Comparing Cheque Registries

Posted on by

Councillor Pouget campaigned ‘to regain the loss of trust by many of our taxpayers.’ Following her motion to reinstate accounts payable on public agendas, council and administration discussed it for about fifteen minutes at the December 5, 2022 council meeting. Read the full post: Accounts Payable On Agenda: A Matter of Trust. Deputy Mayor Gibb was the lone dissenting vote.

Now the ‘cheque registry pilot program‘ is on the November 27 agenda, although the motion to place the cheque registries on the agenda from about a decade ago was never rescinded or reconsidered.

Amherstburg population 21,936 (2016 census).

Comparing other municipalities that post the item to their agendas:

Southgate population 7190

Wasaga Beach population 20,675

St. Catharines population 140,370

New Tecumseth population 41,439

Open Air – If They Vote How Will They Vote?

Posted on by

The Open Air Report is on tonight’s meeting agenda and I predict another majority vote in favour, not necessarily a 4-3 vote.

Everyone on council knows about the accessibility issues because everyone is aware of the number of times I complained, despite the rebuttals; but now the survey results indicate more people have noted the accessibility and parking concerns.

Councillor Crain: I’ll start with the sole opposition to this survey. In August, Crain said he can’t grasp why Open Air specifically; they’ve done an Open Air survey for residents and businesses so he felt a survey just on Open Air seems to be wasting staff time.

CAO Critchley confirmed in an email that they have surveyed visitors and the businesses inside and outside the footprint but not a resident wide survey.

On February 22, Crain asked staff, hasn’t the past Council already looked at ways to refine open air and that’s why some of the barricades were moved in closer? This feels a bit redundant to me if this has already been looked at by council. And from last night and from what we’ve been hearing, it’s pretty clear that the format is great. But based on my understanding, council’s already looked at this.

Crain was part of the team that created the THRIVE Open Air white paper; from the THRIVE website, ‘We believe that it should be a permanent summer feature.’ 

On March 13, Crain said he didn’t even think Open Air should have been a topic of discussion. He also thought they shouldn’t even be discussing this every year because eventually it’s going to be nothing.

On September 16, I asked Crain if he considered declaring a conflict of interest for Open Air discussions involving the event itself and the survey? No response.

As a candidate, in answer to one of the burg watch 2022 campaign questions to the candidates asking if they will remove barriers during Open Air weekends, Crain said yes. He voted in favour.

Councillor McArthur: has happily and consistently championed Open Air. As council’s rep to the Accessibility Advisory Committee, I expected he would advocate to remove barriers. He spewed out the statistics from an admin report on the number of parking spaces within a six-minute walking radius. ‘If there are persisting issues with accessibility, let’s work collaboratively to address them in consultation with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee.’ But he’s on the committee. He voted in favour.

Deputy Mayor Gibb: wears a few hats: business owner, chamber of commerce member, family member, elected official but he publicly admitted he’s a huge fan. While he emailed, as Deputy Mayor, that he was ‘proud to say that I did complete the ADOA training that was offered to all members of council and I hope to put what I learned into practice not only in my “municipal life” but also in my personal life. And then he said, Open Air makes the downtown more accessible for people with in at least in wheelchairs because his mother-in-law and father-in-law both live at Richmond Terrace and he’s personally pushed a wheelchair from Richmond Terrace downtown. He voted in favour.

Mayor Prue: has given a few speeches at council meetings about being in the legislature when the AODA was introduced decades ago. He stated he has never seen any problem with access and cited his wife as Chair of the Accessibility Committee. I have discussed it with her, she has never once said that there was any accessibility problem brought to that committee or anyone on the committee. He acknowledged one complainant, but he doesn’t necessarily agree with what’s being said; so it is accessible.

Prue asked council to find it in their hearts to compromise with the other side; he broke the tie vote in favour.

Councillor Pouget: has consistently acknowledged the town’s obligation to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equally participating in the community.

Councillor Courtney: has also acknowledged the importance of accessibility, removing barriers and considering the interests of the whole community.

Councillor Allaire: considered pros and cons and seemed to want to compromise in favour of a shorter time frame.

Comparing Procedural By-law Council Input

Posted on by

As mentioned in Comparing Procedural By-law Public Input, Port Hope residents were invited to provide input; Amherstburg residents were not. Also, Port Hope staff worked ‘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.’

On October 19, and again on November 9 because no one answered, I questioned members of council, based on Port Hope’s procedural by-law review.

On November 10, Councillor Allaire answered the questions:

the burg watch: Did members of administration individually consult members of council on the Procedural By-law for input?

Councillor Allaire: No, we were not individually consulted from my knowledge.

the burg watch: Did you consider public consultation? 

Councillor Allaire: No, I did not at the time.

the burg watch: Do you feel that the revised by-law reflects your point of view on civic participation?

