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and there is a list; for example, people make generalized assumptions, behave awkwardly out of ignorance, or adopt an outdated model of disability like pity/charity which leads to patronizing.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

Inconsistencies: Survey Participants Names Displayed/Not Displayed

Posted on by

I reviewed 10 surveys on talk the burg and only 1 displayed names, along with mine – a survey I completed while logged in as ‘the burg watch.’

I questioned CAO Critchley why the survey with names was posted to the June 22 Accessibility Advisory Committee Agenda titled, Survey Responses Report – Public Consultation 2022, although it states 22 September 2017 – 20 September 2022.

Critchley: This information was freely submitted in a public forum as part of a public discourse. Should you have further concerns, have included the links to the applicable information on the website and she included links to the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan Public Engagement Site, Public Survey from Last Year and Privacy Policy.

After completing the town’s Open Air survey, I emailed all members of council with my critique and my comment, I hope to see all the names and all responses of all survey participants publicly posted as CAO Critchley advised this information was freely submitted in a public forum as part of a public discourse.

Why The Fuss About Erroneous Minutes?

Posted on by

There was no fuss when then-Councillor Prue mentioned erroneous minutes regarding his wife during a 2022 regular council meeting so why all the fuss when Councillor Pouget rightfully notes errors? After all, minutes are legal records and should be accurate. The bigger question is why did no other council member note the errors?

Councillor McArthur stated it was adequate time to address this before this evening. without calling staff to task in public so he was going to oppose a motion to defer.

McArthur was present at the 2022 meeting when Prue noted errors; he also received my email noting the 2022 accessibility committee minutes error pertaining to a question by Shirley Prue. The result of my email? The minutes were not corrected prior to the council meeting and no one brought up the error during the council meeting.

Not only is it standard procedure for the chair to ask if there are any errors or omissions since only the governing body can make corrections and approve minutes, but the Municipal Act states one of council’s roles is ‘to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality.’

Deputy Mayor Gibb chimed in with his judgment and concurred with McArthur. Gibb stated It could have been corrected with an email and that it could have been handled differently in his opinion. The Ontario Ombudsman investigated Amherstburg council back in 2016 and recommended members of council for the Town of Amherstburg should avoid exercising the power or authority of council or laying the groundwork to do so through email communications.

It would be more professional and efficient if members of council would just support/not support duly moved motions without speeches or judgments.

As mentioned in this post, Minutes Need To Be Corrected, the September 11 minutes, attached to the September 25 agenda contained errors: CAO Critchley was marked as present when she was absent, the wording of some of Councillor Pouget’s motions was incorrect. Words were omitted or substituted despite Pouget providing hard copies of her motions.

Related: Should Minutes Be Consistently Corrected?

Hotel Dispute Hearing Public Notice

Posted on by

The public notice sets out all necessary details to view the October 6, 10:00 am hearing regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment application council approved in May for the boutique hotel at 256 Dalhousie.

From the OLT: Please note that as per Rule 22.5 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedures, recordings of hearing events – photograph, motion picture, audio, video, or otherwise – is not permitted unless the presiding Tribunal Member authorizes the recording. However, approval would be subject to conditions that no distribution or public re-playing of the recording occurs, and it does not constitute an official transcript of the hearing or a record for use in any subsequent proceeding. Additionally, as per section 29 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, persons found improperly recording hearing events before the OLT and/or distributing those recordings may be liable to a fine of up to $25,000.