Why Go In-Camera?

Posted on by

Amherstburg is highlighted twice as case examples in the same Ontario Ombudsman Open Meetings Guide for Municipalities that I shared yesterday:

Matters that can be discussed in closed session under another Act – s. 239(2)(g)

Town of Amherstburg (June 2018): While staff suggested this exception applied because a request for proposals (RFP) could have been discussed in private under the Police Services Act, there was no evidence that council considered the application of this exception, or that the RFP had been discussed in closed session by the town’s police services board.

Security of municipal property – s. 239(2)(a)

Town of Amherstburg (June 2018): Discussion about seeking bids for policing services did not fit within the exception, as it did not deal with potential threats, loss, or damage to municipal property.

Must all municipal meetings be open to the public?

Yes, with some limited exceptions.

Twelve of the exceptions are discretionary, meaning it is not mandatory to close meetings to deal with these subjects. When in doubt, open the meeting. (original emphasis).

Meetings may be closed if the discussion is about:

  1. The security of the property of the municipality [s. 239(2)(a)]
  2. Personal matters about an identifable individual, including municipal employees [s. 239(2)(b)]
  3. A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality [s. 239(2)(c)]
  4. Labour relations or employee negotiations [s. 239(2)(d)]
  5. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality [s. 239(2)(e)]
  6. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose [s. 239(2)(f)]
  7. A matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another piece of legislation [s. 239(2)(g)]
  8. Information supplied in confidence to the municipality by another level of government [s. 239(2)(h)]
  9. Third-party information supplied in confidence to the municipality, which, if disclosed, could significantly prejudice a competitive position or interfere with negotiations (e.g., a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, fnancial or labour relations information) [s. 239(2)(i)]
  10. Information (e.g., a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, or financial information) that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value [s. 239(2)(j)]
  11. A position, plan, procedure, criteria, or instruction to be applied to negotiations [s. 239(2)(k)]
  12. Educating or training members of the council, a local board or committee [s. 239(3.1)]

    Mandatory exceptions:
    Meetings must be closed if they are about:

  13. The consideration of a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if the council, board, commission or body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that Act [s. 239(3)(a)]
  14. An ongoing investigation respecting the municipality by the Ontario Ombudsman, an appointed municipal ombudsman, or an appointed closed meeting investigator [s. 239(3)(b)]

Lack Of Audio = Lack Of Transparency

Posted on by

I asked CAO Critchley for an explanation for the August 10 Amherstburg Heritage Committee meeting audio starting at 45:40. Just to be sure it wasn’t my computer, other residents verified the same.

This morning Critchley answered, “A technical issue prevented the capture of audio for the first portion of this meeting but was able to be resolved later in the meeting.

The Ontario Ombudsman Open Meetings Guide for Municipalities states:

What are the objectives of the open meeting rules?

The open meeting requirements set out in section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 permit the public to observe municipal government in progress. The Supreme Court of Canada answered this question in its decision in the 2007 case, London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc. The judges noted “the public’s demand for more accountable municipal government” and stated that open meetings are essential to “robust democratic legitimacy” of local administrations. They also observed that s. 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 “was intended to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government by ensuring the open and transparent exercise of municipal power.” (original emphasis).

Also from the Guide:

“The democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions does not spring solely from periodic elections, but also from a decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law.”

– Hon. Madam Justice Louise Charron, Supreme Court of Canada

Santa Is Not Ableist!

Posted on by

Although not everyone could complete a timed 5k including Santa at 1,752 years old.

Amherstburg town council approved the Super Santa Walk/Run for November 18 at its June 26 meeting; the video of that discussion seems to be unavailable – one can view the item before and after it.

In a July 25 email to accessibility at ERCA, I asked if Santa was ableist and if the Santa Run/Walk excludes persons with disabilities. I shared my thought that holding a timed race/walk seems contrary to ERCA’s policy, ‘to provide for service delivery in a way that preserves the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities.’

I also asked if no one thought to name the event Walk/Run/Roll without it being timed to see how fast participants can walk/run.

I received an auto response from Danielle Stuebing and nothing further.

On September 28 ERCA announced the event on its website and Danielle Stuebing was quoted, “While the event has always been inclusive, based on feedback received, this year ‘Wheel’ has been added to the title to ensure it is abundantly clear that all are welcome,” Breault Stuebing adds. “For this event, ‘wheel’ refers to wheelchairs, scooters used for mobility assistance, walkers and strollers.”

So how hard is it to add one word?

ERCA’s website advertises it as walk/run/wheel and then omits the wheel in the description.

Visit Amherstburg also omits the word wheel and advertises it as Super Santa Walk/Run.

Councillor Allaire’s website includes an announcement that omits the wheel.

Race Roster website announces the walk/run/wheel and also omits the wheel in the description; the logo, also used on Allaire’s site, omits the wheel.