Councillor Allaire: No, I believe everyone should have a voice to speak. However, they still do it just seems to happen a lot more behind the scenes as in someone would have to approach council or administration to raise their concern for them, which I am willing to do for residents.

the burg watch: When do you intend to evaluate the policy and to update or amend it?

Councillor Allaire: I did not consider evaluating the policy, updating, or amending it. I will look into it.

The Town of Amherstburg’s August 2023 procedural bylaw seems more restrictive than it used to be and more so than our local comparator municipalities.

Comparing Procedural By-law Public Input

Posted on by

It would have been so easy, but no public input was sought for the Town of Amherstburg’s newly adopted procedural bylaw, which seems more restrictive than our local comparator municipalities and more than it used to be, despite one of Mayor Prue’s campaign priorities to Promote citizen participation in municipal affairs and allow full deputation rights at town meetings.

The Town of Port Hope, population approximately 17,538, conducted a Procedural By-law Review and actually wanted input from its residents; from their website:

Through this review, we hope to:

  • Improve the meeting experience for all attendees, including public, delegates and Council Members
  • Ensure decision making is efficient
  • Reflect the changing demographics within the municipality
  • Account for changes in technology

Why is it important?

The Procedural By-law is important because it: 

  1. Ensures fairness and consistency in the decision making process
  2. Fosters respectful conduct and collaborative approaches to decision making
  3. Supports an open, accountable, transparent governance process so that the public, Council and staff understand how decisions are made and what to expect at the meetings.

CALL TO ACTION

Email Mayor Pure: mprue@amherstburg.ca to remind him one of his campaign priorities was to Promote citizen participation in municipal affairs and allow full deputation rights at town meetings.

The Burg Watch Is 12 Years Old

Posted on by

In 2011, right after the 2010 election, I became Amherstburg’s first local blogger and I facilitated three municipal election campaign questions to the candidates.

The 2022 election seemed to be the most vicious; rumours around town, missing and/or confiscated signs, personal attacks on me, misinformation and disinformation.

In 2014, only three candidates created websites and all three had accessibility issues. In 2022, an increased number of candidates used social media but didn’t provide accessible information, even after I pointed it out to them and after they received accessibility information from the town. Candidate Lori Wightman’s website had accessibility issues in 2018 and 2022.

Leo’s lineup of 3, 2, 1. Outgoing Deputy Mayor Leo Meloche supported what might be referred to as a slate of candidates:

  • three were elected: Linden Crain, Don McArthur, Chris Gibb.
  • two were appointed to committees: Marc Renaud, Pat Simone.
  • one was unsuccessful in a second bid: Lori Wightman.

Common themes although I’ve written about a variety of topics:

  • Ombudsman Reports regarding in camera meetings in 2011, 2018, 2022
  • lack of decorum
  • incivility
  • inconsistencies
  • flip-flops
  • lack of accountability and transparency
  • preferential treatment
  • lack of a Routine Disclosure and Dissemination of Information Policy
  • over expenditures
  • police costings
  • privacy breaches
  • council divisions, usually 4-3
  • conflicts of interest
  • ableism
  • lack of commitment to accessibility
  • inaccessible town hall and Gordon House

Thank you to those who continue to follow and stay connected.

The Town Of Amherstburg’s Ten Year History Of FOI Requests

Posted on by

While I have been relying on FOI requests for decades with the town of Amherstburg, former Amherstburg Police and now Windsor Police, the town started a master list of FOI requests, and outcomes, since 2013.

I couldn’t find any notations of appeals but they exist.

Although the town’s chart states ‘full disclosure,’ it omits my appeal of the town’s $187.50 fee for my personal information because fees for personal information are different from fees for general information.

History of one request:

June 2022 request: any copies of records from former Clerk Paula Parker pertaining to the Accessible Customer Service Policy and the applicant’s input regarding the draft on Council’s December 14, 2020 meeting agenda; this would include, but not limited to, information to Mayor DiCarlo, members of Town Council or notes to herself.

Then-Clerk Critchley acknowledged receipt of request.

Critchley then provided a fee letter for:

Search 6 hours @ $7.50/15 minutes = $180.00
Preparation 15 minutes @ $7.50/15 minutes = $7.50
Total = $187.50

Appeal filed July 2022.

Notice of Mediation January 2023

At mediation, in January 2023, the town waived the fee and provided full disclosure.

Generous of the town to waive a fee for search and prep of my personal information that should not have been imposed.

The number of full and partial disclosures is noteworthy. Time spent on formal FOI requests and/or appeals could have been saved if the town enacted a Routine Disclosure Policy like it was supposedly doing three and a half years ago.

