This is a more concise summary than mine. A new initiative by the Town of Amherstburg – Town Hall News that makes me question its value since there will be minutes of the meetings, where this information could just be included.

Read the Council Brief September 26, 2024.

It was another dumpster fire. The usual time wasters: passing the gavel, long-winded speeches, raising a question, which was really just a comment, confusion about motions, both reconsideration and notices of motion, staff interjecting, and kudos after kudos to staff for a job well done – jobs that they are compensated for. One new twist; Councillor McArthur asked Councillor Pouget to retract a comment that he felt was an attack on the clerk.

First up, a decision had to be made; should the agenda order be changed to allow presenters to go first ahead of delegations? Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb felt that since they were paying people to be there he preferred they deal with those first and that carried.

First presentation, Valente, took about 20 minutes to talk about future plans for incorporating a new town hall into the former General Amherst high school.

Second presentation, the space needs study, lasted for about 12 minutes and appeared to tie in with Valente’s presentation since the preferred location of a new town hall would be Bill Wigle Park area.

Following the space needs study presentation, Councillor Pouget had a question about the presenters’ page 57, which stated:

AODA stands for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005. It’s a law that sets out accessibility standards for organizations in Ontario. The aim of AODA is to make Ontario more accessible and inclusive for people with disabilities. The Act requires organizations to identify, remove and prevent barriers for people with disabilities. The Government of Ontario was targeting making the province accessible by 2025. However, this has been extended to 2030.

Pouget said she checked all the documents, and couldn’t find that they extended it by five years; the last she was aware was that AODA had to be completed by 2025. She asked if they could guide her to find that document.

The presenter did not answer and Mayor Michael Prue acknowledged the clerk. He explained that he thinks the reference to the 2030 is from the Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility, and the recent findings that they have found that the province of Ontario will not meet the sort of objective of achieving compliance across the board by 2025 in the province of Ontario, and so they have stressed the need to not extend it beyond 2030 and have set that as the goal and benchmark. Certainly that’s the province of Ontario’s goal.

Pouget’s follow up question was, so has it actually been extended? Or are they just speaking on the issue? The clerk continued: So the requirements to comply with accessibility take effect when you build or significantly renovate any structure. And so those exist today and will continue to exist. You know, something like this town hall was required to meet accessible requirements when it was built, and should it be significantly renovated or rebuilt, it would be required to meet those standards. You know, as a town that provides goods and services to members of the public and employees personnel, you want to ensure that you’re putting your best foot forward. So it’s not necessarily about whether the town is in compliance or not, because it might legally be compliant, but it’s about setting yourself to achieve the goal of the province in making it equitable and fair to all by making accessibility the target in every public space.

Pouget then asked about the recommendation to demolish Toddy Jones Park and Bill Wagle Park washrooms and where would washrooms be located? Answer: within a new town hall. Pouget then asked if the presenters were aware of the Bill Wigle Park’s 1949 deed’s stipulation that if it’s not used as a park the deed would revert back to the federal government.

Gibb thanked the presenters for taking a 133 page report and putting it down to a 16 page presentation. He was curious if the town owned 36 buildings were more than average for a town this size? about average? Less than average? Answer: it’s more than average. As is his style, Councillor McArthur editorialized before he inquired about the Libro not being selected. It was noted that the Gordon House, owned by the town, was excluded from the space needs study.

Prue passed the gavel to ask a question, which was really just a comment. He didn’t want people to be horrified and frightened. You mentioned a $64 million cost, but I see that almost a huge portion of that was in 2074, 50 years from now. Okay, so I just want people who are watching there on television, you know, to remember that the only upfront cost that you’re actually talking about in the next five or so years would be the town hall and even the Libro is 10 years from now.

Prue then apologized that it had taken a long time but now they would get to the delegates. (Another argument in favour of revisiting the restrictive procedural by-law would be to initiate time limits for presentations, which aren’t defined in the by-law. While they’re looking at that, they should also implement time limits for their own speeches like other municipalities do.)

Following John Menna’s delegation, there was confusion about whether a motion could be reconsidered. Prue asked if anybody had any comment on that and said, The clerk’s advice, I generally find his advice, although not always welcome, is always right. Pouget said not always and then Prue acknowledged Pouget, who said she had questions for administration.
 
McArthur should get a cheerleading for staff award; he actually asked Pouget to retract her comment, that it was an attack on their clerk. (Last year Mcarthur mentioned they were acting like delegates were urinating on the rug.  Listen to the audio. Weren’t members of council just asking the delegates questions? No one admonished him for that comment.)
 
Pouget said it was not an attack on the clerk and Prue said he didn’t hear it. Pouget asked if she could proceed asking administration questions and Prue said they couldn’t reconsider and then Prue referenced the rules. Pouget reminded Prue that he said the clerk is always right and she said not always; none of us are always right so she didn’t know what the problem was.

