if I wanted a copy to please submit a Freedom of Information request; there was no notice of in-camera meeting.

DETAILS

Friday, September 22, 2:25 PM email notification from the town: Supplementary Agenda – September 25, 2023 contained only one item: PRESENTATIONS, 9.1 Presentation – Re: Item 13.2 Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street – Norbert Bolger.

Sunday, September 24, 6:53 PM, I emailed questions about the procedural by-law to all members of council, including question 1: how was it determined that Mr. Bolger will be a ‘presentation’ at the September 25 council meeting instead of a ‘delegation’ when presentation is not defined in the by-law and he will be speaking to an agenda item like a delegate? 

Monday, September 25, 9:11 AM Councillor Pouget emailed all members of council and CAO Critchley: These are all very good questions and I for one, would appreciate answers to them, concerning our new procedural by-law.  When time permits, will you or one of your staff please respond to all copied in this email?

September 25 9:33 AM, Critchley emailed answers in red below my questions:

how was it determined that Mr. Bolger will be a ‘presentation’ at the September 25 council meeting instead of a ‘delegation’ when presentation is not defined in the by-law and he will be speaking to an agenda item like a delegate?

A “presentation” is a form of a delegation and so the rules for delegations apply equally. Mr. Bolger registered within the time frame set out in the Procedure By-law and notice of the delegation was made public with the revised Agenda which was posted on Friday.

September 25 council meeting AGENDA contained three items related to Bolger’s request:

  1. item 9 PRESENTATIONS, item 9.1 Presentation Re Item 13.2 Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street – Norbert Bolger with a note that this item has no attachments;
  2. Item 13.2 under REPORTS – PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street with three attachments: Brittany Gate – Street Naming.pdf; Appendix A – Street Naming Policy.pdf; Appendix B – Street Name Inventory (unused names).pdf.
  3. item 19.1.Minutes – Heritage Committee August 10, 2023

September 25 DISCUSSION RECAP:

Mayor Prue noted he didn’t have any delegations; he had one presentation, Mr. Norbert Bolger, who he asked to come forward and stated before he does, he needs a motion from council to bring forward items 13.2 and 19.1 which both deal with the matter. 

Bolger stated he was not going to make a presentation; he was just going to be there to answer any questions, 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 and Britney’s Gate. He went to the heritage committee and got their endorsement on it so he’s here for the final endorsement from council and if there’s any questions he’d be happy to answer. There were no questions.

Councillor Crain said he will be supporting the motion, the heritage committee, which he’s a part of, did endorse it 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. Norbuilt and their family has played an integral part of helping shape our community and he thinks it’s only right that they help them recognize their daughter while also acknowledging our history with Stone Street recognizing the world war two veteran as you make your way into the subdivision and that’s why he’ll be supporting it.

Crain also asked staff, the current street naming policy that we have in place I can’t recall, looking for clarification is that policy out of date or currently being reviewed? Knowing that this was a topic for committee and then council decision, he could’ve just checked for himself.

Later, Bolger wanted to speak and Prue said it had to be a unanimous vote to allow it. Deputy Mayor Gibb spoke against allowing Larry Amlin to speak at the September 11 council meeting, citing a question of equity; Councillor McArthur also voted against. The motion allowing Bolger to speak carried.

FOLLOW UP EMAILS

After the meeting, at 9:01 pm on September 25, 2023, I emailed all members of council and CAO Critchley and requested a copy of Mr. Bolger’s delegate request form as it was not included with the agenda as has been standard practice. I also requested a copy of his letter which was referred to but also not attached to the agenda. 

September 27 at 12:55 PM, Councillor Diane Pouget emailed: I fully support your request. I am also requesting the form and speaking notes Mr. Bolger was required to submit as per the policy. It appears Mr. Bolger submitted his speaking notes to the Heritage Committee, so why wasn’t it submitted to Council and the public as required?

September 27, 2023 7:11 PM, I emailed all members of council and CAO: thank you Councillor Pouget. I really appreciate all your efforts to represent your constituents and to ensure rules are equally and fairly applied to everyone.  

