As mentioned in a post last year, effective January 1, the Ombudsman will begin taking complaints about Ontario’s 444 municipalities and 21 publicly-funded universities.
Brochures specific to the Municipal, University and School Board sectors can be downloaded from Ombudsman’s website, including an accessible pdf.
Ontario will eliminate provincially funded workshops where people with intellectual disabilities do menial tasks for pennies a day, says a top official with Ontario’s Ministry of Community and Social Services. The decision is the strongest statement yet from the ministry following a Toronto Star series exposing the problem. Initially, the government announced there would be no… Continue reading
Ron Giofu, River Town Times, reported that “Graham Hobbs has been barred from all town facilities, effective last Tuesday, as he was served with a trespassing notice from the municipality.”
After speculation, debate and what might be confusing to some, today is the public information meeting on the proposed 2016 budget for Amherstburg from 2 to 4 at the Libro Centre.
Mary Caton, The Windsor Star reported the change in time.
Commentary by Linda Saxon
The purpose of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1991, is:
a) To provide a right of access to information under the control of government organizations in accordance with the following principles:
information should be available to the public;
exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific;
decisions on the disclosure of government information may be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
b) To protect personal information held by government organizations and to provide individuals with a right of access to their own personal information.
Given the number of appeals and breaches of information I have endured, I would like to hear from other residents.
How open is government in Amherstburg? How are informal requests for information handled? What about Freedom of Information requests – are they routinely denied?
Commentary by Linda Saxon
In an October 31 post, Pettiness Prevails At Amherstburg Town Hall, I mentioned that Tammy Fowkes, Amherstburg Deputy Clerk, returned my FOI request, stating, “Unfortunately we cannot process your request until we have received the appropriate documentation. I have included the official form in your return package. I have also enclosed your $5.00 cheque to be returned with the official form.”
I also quoted sections from the MFIPPA (Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56) that set out what a requester shall do when making a request.
The only stipulation is that a request be made in writing; nowhere does it specify that the town’s request form is the only ‘appropriate’ document.
Accordingly, I appealed the decision on the grounds of ‘deemed refusal’ and the town is now required to issue a decision in response to my request.
Is council aware of how FOI requests are handled? Is stifling requests for information a goal this council wanted to achieve? Are FOI requests even mandatory?
The town has posted an Info Sheet – Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) on its website which includes, “Does a requester always have to submit a written FOI request to obtain information? No. Municipalities decide on their procedures locally. In practice, in many cases, municipalities choose to provide information in the absence of a formal FOI request.”
Since the town’s website is difficult to navigate, as I’ve pointed out since 2002, I could not locate the by-law designating anyone as the town’s Freedom of Information Coordinator; CAO Miceli emailed it to me when he finally responded to questions I submitted six weeks ago.
Maybe this council needs to review the Town’s By-law 2011-84 wherein council delegates its powers and authorities to the Town Clerk to act as head of the municipality for the purposes of administering the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and for decisions made there under.
The October 30 Interim Order is the result of a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Town of Amherstburg in May 2014 and subsequent appeal, mediation, and adjudication.
Summary:
The appellant sought access to all correspondence between the town and its insurer relating to the town’s transition to the insurer and benefits for employees over the age of 60. The town located a number of responsive records and issued a decision disclosing them in part. The appellant appealed the town’s decision on the basis that the town did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive records. The town located additional records during the course of the appeal and disclosed them to the appellant, who maintained that more responsive records ought to exist. The adjudicator finds that the town did not conduct a reasonable search and orders it to conduct another search for responsive records that predate March 2012.
Parts of the town’s reply representations are found at paragraphs 17 and 18 below:
[17] The town continues that the appellant, as a member of the Amherstburg Police Association, was entitled to receive information from the Association. It also notes that the appellant has not provided any representations from the Association that additional records exist; he just asserts without any proof that the Association and the Chief of Police have stated that other records exist.
[18] The town asserts that its Manager of Human Resources is an experienced employee who expended reasonable efforts in conducting her searches. It states that it is entitled to reply to the request made; it need not conduct searches for records not contemplated by the request. The town concludes by stating that the appellant’s assertion about the grievance statement in the records is unfounded and is indicative of his ulterior motive for making his request.
Commentary by Linda Saxon
Four years ago today, the burg watch started a permanent record of the performance of council members and staff; it was intended to be a reference for voters heading to the polls just in case some issues were not mentioned along with all the campaign promises.
In November 2011, some of the burg watch’s posts were about town council’s contravention of the Municipal Act following the Ombudsman Review Of Closed Meeting, council’s flip flops and a lack of commitment to accessibility, for example, the town’s website; I have raised awareness about it since September 2002 when a mandatory municipal annual accessibility plan had to be created.
In 2014, the burg watch provided an opportunity for residents to ask the candidates questions during the campaign period. Despite being threatened with legal action by a candidate, I continued and feel it was a worthwhile endeavour.
It has often been suggested that the naysayers should stop criticizing and offer constructive solutions, but I have repeatedly submitted solutions to no avail.
I have been subjected to insults and name calling and I continue to receive harsh criticism for raising certain issues, but I will continue in the spirit of freedom of expression.
Thank you to those who support the burg watch’s intentions.
Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, Brian Beamish, is calling on all levels of the public sector to proactively publish contracting information so that the public may scrutinize the spending of government funds.
By openly disclosing information about the allocation of resources, public bodies have an opportunity to foster greater public trust, improve accountability and engage with Ontarians.
New Guidance for Open Contracting
A key principle of Open Government is proactive disclosure – the release of information in anticipation of the public’s needs. To embrace this principle and make procurement processes transparent, public bodies should disclose how contracts are awarded, what has been contracted for, how they chose the successful bidders, the various costs of the contract and who is responsible for the decisions related to the contract. Making this information available clarifies government decision-making around procurement and empowers individuals to engage with the process. To assist organizations in becoming more transparent, the IPC has published a new guidance document, Opening Contracting: Proactive Disclosure of Procurement Records. It offers tips on designing and implementing a transparent procurement process, while still protecting confidentiality when appropriate.
Summary: The appellant sought access to two archeological assessment reports prepared in 1994 and 1997 relating to a specified location. The town and the landowner claimed the application of the third party information exemption in section 10(1) to the reports. In this order, the adjudicator does not uphold the application of section 10(1) to the records on the basis that the third part of the test under that exemption has not been met. The town was ordered to disclose the records to the appellant.
the burg watch 