Berthiaume, The Board And The Bulls

Posted on by

As mentioned in a previous post, Amherstburg Police Chief Berthiaume’s presentation to the Amherstburg Citizens for Responsible Government (ACRG), incorporated the group’s questions about the police contract.

A section of Berthiaume’s presentation includes a slide titled Future Challenges, Contract Negotiations that is followed by:

Slide 18: Does this mean the board is gambling?

Screen Shot 2014-09-14 at 2.34.17 PM

Slide 20 is titled “1 Against 5,” presumably the Board against the 5 contracts.

Police Board Against 5 Bulls A huge bull is prominently displayed in slide 21, with no title, but one can speculate its meaning with the bull’s label: Police Arbitration System Ontario.

Screen Shot 2014-09-13 at 2.52.05 PM

It is unclear if Berthiaume’s presentation represents his position as chief, one of the bulls.

The Police Association of Ontario (PAO) acknowledged some organizations’ position that “Ontario’s arbitration system is broken and needs to be fixed” and how they are very quick to blame the arbitration system for local tax increases saying that “so many of our collective agreements are determined through interest arbitration.”

The PAO’s Interest Arbitration Facts, asks if the criticism is based on facts. The Backgrounder contains one little known fact: The Arbitration Commission is a neutral body that is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is balanced by members from both Associations and Police Services Boards.

According to the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission website, its “main function involves the appointment of conciliators and arbitrators to assist police associations and police services boards in the resolution of disputes arising out of the negotiations and administration of their collective agreements. The Arbitration Commission is a neutral body and does not become involved in the issues between the parties and does not influence the outcome of conciliation or arbitration.”

ONTARIO REGULATION 268/10 made under the POLICE SERVICES ACT limits political activity of police officers and since the Chief is not a party to contracts between the Board and the Association, the Board should have answered questions from ratepayers.

Current Council Candidates and Amherstburg Police Services Board members Frank Cleminson, Pauline Gemmell and John Sutton are campaigning, but have not answered questions about the contract: if it is currently being negotiated, if a consultant was hired and if there was a competitive process.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Best of Luck From Joshua Rene

Posted on by
I would like to wish all the candidates for Amherstburg Council and School Board Trustees the best of luck! It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in and to fight for the betterment of your community. The residents of Amherstburg will certainly have a choice when it comes time to cast their ballots!
Best of luck to all,
Joshua Rene
Amherstburg Council Candidate

Candidates Cleminson, Gemmell, Sutton Given Opportunity To Confirm/Deny Police Contract Negotiations Underway

Posted on by

Three candidates for council, currently Amherstburg Police Services Board members, have been given an opportunity to respond to inquiries about the Amherstburg police contract; specifically, if “negotiations are underway for a new collective agreement for amherstburg police service” and if “a consultant has been hired to negotiate the new contract on behalf of the board and if so, if there was a competitive process and if there was, i’d like an electronic copy of the notice/advertisement for a consultant.”

Town of Amherstburg’s ‘subscribe to updates’ Useless

Posted on by

There have been seven new candidates for council since I subscribed to receive updates and I’ve not received one email notification. I even submitted feedback to the site advising it was useless and oh, by the way, captchas should not be used for accessibility reasons. As predicted, I did not receive a response to that either.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Edited: 11 candidates registered since I subscribed to receive updates from the town’s website, but I was not notified once.

Location And Name Change of Financial Review Session

Posted on by

The town’s website states the September 11, 2014 Workshop has been moved from the board room to Council Chambers and it is now called a Special Council Meeting; the agenda, in the usual confusing manner, is posted to an external link.

Public interest in the town’s civic and financial matters has grown to the point where it is ‘standing room only’ at the town hall. Shame on council for not holding such meetings at the Libro Centre where large crowds can easily be accommodated, including providing room for persons with disabilities, and for not advertising this meeting sooner.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Human Rights Tribunal Hearing Date Set

Posted on by

A public hearing will be held on February 19 and 20, 2015 at Windsor City Hall to decide an Application by James Saxon v. Amherstburg Police Service Board and Amherstburg Police Association regarding an allegation of discrimination because of age.

The Amherstburg Police Service Board requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that a conciliation under the Police Service Act has appropriately dealt with the Application. Alternatively, the Board requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of collective bargaining between it and the union representing the applicant.