September 28, 2023 12:32 PM Councillor Pouget emailed all members of council and CAO and thanked me; I believe that each and every member of Council should be equally concerned if the proper protocol was followed and should be entitled to view the form and speaking notes by Mr. Bolger, as required by every delegate according to our policy. As a Councillor for the Town of Amherstburg, I am requesting a response to this question.

September 28, 2023, 4:35 PM, Critchley emailed, As Mr. Bolger had indicated to the Clerk’s Office that we would be available for questions and would not be making a formal delegation, he was placed under the “Presentations” section of the meeting. It was clarified when the item came forward that he was there for questions only. I would also note that, as Mr. Bolger was available for questions regarding his application that was before Council, we already had all of his contact information. In all of these circumstances, a form was not required. In addition, section 9.5 of the Procedure By-law states the following: (original yellow highlight)

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.

I am attaching a copy of the Procedure in this regard. With respect to the letter sent to Council by Mr. Bolger, as it contained personal information about an identifiable individual, it was provided to Council as a P & C attachment prior to the meeting and is available in the Council In Camera Share Point folder. Particularly, an email alerting all of Council to the letter were sent on Monday at 3:57pm by the Deputy Clerk and a follow up email was sent to all of Council from the Clerk at 4:41pm. I have attached a copy of that email for your reference. (see emails below).

Ms. Saxon – should you wish to request a copy of the letter submitted to Council please submit a Freedom of Information request.

September 28, 5:09 pm, I emailed members of council and CAO Critchley, an FOI request will not be submitted since I already have Bolger’s letter; it was posted publicly on the heritage committee’s public agenda. but this does indicate the urgency by which council needs to create a routine disclosure and active dissemination policy in keeping with municipal best practices.

Critchley’s attached emails:

Deputy Clerk Sarah Sabihuddin September 25, 2023, 3:57 PM, email to members of council, the CAO and clerk, subject: Council SharePoint Site – Additional In-Camera Documentation – September 25th: An additional item has now been uploaded to the Council SharePoint site in the Special In-Camera folder. This is in relation to tonight’s presentation 9.1 and report item 13.2. 

Clerk September 25, 4:41 PM, email to members of council, the deputy clerk, the CAO, subject: RE: Council SharePoint Site – Additional In-Camera Documentation – September 25th: For additional clarity, this is the correspondence you will have already received from the applicant, Norbert Bolger, during previous communications, but a request was received to provide it under separate cover owing to the personal and confidential details about identifiable individuals noted therein and the sensitivities around those details. Out of an abundance of caution and in respect to the privacy of the associated individuals, we have done so. 

When Is A Motion Not A Motion?

Posted on by

When the clerk has been invited to speak to the matter before the motion has been seconded. Amherstburg’s Procedural By-law, MOTION PROCESS states, ‘Where deemed in order by the Chair, every motion shall be moved and seconded before being spoken to, questioned, debated, or put to a vote.’

The report to council on the new 2023 Procedural By-law specifically mentions a form of the word ‘consistent’ twelve times; for example, consistency in the application of rules is crucial for maintaining fairness, transparency, and trust in any organization or community, including the Town of Amherstburg.

At the August 10 Heritage Committee meeting, Frank DiPasquale spoke about Ontario Heritage Ministry nominations to award outstanding service to protect history and heritage; he thought of three people, two are committee members Shirley Curson-Prue and Robert Honor and author Meg Reiner.

DiPasquale moved a motion that these three people get recognized in the Ontario Heritage Ministry and he said he hoped there was a seconder for that.

Instead of asking if there was a seconder, Chair Simon Chamely recognized the clerk, who stated it could be put on the agenda, but whenever you want to introduce new items; introducing and moving those items in the same meeting can sometimes be problematic. So perhaps the best approach here may be to ask administration to investigate this and bring it back so that way it can be before the committee at their next meeting. Even if that’s the September in-camera session, they could deal with it during the public session if that was appropriate.

The September 21 in-camera committee meeting, according to the minutes, dealt with one item: review of expressions of interest and it’s not listed in the October 12 committee meeting agenda.

I couldn’t locate ministry awards, but I did find Lieutenant Governor’s Ontario Heritage Awards and an October 15 deadline for all nomination forms and supporting materials.

