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.
Seriously?
According to the Windsor Star article by Doug Schmidt, Berthiaume is claiming unpaid statutory holiday pay covering an 18-month period that includes a 6-month paid hiatus.
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”):
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.
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Section 15 of the outdated 2007 CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY FOR STAFF/EMPLOYEES: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”):
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:
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.
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 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?
Mayor DiCarlo advised me the OPP and Windsor responses would be made public.
However, Windsor Police Service has added a few new exemptions to its original decision to deny access to its proposal in its entirety.
An Appeal has been filed.
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.
the burg watch 