Police Costing Comparison Amherstburg And Orangeville Part 2 Police Complement

  • 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

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.

Questions About Stat Pay Suit

After having read the Windsor Star article (the article) that reported Berthiaume is suing the town for stat pay, some questions came to mind so I’m looking forward to the trial with the hope that answers will be provided.

Are taxpayers on the hook for the lawsuit?

Under the Legal Indemnification section of his agreement, s. 15 (b) states:

“Upon retirement the Board shall continue to provide legal indemnification in all matters presently before the courts or future matters arising as a result of Chief Tim Berthiaume’s responsibilities of the Amherstburg Police Service. These matters being directly associated to his position as the Chief of Police of the Amherstburg Police Service.”

Was Berthiaume eligible for stat pay?

His agreement with the Amherstburg Police Services Board, signed on April 15, 2014 by John Sutton, Wayne Hurst, Frank Cleminson, and Pauline Gemmell, effective until June 30, 2019 states:

Statutory Holidays
12.2
The Chief shall be allowed to work a statutory holiday and take another day off in lieu subject to the approval of the Board.”

Was it necessary for him to work stat holidays? And, if he did work them, why didn’t he just take a day off in lieu as required by the Agreement?

Did Berthiaume work any stat days during his 6-month paid hiatus in a defunct position?

The Amherstburg Police was abolished on December 31, 2018 and the Windsor Police contract became effective January 1, 2019. According to the article, Berthiaume advised he would not transition until after the expiry of his existing contract effective the end of June 2019.

Why would the Board agree that Berthiaume would “take another day off in lieu” while former Board members support his claim that he is owed money in lieu?

The Agreement states:

“Employment, 2.2, “The Parties agree that the salary and working conditions of this agreement shall be reviewed on an annual basis as per the provisions of the Police Services Act. In accordance with section 115(2) and 31)1)(d) of the Act it is the Board’s duty to annually determine the remuneration and working conditions taking the Chief’s submissions into account. This provision may be waived if remuneration and working conditions, by agreement of both parties, are agreed to for a period of more than one year.”

When Windsor Police was awarded the contract, did the Board review Berthiaume’s Agreement knowing the Amherstburg Police would cease to exist on December 31, 2018?

The article referred to former Board member Rozankovic who said a contract is a contract and the board was committed to paying Berthiaume until his expired at the end of June.

Was the Agreement in conflict with the Police Services Act?

Section 16 (a) of the Agreement states, “Any term or provision of this Agreement that is in conflict with the Police Services Act or any successor act or regulations thereunder is void and of no effect.”

The Police Services Act Reduction or abolition of police force

40 (1) A board may terminate the employment of a member of the police force for the purpose of abolishing the police force or reducing its size if the Commission consents and if the abolition or reduction does not contravene this Act.

Criteria for Commission’s consent

(2) The Commission shall consent to the termination of the employment of a member of the police force under subsection (1) only if,

(a)  the member and the board have made an agreement dealing with severance pay or agreed to submit the matter to arbitration; or

(b)  the Commission has made an order under subsection (3).

Order imposing arbitration

(3) If the member and the board do not make an agreement dealing with severance pay and do not agree to submit the matter to arbitration, the Commission, if it is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the abolition of the police force or the reduction of its size, may order the member and the board to submit the matter to arbitration and may give any necessary directions in that connection.

What did OCPC decide?

In its last paragraph of the decision, OCPC consented to the abolition of the APS under section 40 of the PSA subject to the following conditions:

    1. Amherstburg must deliver to the Commission a signed copy of the contract with the City of Windsor which substantially implements the Proposal.
    2. The receipt by the Commission of written confirmation from the APSB that an agreement as to severance pay has been made with any member of the APS whose employment is terminated as a result of the abolition. Failing such an agreement, the APSB must provide written confirmation to the Commission that an agreement has been made with such members that any severance pay dispute will be referred to arbitration. If no such agreements are made within 90 days of today’s date the Commission will order that all remaining severance pay disputes will be referred to arbitration.

Was the matter mediated?

Section 3.1 of the agreement states, “In the event that the Chief and the Board are unable to agree to salary and benefit terms in subsequent years of this contract, either party shall have the right to refer the matter to a mediator selected jointly by the Chief and the Board. Should an agreement not be reached through the mediation process, either party may refer the matter to an independent arbitrator selected jointly by the Chief and the Board. Each party will bear their own costs of mediation and arbitration with the costs of the mediator and/or arbitrator being shared 25% for the Chief and 75% for the Board.

Why was Berthiaume’s contract not ended as a result of the abolition on December 31, 2018 pursuant to PSA s.40? 

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

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?

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

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!

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

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?

