Council Could Cut More

Posted on by

monica wolfson’s updated April 16 windsor star blog post reports that amherstburg town council has not yet adopted its budget and will continue deliberations on april 24.

I would rather decide for myself which, if any, charitable organizations I would support than have council arbitrarily direct taxpayers’ money to some charitable organizations like the House of Shalom, a facility that is not accessible to everyone.

It isn’t the first time that council considered directing visitors to the Gordon House instead of the Front Road centre, nor is it the first time I objected. As a town-owned facility, the municipality is obliged to consider accessibility pursuant to provincial accessibility legislation; additionally, the town could be susceptible to a human rights complaint given the lack of accessibility at the Gordon House.

I would have thought the town learned its lesson after my decade long battle and subsequent human rights decision resulting in the library elevator. A recent HRTO decision against 1762668 Ontario Inc., owned by Rennie and Anne Rota, confirmed a landlord’s responsibility.

Cutting council’s portion of the budget would hinder communication with constituents – really? How many times do councillors respond to emails and/or telephone calls?

Policing costs and/or any proposed cuts to the police budget are missing. In an April 8, 2014 CKLW post, Police Chief Tim Berthiaume was confident council will approve the police budget, saying his force is one of the most cost-effective in the province.

The 2012 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario included a Cost Comparison of Municipal Police Services, 2011; the estimated per capita cost of police services for a population between 15,000 and 49,999 was:

  • Municipal Police Service $284.00
  • OPP – with contract $150.00
  • OPP – no contract $131.00

According to OPP estimates, municipalities with and without contracts save on average anywhere from 35% to 60% by using the OPP instead of having their own police forces.

Since the Amherstburg Police collective agreement expires the end of 2014, now is the most opportune time to obtain an OPP costing and delete the OPP takeover clause. Amherstburg taxpayers have long supported a police department hierarchy unparalleled by similar-sized OPP detachments. If council had acted sooner, say at least 12 years ago, it might not have had to entertain the selling of Essex Power shares for $12 million.

There seems to be some misinformation regarding the police budget and the responsibilities of the police services board and council, but both are clearly set out in the Police Services Act:

Estimates

  1. (1)  The board shall submit operating and capital estimates to the municipal council that will show, separately, the amounts that will be required,

(a) to maintain the police force and provide it with equipment and facilities; and

(b) to pay the expenses of the board’s operation other than the remuneration of board members.

Same

(2)  The format of the estimates, the period that they cover and the timetable for their submission shall be as determined by the council.

Budget

(3)  Upon reviewing the estimates, the council shall establish an overall budget for the board for the purposes described in clauses (1) (a) and (b) and, in doing so, the council is not bound to adopt the estimates submitted by the board.

Same

(4)  In establishing an overall budget for the board, the council does not have the authority to approve or disapprove specific items in the estimates.

Commission hearing in case of dispute

(5)  If the board is not satisfied that the budget established for it by the council is sufficient to maintain an adequate number of police officers or other employees of the police force or to provide the police force with adequate equipment or facilities, the board may request that the Commission determine the question and the Commission, shall, after a hearing, do so. 1997, c. 8, s. 26.

Council can do more and should do so – just say no to frivolous requests and spending.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

 

Selling Off Asset

Posted on by

Council has to decide if it will accept or decline a $12M offer to purchase its share of Essex Power Corp. Read the full story in the The Windsor Star.

With the town facing an estimated $44 million debt, residents could face a double-digit tax increase this year as the town begins to come to grips with the shortfall; but what created the shortfall and where is the plan to address it, aside from a temporary fix?

Council Flip Flops – Ministry of Municipal Affairs to Audit Aburg’s Finances

Posted on by

according to the November 20, 2013 Windsor Star, Julie Kotsis reported Amherstburg Town Council was split over the need for further financial auditing. Councillor DiPasquale’s motion to request an independent audit of the town’s financials was defeated as follows-

AGAINST: Councillors John Sutton, Carolyn Davies and Bob Pillon

FOR: Deputy Mayor Ron Sutherland, Councillors DiPasquale and Pouget

Hurst cast the deciding vote to oppose and called it the beginning of the “silly season” noting that an election was coming up next year.

At its January 20, 2014 town council meeting, a unanimous motion was carried to ask the ministry for an audit. Sutton is quoted in The Windsor Star, “I agree wholeheartedly that a more thorough investigation should be done … I totally agree that has to be 100 per cent public. “There can’t be anything hidden.”

