Tag Archives: Amherstburg Police

Another Broken Promise?

Posted on by
Reply

Are residents being denied another opportunity to provide input on policing?

Council’s December 5, 2022 recommendation and subsequent council motion was to extend the Windsor Police contract deadline to renew to March 31, 2023 so public consultations could be held.

Mayor Prue made a point of ensuring the public understood the town requested an extension ‘so that we can hold public consultations’ on the police contract which would take place between December and March.

No public consultations were held.

Then, before the extended March 31 deadline, on February 8, 2023, council directed the CAO to renew with Windsor for a five year period commencing January 1, 2024 to end December 31, 2028. 

I requested members of council defer the February 8 decision pending promised public consultations, to no avail.

Councillor Linden Crain’s response was, the February 8 “open public meeting is the consultation as promised. The Windsor Police Service also completed a telephone survey in Amherstburg.”

I don’t believe public consultations are the same as a 5 minute delegation, if one is allowed to delegate or one might receive a random phone call.

Crain is the one who is quick to deny residents the opportunity to speak from the gallery.

Has Crain indicated an unwillingness to hear from residents on other occasions?

  • He was the sole opposition to a residents’ Open Air survey, stating they’ve done an Open Air survey for residents and businesses so he felt it would waste staff time. CAO Critchley confirmed there was no resident wide survey. 
  • Crain was part of the team that created the THRIVE Open Air white paper; from the THRIVE website, ‘We believe that it should be a permanent summer feature.’ 
  • During the 2022 campaign, Crain said yes to removing barriers during Open Air. If there are particular barriers in place, I am more than willing to investigate further and help find a solution. But he voted in favour of it.
  • Crain also said he didn’t even think Open Air should have been a topic of discussion, that they shouldn’t even be discussing this every year because eventually it’s going to be nothing.
  • During the November 21, 2024 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting Crain moved, McArthur seconded That: 
    1. The report on the Open Air including the Business Survey and Open House BE RECEIVED for information; and
    2. Council SUPPORT the continuation of Open Air, in the same format, same times, and same duration, for the remainder of the current term of Council.
  • During the November 25, 2024 council meeting, when residents would not have had an opportunity to delegate, Crain moved, and McArthur seconded That:
    1. The report on the Open Air including the Business Survey and Open House BE RECEIVED for information; and
    2. Council SUPPORT the continuation of Open Air, in the same format, same times, and same duration, for the remainder of the current term of Council.

During the February 8 meeting, council learned that the 5 year average cost for policing Amherstburg with Windsor Police was 5.4 million; LaSalle’s was 7.8 million; Amherstburg saved a 5 year average of $1,742,205.

Compared to savings of $1,742,205. over 5 years with Windsor, savings of around $10 million with the OPP would’ve been significant. 

With significant savings residents could’ve seen more investment in our crumbling infrastructure instead of half assed projects like partially paved parking lots and exclusive playgrounds. 

During an August 2025 council meeting, Prue said the town will continue to provide updates on policing as it becomes available.

But, now policing is back on the in camera agenda for March 9 – still no public consultations and no updates.

Municipal council members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the municipality and its inhabitants. They must act honestly, in good faith, and avoid conflicts of interest, a duty often reinforced by the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and local codes of conduct. 

Police Costing Comparison Amherstburg And Orangeville Part 2 Police Complement

Posted on by
  • Orangeville Police Complement            OPP Proposed Complement
  • Chief                                1                         Superintendent            0.58
  • Deputy                             1
  • Staff Sergeant                  2                         Staff Sergeant              1
  • Sergeant                          6                         Sergeant                      6
  • Constables                    31.8                       Constables                35
  • Overtime Equivalent         1.1                       Overtime Equivalent  1.1
  • Total Complement       42.9                      Total Complement 44.6
  • Amherstburg Police Complement          Windsor Police Proposed
  • Chief 1                                                        Shall be 30 full time including
  • Deputy 1                                                     the Officer in Charge.
  • Staff Sergeant 0
  • Sergeant 6
  • Constables 23
  • Special Constable 1
  • Total Complement 32                               Total Complement 30

Police Costing Comparison Amherstburg And Orangeville Overview

Posted on by

theburgwatch compared the main framework of police costings in Orangeville and Amherstburg.

Disclaimer: this Amherstburg Orangeville Comparison Police Costing is provided for informational purposes only. theburgwatch.com makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.

Councillor Donald McArthur’s Response to Police Officers’ Breach of Information Question

Posted on by

In yesterday’s post I asked members of council if any violation of the employee code of conduct, section 15, was addressed?

