As a delegate denied speaking to the January meeting, I’m concerned about the application of the procedural by-law.

Kurt Reffle’s November delegation was deemed appropriate, while January delegates’ requests were in order but for a future date. 

The committee was informed both must be true: there would have to be a report or by-law before the body and there would have to be an action or recommendation.

Yet administration approved Reffle’s delegation when neither was true. Admin confirmed the November brainstorming session.

The CAO advised me his delegation was pertinent to an agenda item as the committee was discussing its work plan for the following year and he had ideas regarding that which he shared with the Committee.

Reffle’s delegate application noted the item was not on the agenda, although he was to speak to item three, not item one – the work plan. The minutes also note he spoke to item three.

The Deputy CAO mentioned delegates could speak at a future meeting, but they wouldn’t be allowed to address town council on the same issue.

The procedural by-law does not contain a clause stipulating this exclusionary practice.

Specifically, the by-law states, “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.”

Reffle spoke over 11 minutes uninterrupted. Although staff was in the room, and could’ve announced the time, the CAO advised me the chair was on zoom and didn’t receive the staff’s email in time.

Delegates have been allowed to exceed the time limit four times since 2022.

Since committees are mentioned 45 times in the by-law, including in the ‘Delegations’ section, it equally applies to committee meetings.

The inconsistent application of the procedural by-law validates concerns of inequitable practices.

The reality is that some people receive preferential treatment and no one should be surprised by complaints of favouritism. There might be more instances, but these four stand out.

March 14, 2022: The Amherstburg Soccer Club’s delegation to council was 18 minutes, followed by a 48 minute question and answer session with members of council and staff for a total of 66 minutes.

April 22, 2023: Linda DiPasquale, Amherstburg Pickleball Association, spoke for 8 minutes and 40 seconds. At no time did mayor Prue stop her after the procedural by-law mandatory 5 minute limit and ask for a motion to continue as required.

January 15, 2026: Kurt Reffle spoke to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for about 11 minutes and 12 seconds; only then did Chair Patricia Simone say his five minute speaking limit was up.

January 20, 2026: WEBC spoke for almost seven minutes without interruption at the mandatory five minute limit.

Kurt Reffle’s presentation of just over 11 minutes, uninterrupted, was well received by the Economic Development Committee; he had ideas for Murray Street.

For 35 years I’ve shared ideas on how the town could become disability inclusive but I’ve been ignored and had to resort to litigation.

I asked CAO Critchley for an explanation for the preferential treatment of Kurt Reffle’s November 2025 delegation.

UPDATE: “With respect to Mr. Reffle’s delegation, the Chair was attending remotely and did not see the email from the Policy & Committee Co-ordinator alerting her that the delegate was “at time”. In any event, an extension would have been allowed after 5 minutes for a further 5 minutes and so the result of this innocent error was a 1 minute overage on the delegation time,” stated CAO Critchley in an email response.

(Maybe the policy and committee co-ordinator could’ve just spoken aloud at the five minute mark or used the gavel like Prue).

“Further, the delegation was pertinent to an agenda item as the Committee was discussing its work plan for the following year and the delegate had ideas regarding that which he shared with the Committee,” emailed Critchley.

(Then why inform a delegate’s request to speak to the committee on November 15, the “item…for discussion purposes is drawn from the Committees future work plan, and not something that is before the body at this time to make any determinations?”)

Allowing a delegate to speak to something other than a report or by-law on the agenda is a blatant breach of the procedural by-law but still a precedent.

Related:

ALL Delegates Deserve The Royal Treatment,

Delegations Discouraged At This Time – Murray Street Closure Concept.

Reffle’s delegation request form stated the item was not on the agenda, contrary to the town’s procedural by-law. (He was speaking about Murray Street).

THEN: As noted in ALL Delegates Deserve The Royal Treatment, Kurt Reffle spoke to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for about 11 minutes and 12 seconds; only then did Chair Patricia Simone say his five minute speaking limit was up.

Also, Reffle’s delegation request form stated the item was not on the agenda, contrary to the town’s procedural by-law. (He was speaking about Murray Street).

Reffle delegated because ‘after the heritage district was created and you were looking for ideas I said, well, I’m coming.’

NOW: “Should you wish you delegate regarding the merits of closing Murray Street, the appropriate time would be when this report is completed and presented to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for discussion.”

Read the full response from admin: Delegations Discouraged At This Time – Murray Street Closure Concept

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 22^nd. 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. 

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.