Tall Ships Not Accessible To Everyone

Posted on by

The historic Town of Amherstburg continues celebrating the bicentennial of the war of 1812 with the “Coastal Trails Sails To See Tall Ships Festival” in late August.

Promotional information is included on the town’s website, along with another site devoted to the war of 1812 events; there was no mention of accessibility so I submitted an online inquiry to ask if the tall ships were barrier free and accessible to people with disabilities.

Shortly afterward, I received an email response and was advised, “Due to the historic nature and design of Tall Ships, wheelchairs cannot be brought on board the ships. Any guest with disabilities may board a ship, as long as they can stand and walk on their own or with the assistance of a companion. For wheelchairs, the ships are available for viewing from dockside, not on-deck. In addition, there are multiple exhibits and activities that are being organized dockside, including Parks’ Canada’s 1812 On Tour and storytelling/theatrical experiences.”

Pursuant to section 5(2) of Ontario Regulation 191/11, I subsequently emailed members of town council and inquired if there was a determination that “it is not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities” in relation to the tall ships and I requested an explanation if there was.

I received an email from someone who did not state his position, but I assumed he was a town employee as throughout his email he referred to a collective we and our; his response was, “Tall Ships are not, traditionally or technically, universally accessible by design. To my knowledge there is one, or possibly two, ships in the world that are specifically crafted to offer some level of accessibility. I’ve been able to find information on one:http://www.jst.org.uk/lord-nelson.aspx and read an article that indicated there was a second ship in existence but I cannot find its name. The Lord Nelson is currently sailing in the waters of Australia and New Zealand.

The Tall Ships that we have procured are part of a tour called the “Tall Ships Challenge – Great Lakes 2013” which is operated by a company known as Tall Ships America. Our opportunity to procure the Tall Ships that will be visiting us came as a result of this Tour that stretches geographically from Brockville, Ontario to Duluth, Minnesota and includes 14 ports-of-call. In essence, our opportunity to host this event was tied to the ships that are involved in this Tour as opposed to being selected based on their individual merits – whether that be universal accessibility, size, design, port-of-origin or other criteria.

Despite being unable to guarantee equivalent access to the decks of the Tall Ships visiting our ports for all potential patrons of the event, we felt that we would be able to provide opportunities for accessible viewing from shore. Our plans include a volunteer-staffed and clearly stanchioned area that will be reserved on shore in very close proximity to the ships to ensure the best possible viewing for patrons who are in need of this opportunity. Ancillary events that are part of the festival have been located to provide as much opportunity for universal accessibility as King’s Navy Yard Park allows.

As a result of this inquiry it has come to our attention that these plans and opportunities have not been included on our website describing the event – this has been, or will be, rectified immediately.

My hope is that this email offers a satisfactory explanation of not only why it was not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features into the deck viewing portion of our visiting Tall Ships, but also our rationale for proceeding despite this lack and the steps we have taken to supplement event logistics to the best of our ability.”

I emailed back and mentioned there was only a reference to ‘accessible viewing’ from shore and asked what contingencies are in place for people with visual and hearing disabilities. I further relayed that information on the 1812 website relative to ‘wheelchair access’ is relegated to the last day of the event only; same for the town’s site, and there is still no alt text for jpegs on the town’s site. I mentioned that I also couldn’t find a reference anywhere to accommodating the needs of people with disabilities either visiting the town’s festivities or accessing information on the web.

Although I did not receive a response to my last email, information pertaining to wheelchair accessibility is now listed under a separate heading titled ‘additional information’ at the bottom of the site’s event page; there are still insufficient descriptors or none at all for the images, despite my numerous requests for an accessible town website over the past decade.

I do not support my taxes being used toward events that are not accessible to everyone.

Tall Ships To Visit Amherstburg, But Are They Accessible?

Posted on by

In an online feedback form submitted today I asked, “are the tall ships barrier free and accessible to people with disabilities?”  Christopher Laforet, Office Manager of Tourism Windsor Essex emailed this response, “Due to the historic nature and design of Tall Ships, wheelchairs cannot be brought on board the ships. Any guest with disabilities may board a ship, as long as they can stand and walk on their own or with the assistance of a companion. For wheelchairs, the ships are available for viewing from dockside, not on-deck.

In addition, there are multiple exhibits and activities that are being organized dockside, including Parks’ Canada’s 1812 On Tour and storytelling/theatrical experiences.”