Related:

A Year Later, No Town Policy Re Routine Requests For Information

Request For Routine Disclosure Policy Now Two Years Old

Request For Routine Disclosure Policy Now Three Years Old

Councillor Prue Supports Routine Disclosure Policy

Amherstburg Clerk And Mayor Respond to Routine Disclosure Policy Request

Amherstburg Needs Routine Disclosure Policy

Reporter’s And Individual’s Requests For Information Compared

Accessing Information In Amherstburg

Special In-Camera Council Meeting

Posted on by

Another in-camera meeting that may be closed to the public but council will meet behind closed doors today at 4 pm for one item on the agenda:

Item A: Cyber Security Awareness Training 

Section 239 (3.1) A meeting of a council or local board or of a committee of either of them may be closed to the public if the following conditions are both satisfied:

  1. The meeting is held for the purpose of educating or training the members.
  2. At the meeting, no member discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee.  2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 103 (1).

Increased Police Dispatch Calls

Posted on by

The November 2 Windsor Police Services Board agenda includes the September 21 minutes that state: A Board member noted a steady increase in dispatch calls for service over the last three months, especially since June, and questioned whether this trend specifically relates to Amherstburg.

The discussion revealed that the rise in June’s dispatch calls is connected to ongoing efforts to maintain integrity within the police force. Each call for service consumes police officers’ time, and the data collected now serves as a more meaningful basis for making data-informed decisions. Overall, there has been an increase in calls for service.

I’m not sure what the motion was but the minutes note the above was moved, seconded and CARRIED.

The audio is a poor quality; captioning didn’t really help.

Hypocrisy And Hypercriticism

Posted on by

Considering that Councillor Crain Didn’t Correct Errors regarding his motion at the council or committee meeting, I thought Crain was hypocritical at the October 23 council meeting for objecting to Councillor Pouget’s notice of motion for being worded differently than noted in the minutes.

I also thought Crain was hypercritical of Pouget’s motion because his objection was based on his perception that the motion wording undermines the work of staff. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard such staunch cheerleading of staff but he was elected to represent the public interest, including tree canopy issues that are within the duties of council.

On October 10, 2023 Councillor Pouget believed a notice of motion was in order to direct administration to provide the parks committee and environmental committee a complete report regarding the 2017 tree study on town property.

On October 23, 2023, Pouget read the notice of motion and looked for a seconder.

Councillor Crain said something inaudible and Mayor Prue stated he had an objection that it’s not the same; he asked Crain to explain the nature of the objection.

Crain said it’s not the same notice of motion that’s included in the agenda.

Prue asked Pouget to withdraw the first motion and read the second one and see if there’s a seconder; Councillor Allaire seconded.

Crain then stated, just to seek clarification to staff; is it true that we do not have a maintenance policy for the planting of new trees?

Staff answered that the town has a tree bylaw that speaks to tree trimming and maintaining. Crain then stated so the new trees are added into our total tree inventory and then based on this bylaw that we already have are continually maintained already so it’s not that there’s no policy, it’s that new trees are now considered old once they’re planted and then maintained over time.

After staff spoke again, Crain made his position known: I won’t be supporting the motion. I find that the way this motion is worded is implying that our arborist and staff are taking down fair to good condition trees, which in my opinion, I do not believe is happening. I’m not sure where this assumption is coming from and especially with reducing Norway maples. We have this maintenance program already and just the way it’s worded I find that it undermines the work of staff so I won’t be supporting it.

Pouget stated she brought this before to council and that they go and look at these trees; no one apparently has, but when she’s talking about maintenance, they do not water these trees that need watering in the first two years.

Councillor Allaire asked about Windsor’s practice and shared a personal anecdote about growing up on a farm.

Councillor McArthur chimed in and asked if they were removing trees in fairly good condition and why would they be doing that.

More back and forth and more time wasted spent on staff participation and then Allaire stated it seems like our staff is doing a good job and following all the rules that they have implemented over the years. She appreciates the idea of providing the parks and rec committee and the environmental committee with the tree study and she thinks that’s a good portion of Pouget’s notice of motion and if she were willing to take a friendly amendment, she would support that.

As if staff hadn’t taken up enough time, Prue then invited the clerk to speak.

Pouget stated she couldn’t agree to the friendly amendment – she asked that the committees be given all the pertinent information. Pouget also wanted to go on record that she resents Councillor Linden Crain making a statement like he did against her, that he made a face, and made a statement against her that she was trying to undermine the arborist or public works and that was never her intent.

Prue stated her point was well taken and let’s not degenerate here into name calling or argument.

WAIT, WHAT? I didn’t hear any name calling! I’ve written several posts about the lack of decorum and incivility. Prue really needs to step up and act in the first instance, consistently, and not leave it up to individual councillors to defend themselves.

Pouget stated that shouldn’t have happened and Prue should have stopped it from the beginning and she asked Pure to speak on the Bellevue issue regarding what he witnessed.

Listen to the audio.

One Down, Three To Go!

Posted on by

Now that the council has completed its first year of the term, what do you think? Are you satisfied with the job they’re doing? Have they kept campaign promises? Flip-flopped? Represented everyone equally? Or are you looking forward to the next election?