Who Are ‘You People’?

Posted on by

Someone started a rant to me with ‘you people just want to complain’ and included ‘wheelers’ in response to a Facebook conversation about inclusivity of an event.

‘You people,’ like ‘those people’ implies, to me, that people with disabilities are a separate segment of society. And, historically, people with disabilities have been disadvantaged, not by disabilities, but by a society where ableism prevailed and the identification, prevention and removal of barriers hasn’t been a priority.

As a person with disabilities, the barrier that I encounter the most is the attitudinal barrier; it’s usually based on stereotypical beliefs that people using wheelchairs make up the majority of the disability community or that people are demanding extra.

Do you know anyone that has or has had cancer? diabetes? arthritis? MS? lung disease? heart disease? dyslexia? low vision? hearing loss? ADHD? depression? anxiety? Then you know someone that has a disability.

While there are legislative definitions of ‘disability,’ there are also various models of disability that describe attitudes toward people with disabilities and I can usually quickly spot and categorize where people fit in.

There is a longer list, but briefly, the medical model where members of the medical community need to ‘fix’ an individual. The charity model; I see photo ops of politicians at charity events where people with disabilities are depicted as victims of tragedy and are pitied. What I sometimes hear are political comments related to costs and how things take time. The social model, and more recently the human rights model, emphasizes that it’s the environmental and attitudinal barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equally participating in communities, even though everyone has the right to equality.

There is also preferable and inclusive language but people still use the outdated ‘handicap’ and other euphemisms.

Ignorance is no excuse in 2024. It’s also unacceptable to personally attack people with disabilities on social media for ‘complaining’ about a lack of access or pointing out attitudinal barriers.

Amherstburg Website AODA Compliance Revisited

Posted on by

SHAMEFUL. This feels like a lack of commitment to accessible goods and services, again.

Brief History

An accessible town website was relegated to year 3 of the town’s first accessibility plan, then listed as a priority for 2005, then 2006 and a 2007 report informed council that the website was compliant with W3C accessibility standards. But it wasn’t, according to an external expert. In 2009, a newly designed website was unveiled and problems continued. In 2011, I commented regarding difficulty navigating the website. In 2014, Amherstburg was invited to hire esolutions when the County redesigned its site to meet accessibility standards; Leamington and Essex had already hired the web design company but Amherstburg declined. According to the town’s site, esolutions redesigned Amherstburg’s site in 2016, although it still had issues.

Deadline Extension Requested

Thousands of dollars and redesigns later, in a September 2020 Report to Council, Administration recommended, and council agreed, to request the Province of Ontario to extend the AODA website compliance January 1, 2021 deadline to at least January 1, 2022 due to COVID-19.

The report claimed COVID was the reason, then administration explained at the council meeting that it was due to third parties. Did no one on council realize the town is also responsible for third party vendors?

Compared to the 2005 AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act), COVID-19 only existed for a short time but, suddenly, in September 2020, the town needed more time? 15 months more time?

Present Request

Following the January 1, 2022 deadline extension the town requested, a Report to Council for the January 15 Special Council meeting states: ‘The Ministry has approved of this approach and the Town and Ministry have agreed all associated work shall be completed prior to the end of 2024. As such the Town’s work plan expires on December 31, 2024; there are risks that users may encounter barriers in accessing information on Town websites; and the cost to perform a website redesign and refresh not to exceed $70,000, excluding HST.’

My 2020 question stands, why are we not compliant by now?

Related posts:

Town of Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Recommendation.

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Resolution

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Vote

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Follow Up Questions to Council

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Circulation of Resolution

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Essex County Council Does Not Endorse It

Amherstburg requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Third Party Vendors

Amherstburg Mayor’s Levee – Foster Community Spirit?

Posted on by

‘The levee (from the French word lever, meaning “getting up” or “rising”) was traditionally a daily moment of intimacy and accessibility to a monarch or leader, as he got up in the morning.’ Wikipedia

Amherstburg’s Facebook page announced ‘A Mayor’s Levee is a festive event hosted by the Mayor to greet citizens and foster community spirit. It often includes refreshments, entertainment, and a chance to meet local leaders.’

Foster community spirit? Residents are welcome to informally discuss whatever issues they may choose for 3 hours.

Mayor Prue’s 2022 campaign website included, ‘Municipal government affects us all. I am committed to ensuring all citizens to have a say on the issues affecting their lives in Amherstburg. To be fully informed. To participate in review processes. To provide and share their opinions. I believe in local democracy.”

Prue’s campaign brochure’s slogan was: WHEN PEOPLE TALK…Michael Prue LISTENS.

But the Procedural By-law that used to, in part, reflect the intent of local democracy drastically changed in August of 2023 when it was revised and passed unanimously. Residents are no longer allowed to speak to an item unless it’s on council’s agenda or unless council unanimously votes to hear a resident.

Residents must now hope with bated breath that a member of council will raise an issue on their behalf so it may appear on a future agenda and then residents are allowed to speak on it.

But until next council meeting, feel free to take advantage of the invitation to meet local leaders who represent you and ‘foster community spirit’ from 5 pm to 8 pm.

Public Consultation On Parking In Front Of Navy Yard Park Was To Be Held

Posted on by

Nancy Atkinson, on behalf of the Amherstburg Residents Forum, raised three concerns at the June 12 council meeting, one of which was the new no parking sign.

After some discussion, Councillor Pouget made a motion to direct administration to bring back a full report regarding the no parking area in front of the clock at Kings Navy Yard Park.

Mayor Prue asked if there was a seconder and then asked if there was any discussion but then he called on the clerk via zoom.

The clerk wanted to mention that there would need to be some review from an accessibility and risk management side but this motion would allow us to do that. 

Prue stated so the motion helps and all the people will be consulted.

Deputy Mayor Gibb wanted to answer Atkinson.

Listen to the audio.

Administration Report to council for December 11, 2023 council meeting.

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.

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.