Information Leaked – Again

The Windsor Star reported on the Amherstburg Fired Department leak of information in September 2015: Miceli wouldn’t give any specifics but said “the big concern came during the fire (department changeover)” when members of the public knew about, and were bringing up at council meetings, facts that were discussed in closed meetings.

Now the Windsor Star reported about an information leak pertaining to the Windsor Police takeover.

“I’m not going to answer it to these guys,” said Rozankovic. “Let’s not kid ourselves. This is all about the policing issue. This is all about things may not go exactly as they liked. They have promised zero cost to this transition at all five of their town hall meetings, and I can guarantee you this will not be the case. It’s that simple. They’ve got to deal with this issue.”

An ADVISORY BULLETIN REEGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION was issued by Integrity Commissioner Bruce P. Elman on June 15, 2018.

The Information and Privacy Commission Ontario has a breach of information protocol.

Police Promotions Probed At Human Rights Hearing

The Windsor Star reported Windsor Police Staff Sgt. Christine Bissonnette continued to lay out the parameters of her human rights’ complaint on Wednesday including allegations of gender bias, discrimination, ageism and harassment against senior ranks of the Windsor Police Service.

In response to the OCPC  investigation into Windsor Police, CBC News reported, “Complaints in the field [of policing] are inherent so I can’t say I’m surprised. The Town of Amherstburg​’s police force has had complaints. This is what happens in the business. We’d like to know what the complaints are and the details behind them,” DiCarlo said.

Regarding the same topic, the Windsor Star reported, “They are just complaints, Const. Shawn McCurdy, president of the Amherstburg Police Association, said Monday. “I bet if you went to every police service in the province, you’d find internal complaints.”

That’s right – discrimination, ageism, harassment, questionable hirings and promotions have occurred in Amherstburg, all of which are serious allegations. Shame on anyone who accepts them as the norm.

FOI Access To Windsor Policing Proposal Denied

Mayor DiCarlo advised me the OPP and Windsor responses would be made public after the consultant and steering committee reviewed the responses and council received the reports.

However, as mentioned in this post, Town Clerk Paula Parker advised I would have to request it from Windsor Police Services directly. On June 11, the Windsor Police Privacy Coordinator advised I must make an access request, pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information Act.

The Windsor Police Service has denied access to the proposal in its entirety, citing the following exemptions:

Law enforcement

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.

Third party information

10 (1) A head shall refuse to disclose a record that reveals a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly, if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to,

(a) prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization;

Economic and other interests

11 A head may refuse to disclose a record that contains,

(c) information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of an institution or the competitive position of an institution;

(f) plans relating to the management of personnel or the administration of an institution that have not yet been put into operation or made public;

(g) information including the proposed plans, policies or projects of an institution if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in premature disclosure of a pending policy decision or undue financial benefit or loss to a person;

Application of Act

52

(3) Subject to subsection (4), this Act does not apply to records collected, prepared, maintained or used by or on behalf of an institution in relation to any of the following:

1. Proceedings or anticipated proceedings before a court, tribunal or other entity relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution.

2. Negotiations or anticipated negotiations relating to labour relations or to the employment of a person by the institution between the institution and a person, bargaining agent or party to a proceeding or an anticipated proceeding.

3. Meetings, consultations, discussions or communications about labour relations or employment-related matters in which the institution has an interest.

Ombudsman: Council And Joint Police Advisory Committee Wrong To Discuss RFP In Camera

The Ombudsman has issued its Report into complaints about meetings of council and the Joint Police Advisory Committee for the Town of Amherstburg in 2017 and 2018.

The Ombudsman’s opinion included:

At the time of these meetings, there was no exception that would have allowed council or the JPAC to hold these discussions in closed session.

The JPAC violated the town’s Local Boards/Committees – Terms of Reference when it discussed the police costing RFP in closed session on June 1, June 22, July 6 and December 7, 2017. Failing to comply with these terms of reference was wrong under s. 21(1)(d) of the Ombudsman Act. The discussion about the request for proposals did not fit within the “security of the property” exception or any of the exceptions provided in the Local Boards/Committees – Terms of Reference.

Council for the Town of Amherstburg contravened the Municipal Act when it discussed the police costing RFP in closed session on July 10, 2017. 

Severance Arrangements For Amherstburg Police

Media reports indicated no severances were to be negotiated since no officers would lose employment.

CAO Miceli even noted in his Report to Council, “In the Proposal severance is not payable as all staff will be assumed by the WPS.”

The severance issue is well established in practice – compensation is provided for job loss so should not be applicable here.

Do our elected officials feel Amherstburg Police officers deserve compensation for maintaining employment?

Councillor Rick Fryer’s media comment should serve as a reminder, “We do have fiduciary responsibilities as a council.”