Prue advised McArthur that he wouldn’t allow it because he didn’t know that that is serious enough to be offensive. He said he admires the clerk’s expertise, and he’s not ever sent him wrong in the six years he’s been here and he wasn’t the clerk the whole time, but he was the deputy clerk, and he’s never sent him wrong, and he has to unless there’s information the contrary take his advice. And is he always right? No, you’re right. He’s a human being. We are all wrong once in a while, but I don’t know whether he is on this issue. Okay, so I’m not going to ask you to retract that, but your point of order was well taken Councillor McArthur.

Prue’s wife had submitted a delegation request and although she was present, she did not speak after all. Two other Belle Vue Conservancy members spoke instead. Marc Pillon also delegated about Belle Vue.

Financials, more reports, more kudos to staff, more speeches, (is it campaign time already?), more confusion about a motion, more excuses about a lack of accessibility at the Gordon House: due to the age of the building and how it was constructed, to keep the historical integrity, you would not be able to make the building totally accessible without doing major modifications, which would then go against the historical preservation of the building. So we could do things to try to modify access ways, but again, that would be modifying the building, and again, you would have to apply, probably, to the government, for permission to do so.

A no from Gibb and Crain to allow someone in the gallery to speak. Gibb maintains it’s an equity issue and repeated what he said before: I do not think it is equitable to allow people to just raise their hand and speak when others have registered as delegations and people are watching online who may have physical limitations that don’t allow them to be here in person. I’m sorry, but I just think it’s an equity issue that I cannot support.

That should’ve been the end of it but Crain chimed in with if there’s any residents that are looking to speak with us on matters of the agenda, please register in advance or approach us directly offline. (good luck with that; he so rarely answers my emails. Besides, you can’t just delegate on agenda matters; they voted on a restrictive procedural by-law that requires delegates to only speak to admin reports or by-laws listed on the agendas). Then Prue said he wasn’t going to allow a debate. (because rules are rules).

Two notices of motion were dealt with.

I could probably create a template for meetings since so many of them are so similar and predictable.

Former CAO Peter Simmons was a plaintiff in a statement of claim, naming the Corporation of the Town of Amherstburg as the Defendant on July 5, 2022.

According to the statement of claim, Mr. Simmons commenced his employment with the town on or about February 22, 2022 as CAO. On June 9, 2022, without reasonable notice or pay in lieu thereof, the town terminated Mr. Simmons’ employment, allegedly with cause due to alleged wilful misconduct, disobedience and wilful neglect of duty. Mr. Simmons pleads that the town had no cause to terminate his employment and, consequently, the town is in breach of the express and/or implied terms of his contract of employment.

A Notice of Discontinuance, and consent to same by both parties’ lawyers, was filed on July 3, 2024.

In his August 7 letter, Frank Cerasa highlighted this council’s passing of a more restrictive procedural by-law.

For months I requested council update its procedural by-law; ‘the by-law that most directly affects democracy should reflect current accessibility and human rights legislation and it is within your authority as representatives of the public you serve to address the issue and implement a best practice. There should be no administrative burdens or barriers to democracy.’ 

In July 2023, to assist council, I shared the Director of the Centre for Free Expression’s response: he 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 he never heard of a requirement for a copy of the notes or speech text to be submitted with the application to appear.

In August, without direction from council, Administration presented its report to council, titled, Procedural By-law Renewal for Greater Civic Participation and Engagement and Revised Procedural By-law. While the revised by-law ended the bad practice of requiring notes/speeches in advance, it became more restrictive than its previous version and more so than neighbouring municipalities.

Although it was meant, in part, to provide council the tools to have efficient and effective meetings and provide all members of the public the same equity in terms of participation and engagement, I don’t think either was achieved.

There are no limits on the number of questions members of council can raise, no limits on the number of times a member can speak and there are no time limits for either item. When administration is invited to participate, there are no time limits on their input either, all of which may result in inefficient meetings.

As for equity, treating all members of the public the same may result in inequities and disregard for individual accommodations which should have been learned during mandatory AODA and human rights training.

Since neither the public nor council members provided any input, the new procedural by-law reflects administrations’ vision. But, since council unanimously approved it, and Councillor Pouget’s November 2023 reconsideration motion failed, this council will be remembered for shamefully curtailing civic participation. 

Commentary by Linda Saxon

An August 12 Decision by the Ontario Land Tribunal hotel at 256 Dalhousie has ordered that the Salmoni residents’ appeal is dismissed.

[107] In order to address the possibility of noise and disturbance from a rooftop
restaurant/bar the Tribunal includes, that the approval of the draft Zoning By-law
Amendment shall accommodate the addition of text which will require that the rooftop of
the building be an enclosed space as depicted in the architectural drawings submitted in
evidence and that the use shall not be a restaurant/bar within that space. Further, that
any commercial/restaurant space use on the ground level shall be an enclosed space.

[108] On the weight of the evidence heard by the Tribunal, its assessment of same as
detailed in the reasons above and the submissions of counsel, and having weighed
submissions of residents, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA which will allow the
relief sought by the Applicant is consistent with the PPS as well as the County OP and
the Town OP, and applicable guidelines, and thus represents good planning in the public interest.