Just to recap, section 15.0 Confidential Information:

The following information must not be used or disclosed, except in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”):

    • information which is personal

Today, McArthur’s response regarding the breach of personal and sensitive information of 40 police officers, employees and family members is:

“It is my understanding that the disclosure of personal information was inadvertent and that it is the opinion of the Clerk, the Treasurer and the Director of Corporate Services, who conducted an investigation, that the inadvertent disclosure was not a Code of Conduct violation.

It is my understanding as well that the Town advised the Information and Privacy Commissioner of this issue and notified the affected individuals. It is also my understanding that the Town took steps to help guard against similar inadvertent disclosures in the future.”

Nowhere in the Employee Code of Conduct does it state not to worry, it was an inadvertent disclosure. Carry on.

Police Officers’ Breach of Information Violation of Employee Code of Conduct?

Posted on by

Council members have been asked: regarding the town hall employee’s disclosure of Amherstburg police officers’ personal information, including 40 names, addresses, telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, next of kin, spouses’ cell phone numbers, start dates and birthdays, was any violation of the employee code of conduct, section 15, below, addressed?

Section 15 of the outdated 2007 CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY FOR STAFF/EMPLOYEES:

15.0 Confidential Information

The following information must not be used or disclosed, except in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“MFIPPA”):

  • information which is personal,
  • information that constitutes the proprietary information of a third party, individual or group,
  • might reasonably be regarded as having been disclosed to the Employee in confidence,
  • is of a sensitive nature, or imparts to the person in possession of such information anadvantage not available to the public generally.

No Employee shall benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the use of information acquired during the course of official duties that is not generally available to the public.

Personal information controlled by the Town must be used or disclosed in compliance with the MFIPPA.

Employees must protect the following examples of information regarding the Town and others from illegal and unauthorized use:

  • client records,
  • information contained in business strategies and plans,
  • pending proposals or contracts,
  • estimates prior to tender openings,
  • unannounced services,
  • research results,
  • financial data and projections,
  • proposed acquisitions and divestitures,
  • computer programs and software,
  • professional expertise, or
  • inventions.

Redacted Windsor Policing Contract

Posted on by

Mayor DiCarlo advised me Windsor’s response would be made public.

The red annotation in the redacted version of the contract on the town’s site is obvious:

**Schedule 1 – The full response to the Request for Proposals by the Windsor Police Service is being redacted from the public version as it is subject to a confidentiality clause. MFIPPA exemption 8.(1) Law Enforcement may apply.**

Section 8(1) is a discretionary exemption:

8 (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to,

(c) reveal investigative techniques and procedures currently in use or likely to be used in law enforcement;

(e) endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or any other person;

(g) interfere with the gathering of or reveal law enforcement intelligence information respecting organizations or persons;

(l) facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the control of crime.

The confidentiality clause was referenced in the June 2018 Ombudsman Report into council’s and the JPAC’s in camera meetings to discuss the policing RFP.

The Ombudsman concluded:

64    While I appreciate the municipality’s concerns about complying with this confidentiality clause, at the time of the committee’s meetings, there was no closed meeting exception that generally allowed a municipality to proceed in camera to protect the confidential information of a third party. However, new exceptions to the Municipal Act’s closed meeting requirements came into force on January 1, 2018, including exceptions related to information supplied in confidence. It is possible this matter may have fallen under one of the new exceptions, but they were not yet in force when the committee met. (emphasis added).

An FOI Appeal regarding Windsor’s refusal to disclose is ongoing.

OH YEAH! OH YEAH! We Have A Say!

Posted on by

When council and the Joint Police Advisory Committee met in camera, they excluded the public from providing input on the Policing RFP.

The RFP procedure restricted competition.

Was council’s vote for a Windsor Police takeover the most cost effective option? Probably not, since there were no cost comparisons which was the goal.

But now, big news, we can vote on a decal for the cruisers in town! Read the am800 report.

Since heritage is always a pressing consideration, one design depicts the historical soldiers of 1812, which, according to one bystander, looks like a stream of vomit.

Windsor Police Issues Third Letter Re Denial of Policing Proposal Request

Posted on by

Windsor Police Service’s denial to the proposal in its entirety is under Appeal with the Information and Privacy Commission Ontario.

Windsor Police has issued a third letter, this time enclosing an Index of the 57 pages and the corresponding sections of the Act that it deems applicable.

Just to recap:

Mayor DiCarlo advised me the Windsor response would be made public.

Paula Parker, Town Clerk, advised I would have to request it from Windsor.

Windsor Police advised I had to file an FOI request.

Windsor Police denied access to the proposal in its entirety, citing exemptions.

Windsor Police issued a second letter with added reasons to deny the request.

Windsor Police issued a third letter with an index of the reasons for its complete denial.

How does transparency and accountability apply when information is not released?