Lora Petro has joined the list of councillor candidates; all of the candidates are listed here on the sidebar and on the town’s website, where you will also find their complete contact details.
Tag Archives: Amherstburg Town Council
Financial Audit Converted To Review Raises Questions
In a November 20, 2013 Windsor Star article, Julie Kotsis reported Hurst cast the deciding vote to oppose the motion to request an independent audit 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. According to The Windsor Star, Councillor Diane Pouget said she called the ministry as well and was told “it is council’s responsibility to request this audit.”
Phipps’ March 21, 2014 Report To Council included a recommendation that, “Council approve, in principle, moving forward with the Financial Management and Practices Review for the Town of Amherstburg with the costs of the Review being borne by the municipality. Council unanimously agreed.
According to a July 17, 2014 Windsor Star article, Pouget said, “We need an in depth investigation of what happened to that money (that was moved from reserve and other dedicated accounts) and how it got moved and who moved it. We need answers and I would have never agreed to spend $100,000 just to review policies and procedures and to tell us how to do something better.”
Town’s Financial Worries
Monica Wolfson reports in The Windsor Star today, “The town has a serious cash flow problem and is struggling to pay its bills on a daily basis, councillors were told by a senior municipal director.”
Who’s Beating A Dead Horse?
Council will once again consider the horse and carriage in the Navy Yard Park issue at its June 23 meeting. The agenda can be found on an external link, despite my requesting it be placed elsewhere and in another format.
In his May 20, 2014 report to council, shamefully, Dean Collver, Director of Community Services states, “Administration is recommending that horse and carriage vendors, licensed to operate as a business in the Town of Amherstburg, be permitted to enter KNYP for the purpose of special occasions tied to the park’s gazebo facility.”
Collver provides a background, although accessibility issues are blatantly missing. I raised the issue of accessibility in this letter, which makes me wonder if, once again, my concerns were ignored. I also emailed everyone on council, “I’m writing to express my disappointment with council’s actions regarding this matter, with the exception of Councillor Pouget. It is unfathomable that the parks department widened sidewalks to accommodate a business that was in violation with the town, yet I endured a ten year battle with the town to obtain equal access to the library, which, ironically, the town takes credit for in its annual accessibility plan as an accomplishment.”
Collver lists others consulted, which did not include a public hearing for public input regarding an exemption to a town by-law nor did it include members of the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee. I let the Committee know last fall that the horses and buggy request for by-law exemption is an example of a by-law that could have been included in the plan and should have been addressed by the committee. I never received a response.
In the council approved Amherstburg multi-year accessibility plan, Mayor Hurst states, in part, “Council and Administration, along with our Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee are working together to identify, remove and prevent barriers.”
So the question is: does council intend to accept administration’s recommendation, contradict this statement and defy legislation? As I have previously mentioned, both business owners and the town are subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005.
Commentary by Linda Saxon
Essex Power Shares Not Sold
The majority of town councillors voted not to relinquish the town’s shares. Read the story at The Windsor Star.
Council Could Cut More
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) 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
Council Flip Flops – Ministry of Municipal Affairs to Audit Aburg’s Finances
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.”
Will Councillor Sutton’s Motion Restore Public Trust?
time will tell if it’s posturing or an attempt to make real changes following the Ombudsman’s investigative findings that the town contravened the Municipal Act in its handling of several in-camera meetings in January 2011. according to the amherstburg echo, (full story), sutton believes his january 23 motion will serve as a starting point towards rectifying the damage done by the ombudsman report.
the damage was done by members of council who continued to participate in the practice, despite the Ombudman’s March 17, 2011 letter to the town, in which it stated, “In the future, Council should be vigilant in ensuring that the most appropriate exception or exceptions are cited in the resolution to proceed into closed session, and that all discussions taking place in camera fall within the cited exception(s). This ensures that the public is fully aware of why Council is proceeding into closed session, and increases the transparency of the Council process.” The letter further stated, “In the future, Council should ensure that no voting takes place during closed session, unless the vote is for a procedural matter and/or giving direction to staff, in accordance with s. 239(6) of the Act”.
sutton also mentioned that some of the errors found by the Ombudsman were clerical errors that have to be corrected; some clerical errors at the amherstburg police station had to also be corrected.
i requested an amherstburg police services board motion regarding my correspondence to the board, but i received a criminal records check of another individual that was emailed to me in error. during the course of an Information and Privacy Commission Ontario investigation, i learned that Chief Tim Berthiaume explained that the secretary scanned and attached the email and attachment without confirming the contents. Additionally, the board explained that unfortunately, it was not until my second email that the person responsible for the error understood the situation. i had emailed twice that i was not interested in any personal information but my own. in an october 28, 2011 letter, the IPC analyst advised that she was satisfied with the assurances that the board would continue to take any steps they felt appropriate to obtain my confirmation that the record had been deleted.
chief tim berthiaume sent two letters requesting that i immediately delete and confirm that it has been deleted as soon as possible. in his june 28, 2011 letter, he stated, in part, “the amherstburg police service takes privacy issues very seriously.” how ironic that my june 2011 inquiry to the board related to a breach of my information and the board decided to dismiss it; read john sutton’s letter. note: clerical errors in the letter are not mine.
it will take time to restore the public trust. council should act as councillor pouget suggests: thank the Ombudsman, take the report seriously and take the free training – that would be a good starting point.
Ombudsman Posts ‘Behind Closed Doors’ Report
The Ombudsman Ontario, Ontario’s Watchdog, posted its report, which confirmed that the council for the Town of Amherstburg repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law. Council discussed issues in closed session that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act, and also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors. Read the full report.
Ombudsman Review Of Closed Meeting
Voting during a closed session, including informal votes such as “straw polls” or “show of hands”, is not permitted. Council therefore contravened the Municipal Act by voting during the February 10, 2011 closed session. Read the letter to Ms. Brenda Percy, Clerk, who was requested to make copies of it available to the public.
the burg watch 