Delegations On October 10 Council Meeting REVISED Agenda

Posted on by

Interesting. Shirley Curson-Prue, Mayor Prue’s wife, will delegate on behalf of the Belle Vue Conservancy regarding the Belle Vue Expression of Interest. Curson-Prue is vice-chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee that met in-camera on September 21 to review Expressions of Interest.

Mike Lavigne will also delegate on Item 14.3 Belle Vue Expression of Interest.

There are no speaking notes attached to Curson-Prue’s delegate request form or Mike Lavigne’s request form.

A new inconsistency? Speaking notes were insisted upon as part of delegates’ requests and were routinely attached to the agenda and attaching speaking notes was mandatory for the online request form to be accepted.

CAO Critchley did highlight the following in an email:

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.

Then there will be a Presentation – a concepl drawing is attached without any related information.

The admin’s recommendations that:

  1. The Loop Family Amico Belle Vue Expression of Interest proposal BE APPROVED to proceed to next steps in the evaluation process and;
  2. Administration BE DIRECTED to request the Belle Vue Conservancy pause any further efforts until such time as Council has made a final decision on the proposal and;
  3. Administration BE DIRECTED to facilitate discussions between the Belle Vue Conservancy (BVC) and proponent to ensure there is agreement and direction on the recognition of donors, handling of unspent donations and various antiques identified for potential use at Belle Vue Manor; and, 
  4. The execution of the confidentiality agreement BE APPROVED for the Expression of Interest to proceed to the next steps of the process.

It seems excessive that the town posts an agenda, revised agenda, and an addendum that is called a supplementary agenda, in both html and pdf when one universal document would suffice. Besides, the revised agenda duplicates addendum items.

Councillor Crain – Street Naming Policy Review

Posted on by

AUGUST 10 HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETING: Crain is on the heritage committee and was present for the agenda that included three documents for item 8.2 Brittany’s Gate – Street Naming Request:

  1. Brittany’s Gate – Street Naming Request
  2. Appendix A – Letter from Norbert Bolger
  3. Appendix B – Street Naming Policy

Crain took part in the August 10 committee discussion about the street naming policy and also moved a recommendation to council that the heritage committee reviews the updated street name and street naming policy and inventory list once completed by administration before the final amendments are adopted at a regular council meeting.

Heritage committee chair Simon Chamely thought it would be brought back for the September 21 meeting, although that meeting was in-camera to deal with expressions of interest.

When Shirley Curson-Prue asked if it would be an October issue, clerk answered that it would depend on how far along the policy is in its review; most likely it would be more like October than the next meeting.

Chamely asked if they were able to do that; is that not writing policy?

Crain answered and referenced the recommendation; it’s not that they write the policy its that they review and if there are certain aspects of the policy that they don’t believe should be there, then they can provide a recommendation to council saying, hey, maybe we should be taking out this line because it creates this restriction. So not that they’re writing anything at all; that’s what the clerk’s office and Adam will be working on. It’s more of just review, similar to any policy that’s reviewed by council. You’re providing an outside perspective on where amendments could be made.

The motion was read aloud again: recommendation to council that the heritage committee reviews the updated street name and street naming policy and inventory list once completed by administration, before the final amendments are adopted at a regular council meeting.

August 10 minutes state the motion: That the Heritage Committee REVIEW the updated Street Naming Policy and inventory before final adoption by Council which, as mentioned in this post, More Erroneous Minutes, did not indicate that the motion carried.

SEPTEMBER 25 COUNCIL MEETING: Crain was present where the agenda included three documents for item 13.2: Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street:

  1. Brittany Gate – Street Naming
  2. Appendix A – Street Naming Policy
  3. Appendix B – Street Name Inventory (unused names)

During the September 25 discussion of Brittany’s Gate, Crain asked staff if the current street naming policy that they have in place, he couldn’t recall, looking for clarification, is that policy out of date and currently being reviewed.

By this time, Crain would have heard the word ‘review‘ six times, including using it in his August 10 motion and he would have read it once in the August 10 minutes on the September 25 council agenda.

The clerk answered: there is a review ongoing for the policy. It’s not currently out of conformance with existing policies. but there has been some discussion around ways to streamline some of the processes involved.

Deputy CAO Osbourne jumped in to add that there will be a report coming forward to council she believed October 10 or the second meeting in October.

And the item is on the October 10 agenda after all. Crain’s August 10 motion for the heritage committee review the updated policy and list before adoption by council seems redundant since the committee meets October 12 to once again discuss the same issue.