People With Disabilities Are Not ‘Special’

Posted on by

During the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting, Frank DiPasquale made comments about Brittany Bolger that, to me, were offensive.

The heritage committee was discussing the street naming policy when the town’s heritage planner mentioned other municipalities implement an asset naming policy and Councillor Crain was working on a motion wording.

Listen to the audio.

DiPasquale mentioned generally they use those who served in our military and those who gave up their lives and he agrees with that. He mentioned when Mr. Bolger came and wanted to name his subdivision after his daughter, Brittany, and I believe Council followed through with that, the concern was that he had she is an individual with special needs and disabilities, she soldiers on every day with a positive attitude. He didn’t think there’s not anyone in uniform alive or not that would not tip their hat and be honoured to have their street named after this young lady. He suggested there’ll be other examples of that coming in the future where there’s people that may have special needs or special challenges and he thought they should keep that in mind too.

DiPasquale was a 2022 municipal candidate that, like all other candidates, should have received accessibility materials from the town.

Once again, I emailed council members that this clearly indicates the need for more training, although he should have received it by now. I also shared:

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT DISABILITIES:

Pity

People feel sorry for the person with a disability, which tends to lead to patronizing attitudes. Persons with disabilities generally don’t want pity and charity, just equal opportunity to make their own way and live independently.

Hero Worship

People consider someone with a disability who lives independently or pursues studies to be brave or “special” for overcoming a disability. Most persons with disabilities do not want accolades for performing day-to-day tasks.

Worth repeating: the late disability activist Stella Young says it all so well; one of my favourite videos.

Councillor Crain Didn’t Correct Errors

Posted on by

On October 3, I emailed council members: the august 10 heritage committee meeting minutes are listed on the october 12 heritage committee meeting agenda for approval, although council approved the august 10 heritage committee minutes at the september 25 council meeting. 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.

Wrong.

At the October 10 council meeting, Councillor Pouget was the only one to note the motion wasn’t marked as being carried.

The clerk said yes, there was a typo. That was more than a typo – it was an omission. Meeting chairs ask if there are any errors or omissions, not if there are any typos.

Even though Pouget noted the error, the same erroneous August 10 Heritage Committee minutes were on the October 12 Heritage Committee agenda.

While Councillor Crain was present at the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting, he didn’t mention the error of the missing ‘motion carried’ or his misquoted motion.

These are typos: the October 12 Heritage Committee agenda states:

8. CORRESPONDENCE

  • That the following correspondence BE RECEIVED:
  • That the following correspondence BE RECEIVED:

and

8.2 River Town Tiles Article – River Canard Bridge Plaque

Where Are Third Quarter Reports?

Posted on by

Nancy Atkinson, on behalf of the Amherstburg Residents’ Forum was a delegate to council on June 12 to present three residents’ concerns.

As a result, council carried resolutions:

June 12, 2023 Council Resolutions:

Resolution #20230612-007
Moved By Councillor Pouget
Seconded By Councillor Allaire
That Council DIRECT Administration to bring a full report regarding no parking at the clock at Kings Navy Yard Park. The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried.

Report coming to Council in Q3 2023.

Resolution #20230612-008
Moved By Councillor Pouget
Seconded By Councillor McArthur
That Council DIRECT Administration to bring back a report regarding a Routine Disclosure Policy.
The Mayor put the Motion.Motion Carried.

Report coming to Council in Q3 2023.

Councillor Pouget Questions Cheque Registry

Posted on by

Just like the September 11 council meeting agenda, the October 10 Regular Council Meeting agenda listed UNFINISHED BUSINESS but linked to the cheque registry.

At the October 10 council meeting, Councillor Diane Pouget asked questions about the Cheque Registry that was mistakenly labelled Unfinished Business so the majority of the public would not be aware of this document.

Mayor Prue noted the error that the UNFINISHED BUSINESS was actually the cheque registry list and asked if anyone had any questions on the cheque registry list.

Councillor Pouget asked about listings on page 9 pertaining to Anne Marie Frauts Professional Corporation Legal Fees for:

  • 40,000.00
  • 3495.23
  • 5425.77
  • 232,000.00
  • 4340.62                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 For a grand total of $285,261.62 just for the month of August

I believe it was the treasurer that answered, since staff often don’t identify themselves, this is legal fees and a professional corporation for the legal fees and has been discussed in camera with council.

Mayor Prue said he didn’t hear that and asked it has to be or it has been? I didn’t hear who answered but Prue then said twice, it was, it was ok.

Councillor Pouget said she didn’t recall hearing of that legal corporation.

The total does not include the legal fees for Mousseau DeLuca, so it appears the total for legal fees is $323,894.89.

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.

Is it any wonder the public doesn’t question any items under Cheque Registry, when it is labelled Unfinished Business?

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.