Information relative to the tall ships’ visit to Amherstburg in late August is posted on both the town’s and the War of 1812 web sites; unfortunately, there is no text alternative to pictures on either site although numerous requests to make the town’s web site accessible to everyone have been previously made.

UPDATE: An August 23 email from Dean Collver explains why it is not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities:

“Tall Ships are not, traditionally or technically, universally accessible by design. To my knowledge there is one, or possibly two, ships in the world that are specifically crafted  to offer some level of accessibility. I’ve been able to find information on one:http://www.jst.org.uk/lord-nelson.aspx and read an article that indicated there was a second ship in existence but I cannot find its name. The Lord Nelson is currently sailing in the waters of Australia and New Zealand.

The Tall Ships that we have procured are part of a tour called the “Tall Ships Challenge – Great Lakes 2013” which is operated by a company known as Tall Ships America. Our opportunity to procure the Tall Ships that will be visiting us came as a result of this Tour that stretches geographically from Brockville, Ontario to Duluth, Minnesota and includes 14 ports-of-call. In essence, our opportunity to host this event was tied to the ships that are involved in this Tour as opposed to being selected based on their individual merits – whether that be universal accessibility, size, design, port-of-origin or other criteria.

Despite being unable to guarantee equivalent access to the decks of the Tall Ships visiting our ports for all potential patrons of the event, we felt that we would be able to provide opportunities for accessible viewing from shore. Our plans include a volunteer-staffed and clearly stanchioned area that will be reserved on shore in very close proximity to the ships to ensure the best possible viewing for patrons who are in need of this opportunity. Ancillary events that are part of the festival have been located to provide as much opportunity for universal accessibility as King’s Navy Yard Park allows.

As a result of this inquiry it has come to our attention that these plans and opportunities have not been included on our website describing the event – this has been, or will be, rectified immediately.

My hope is that this email offers a satisfactory explanation of not only why it was not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features into the deck viewing portion of our visiting Tall Ships, but also our rationale for proceeding despite this lack and the steps we have taken to supplement event logistics to the best of our ability.”

Time For OPP?

Posted on by

with increasing debt, wouldn’t it be more responsible to obtain an OPP costing and possibly save a million dollars a year in policing costs instead of burdening the taxpayers with increased taxes to reduce a debt load that may be due, in part, to costly municipal policing?

Councillor Davies On Her Performance

Posted on by

at the end of each year to date of this council’s term (2010 – 2014), all councillors were asked, “if any of you would care to provide a comment regarding how you think you have performed.”

at the end of year two Councillor Carolyn Davies emailed the following: (note: any spelling errors originated in Councillor Davies’ email)

“Thank you for your email  Dec 5/12.   As for your question on how do I think I have performed during the second year of my term is really not for me to answer but for the constituents to do so.  I understand that in a democracy everyone has a different view point, will interpret activities that come closest to their own understanding and needs.   As always, I am working consistently with my commitment to the consituents of Amherstburg. I want for other that which I would want for myself, fairness, justice and provide a voice to issues, if at all possible. I always look forward to what can be,   to what compromises can be made vs an either or and how we can move our community forward toward an improved quality of life and remain optimistic that a positive appoach will always provide more successful results. Regards, Carolyn Davies”

Accessibility After The Cart

Posted on by

reprinted from the Amherstburg Echo

RE: Town council to discuss bylaw exemptions to allow horse and buggy business in Navy Yard Park

With the exception of Councillor Diane Pouget, shame on council for putting accessibility after the cart. In particular, shame on Councillor Bart DiPasquale, a member of the town’s accessibility advisory committee, for not representing the rights of residents with disabilities.

After having appeared before council for the past ten years to raise accessibility issues, critique the town’s annual accessibility plan, and to question the town’s commitment to accessibility, I once again question council’s rationale for its action – the town has an obligation to ensure the safety of all its residents, including persons with disabilities and equal access to its amenities.

Randy Fasan, as a business owner, is also subject to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and its Regulations and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Will customers with disabilities be able to access his business, provide feedback in an accessible manner and will he change his website to make it accessible?

Fasan is quoted as saying, “if I have to abide by these bylaws as they stand today I am going to have to move to another town or discontinue any type of business to Amherstburg.” I’d like to know how he assumed he did not have to comply with the bylaw in the first place.

Making an amendment to exempt a business from a bylaw that has not been prosecuted while operating in violation of the bylaw for years sets a precedent for anyone to ignore any town bylaw and illustrates council’s disregard for the safety of its residents.

Linda Saxon

also published in Accessibility News