The October 10 council meeting agenda includes:
Agenda item 14.2  Municipal Street Naming Policy Update 2023

  1. Street Naming Policy Update 2023.pdf
  2. Appendix A – Municipal Street Naming Policy
  3. Appendix B – Historical Street Name Inventory List
  4. Appendix C – Alternate Street Name Request Application

The October 12 Heritage Committee meeting agenda also includes:
Agenda item 7.2  Municipal Street Naming Policy Update

  1. Municipal Street Naming Policy Update Report 2023
  2. Appendix A – Municipal Street Naming Policy DRAFT
  3. Appendix B – Historical Street Name Inventory List
  4. Appendix C – Alternate Street Name Request Application

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. 

Attitude Check – Hero Worshipping

Posted on by

Excessively praising a person with a disability can be insulting because it implies that you have low expectations of them. For example, calling someone a “hero” or an “inspiration,” though it may seem complimentary, can sound condescending to a person who is simply trying to live their life just like anybody else. 

HIE HELP CENTRE

As a person with disabilities, I regularly encounter physical barriers that provincial legislation mandates to be identified, prevented and removed. But attitudinal barriers offend me the most and there is a list; for example, people make generalized assumptions, behave awkwardly out of ignorance, or adopt an outdated model of disability like pity/charity which leads to patronizing.

During the September 25 council meeting, Councillor Crain spoke briefly and thought it was only right that they help the Bolger family recognize their daughter, Brittany, whereas Councillor McArthur, council’s representative on the accessibility advisory committee, spoke longer and repeated his message throughout that Bolger made a clear, convincing and compelling case.

McArthur weighed in that he was supportive of the motion, acknowledged the town has a policy and stated the developer wasn’t asking for a favour or trying to pull a fast one. He stated Mr. Bolger made a clear, convincing and compelling case to name this after his daughter, who has a remarkable story, and has overcome adversity and serves as a testament to that we are all able that we all have special abilities and that no matter what hand we’re dealt, we can make compelling contributions to our community and she can serve as a role model for youth going into the future. McArthur said he wasn’t going to read Bolger’s letter aloud but he has made a clear and compelling case that the street name will serve a greater good and allow his daughter Brittany to be remembered forever and to serve as a role model for Amherstburg youth and he was happy to support that.

Since I embrace any opportunity to challenge attitudes, I emailed members of council.

the burg watch: As a person with disabilities, and an activist, I encourage you to learn beyond what appears to be very basic training materials you received when elected regarding accessibility and inclusion. 

As you may recall, I pointed out examples of ableism during the election campaign and have since mentioned examples of inappropriate language. As a result of the Brittany’s Gate discussion, I am enclosing a portion of a UN document: 

‘Inclusive language is a key tool in combating ableism and its entrenched manifestations. Ableism is a misguided and biased understanding of disability that leads to the assumption that the lives of persons with disabilities are not worth living. Ableism can take many forms, including harmful language. 

AVOID LABELS AND STEREOTYPES 

Disability is a part of life and of human diversity, not something to be dramatized or sensationalized. Persons with disabilities should therefore not be portrayed as inspirational or “superhuman”. This language implies that it is unusual for persons with disabilities to be successful and productive and to live happy and fulfilling lives. Descriptions of persons with disabilities as “courageous” or “brave” or as having “overcome” their disability are patronizing and should be avoided. Persons with disabilities are the same as everyone else in terms of talents and abilities.’

Councillor Pouget, as usual, was the only one to respond and thanked me for sharing.

The late disability activist Stella Young says it all so well.

Hotel Dispute To Be Continued

Posted on by

This morning’s Case Management Conference regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment application council approved in May for the boutique hotel at 256 Dalhousie resulted in the scheduling of a second video Case Management Conference to be held on November 16 at 10:00 am. If a condensed issues list has been agreed to, a hearing date will be scheduled instead and a public notice will be issued.

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.

More Erroneous Minutes

Posted on by

I felt compelled to email members of council since I know how often rules of procedure are relied on.

The August 10 committee minutes that council approved on September 25 are on the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting agenda for approval.

Councillor Crain mentioned he was on the Heritage Committee and he did move a motion at the August 10 committee meeting, but the minutes do not reflect that his motion carried. i believe Councillor Pouget is correct in stating that public minutes should be corrected at public meetings, as per rules of order, so i trust this will be given consistent attention.

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