In a June 23, 2014 Interim Decision by the HRTO, the Board’s requests to dismiss or defer the Application were denied.

Proposed Procedural By-law Flawed

Posted on by

The town’s proposed procedural by-law was deferred to September 8 from the August 11 council meeting due to time restrictions, according to Ms. Parker; I could not locate the by-law on the September 8 agenda but there is a link from the town’s website, of course, to an external link. 

In an earlier post, Public Input Not Welcome? I mentioned Phipps’ stated, “There was no notice to the public regarding the draft Procedural By-law. Incidentally, there is no requirement for notice.”

Despite input not being sought, I am submitting my opinion to the current council, not as the Chair of the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee, but as a ratepayer and individual with a disability. To summarize my concerns:

  • The document is difficult to navigate; there is no index and the numbering system deviates from the traditional numbering of legislation: sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, schedules, appendices or forms.
  • The place of meetings is not listed contrary to the Municipal Act.
  • The proposed definition of committee conflicts with the Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act 2005
  • “special meeting” is defined, but “meeting” should be since it is titled a By-law to govern the proceedings of Council, the conduct of its members and the calling of meetings.
  • I object to the latter portion of the proposed “Special Meeting” definition: “Special Meeting” means a meeting not scheduled in accordance with the approved calendar/schedule of meetings; and further includes any meeting of Council called prior to the regular session of Council at every regularly scheduled meeting. This is not in keeping with accountability, transparency and notices to the public of meetings.
  • I would question why the town’s procedural by-law would exceed S. 240 (Mayor or Clerk) and include “the CAO may, at any time, summon a special meeting.”
  • Regarding Special In-Camera Council Meetings: the discretionary and mandatory exceptions to public meetings needs to be noted since “may be held” and “shall be held” in camera have disparate meanings and are set out in the Act.
  • Public Notice of Meetings does not state dates and times of notices on the town’s website, just that agendas with attachments will be available on the town’s website; however, one must navigate through a series of links and it is not verified that the available documents, once located, are accessible. There is no reason whatsoever for not posting the agenda on the actual website.
  • Council needs to consider persons with disabilities when setting rules for delegates; for example, insisting that everyone provide the Clerk with written material poses a barrier as defined in Section 2 of the Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act: “barrier” means anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice; (“obstacle”).
  • Why is there a need to state the Clerk and/or CAO may refuse or defer the delegation based on the subject matter to be presented? Is this not contrary to open government, transparency and accountability?

Commentary by Linda Saxon

AON Hewitt’s Services To Amherstburg

Posted on by

On August 13, I requested information from the town hall regarding the role of AON Hewitt in relation to the town; the date the service was acquired; the annual cost and the length of the contract. The bureaucratic process and email correspondence was included in an earlier post.

On today’s date, I received the AON Agreement ‘Engagement of Services Agreement between the Town and AON Hewitt.’

However, not all of my questions were answered and since the town switched services in 2012, I have requested earlier documentation as well.

So, if we’re not a metropolitan area and we have competent town staff, why do we need to pay for AON Hewitt’s services?

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Amherstburg Police Contract Negotiations Underway?

Posted on by

Amherstburg Police Chief Berthiaume’s power point presentation to the Amherstburg Citizens for Responsible Government (ACRG), incorporated the group’s questions about the police contract.

No answers were included so I emailed, “do you have any notes that you could send me whereby you answered the group’s questions?” Berthiaume responded, “No I do not.”

Some of the slides contain clip art images of card-playing smileys and bulls.

Slide 20, titled “1 Against 5” presumably depicts the Board against the 5 contracts. A huge bull is prominently displayed in slide 21; although there is no title, one can speculate its meaning.

Following the presentation, the ACRG noted a correction on its website, “according to the Chief contract negotiations have not yet started; when?”

Amherstburg Police Services Board members were listed: John Sutton, Frank Cleminson, Wayne Hurst, Pauline Gemmell.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had to address whether an Application by James Saxon alleging discrimination because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code should be deferred pending the outcome of collective bargaining between the Amherstburg Police Services Board and the union representing the applicant.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, in its Interim Decision of June 23, 2014 concluded that “There is no parallel proceeding in this case that is underway that would cause the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application.”

Commentary by Linda Saxon