Inconsistencies: Survey Participants Names Displayed/Not Displayed

Posted on by

I reviewed 10 surveys on talk the burg and only 1 displayed names, along with mine – a survey I completed while logged in as ‘the burg watch.’

I questioned CAO Critchley why the survey with names was posted to the June 22 Accessibility Advisory Committee Agenda titled, Survey Responses Report – Public Consultation 2022, although it states 22 September 2017 – 20 September 2022.

Critchley: This information was freely submitted in a public forum as part of a public discourse. Should you have further concerns, have included the links to the applicable information on the website and she included links to the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan Public Engagement Site, Public Survey from Last Year and Privacy Policy.

After completing the town’s Open Air survey, I emailed all members of council with my critique and my comment, I hope to see all the names and all responses of all survey participants publicly posted as CAO Critchley advised this information was freely submitted in a public forum as part of a public discourse.

Why The Fuss About Erroneous Minutes?

Posted on by

There was no fuss when then-Councillor Prue mentioned erroneous minutes regarding his wife during a 2022 regular council meeting so why all the fuss when Councillor Pouget rightfully notes errors? After all, minutes are legal records and should be accurate. The bigger question is why did no other council member note the errors?

Councillor McArthur stated it was adequate time to address this before this evening. without calling staff to task in public so he was going to oppose a motion to defer.

McArthur was present at the 2022 meeting when Prue noted errors; he also received my email noting the 2022 accessibility committee minutes error pertaining to a question by Shirley Prue. The result of my email? The minutes were not corrected prior to the council meeting and no one brought up the error during the council meeting.

Not only is it standard procedure for the chair to ask if there are any errors or omissions since only the governing body can make corrections and approve minutes, but the Municipal Act states one of council’s roles is ‘to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality.’

Deputy Mayor Gibb chimed in with his judgment and concurred with McArthur. Gibb stated It could have been corrected with an email and that it could have been handled differently in his opinion. The Ontario Ombudsman investigated Amherstburg council back in 2016 and recommended members of council for the Town of Amherstburg should avoid exercising the power or authority of council or laying the groundwork to do so through email communications.

It would be more professional and efficient if members of council would just support/not support duly moved motions without speeches or judgments.

As mentioned in this post, Minutes Need To Be Corrected, the September 11 minutes, attached to the September 25 agenda contained errors: CAO Critchley was marked as present when she was absent, the wording of some of Councillor Pouget’s motions was incorrect. Words were omitted or substituted despite Pouget providing hard copies of her motions.

Related: Should Minutes Be Consistently Corrected?

Inconsistencies: When Is A Delegate Not A Delegate?

Posted on by

The September 25 council meeting supplementary agenda is for one item: a Presentation – Re: Item 13.2 Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street – Norbert Bolger; there are no attachments.

The September 25 revised agenda lists the same item, also without attachments.

The newly adopted Procedural By-law (August 14) definitions include: “Delegation” means a person intending to address the Council or committee on a matter where a decision of the Council may be required.

‘Presentation’ is not defined but ‘delegation’ is and section 9.4 clearly sets out the ‘rules’ for delegations.

9.4  Delegations during other proceedings of Council or Committees are permitted in relation to matters listed on the agenda stemming from all Administrative reports and by-laws; in accordance with the following:

a)  Persons wishing to delegate at any Council or Committee meetings, shall advise the Clerk, no later than the Thursday before the meeting. Delegations shall provide their name, contact information, association with any organization (if applicable and the agenda item to be addressed);

b)  Delegation requests will first be reviewed to determine if it is merely seeking information and if so, will be directed to the appropriate member of Administration for a response;

c)  All delegations shall indicate the item on the agenda they wish to speak to, what action they wish the Assembly to take and shall provide a copy of any material intended for public distribution;

d)  Delegations appearing before Council, who have previously appeared before Council on the same subject matter, shall be limited to providing only new information in any subsequent delegation request.

Since Mr. Bolger will be speaking before council ‘in relation to matters listed on the agenda stemming from all Administrative reports,’ why is he a ‘presentation’ and not a ‘delegation’?