Mayor DiCarlo: Appropriate Avenue is FOI Request To Windsor Police

theburgwatch inquiry to Mayor DiCarlo was for the number of times in each of the past two years that Windsor Police has had to utilize specialty units in the town of Amherstburg. (November 26)

Mayor DiCarlo: The appropriate avenue to get that information is through a written inquiry sent to the Windsor Police Freedom of Information Coordinator, Shelley Gray.  I have copied her on this email. (November 28)

theburgwatch: Given recent emails, i thought you were the appropriate person, “I follow up with all taxpayer requests for information wherever and however possible.  I also follow up with the media in the same way.”

How disappointing that requests for information require formal requests; maybe a new policy is required to increase transparency? (November 28)

related posts:

Windsor Police Requires FOI Request – Telephone Survey
Windsor Police Proposal Requires FOI Application

Amherstburg Discloses Further Records Following IPC Ordered Search

The Town of Amherstburg has disclosed further records following the Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario ORDER MO-3934-I regarding the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act request to the town for correspondence regarding the police costing from the town’s CAO and his staff to the OPP.

The IPC Adjudicator’s Analysis and Finding were:

(27)  I find that the town’s search was not reasonable, and I will order it to conduct a new search.

(28). I am persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the electronic search was too narrow and that it ought to have included the EA’s email address. The town does not dispute that the scope of the request included the CAO’s staff and it has explained that the CAO has only one staff member. While I acknowledge that the town stands by the reasonableness of the search, it has not provided a sufficient explanation for why no electronic search was undertaken of the EA’s email.

(29). I further acknowledge that the town takes the position that the electronic search was only complementary to the paper-based search. However, the town has also emphasized that both components of the search are important. To that end, in this case, I have concluded that it is in fact because the town itself relies on the electronic component of the search that the omission of the EA’s email from the search renders the search incomplete.

(30)  I am also persuaded that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that there ought to be additional records. Using the content of the records that were disclosed to her in this appeal, the appellant has established a reasonable basis that additional records ought to exist. Further, the appellant has possession of responsive records that have not been disclosed by the town in this appeal. Although it had the opportunity to do so, the town has not provided an explanation for this fact.

The town requested an extension of the August 10, 2020 deadline as it had commenced the additional searches, which yielded a large volume of records that required review; and there had been some delays in completing the additional searches due to demands on staff time because of emergency declarations for COVID-19 and flooding.

Nicholas Renaud’s affidavit states, in part, he conducted the search and provided 24,223 records for review. Kevin Fox’s affidavit states, in part, the IT Division provided 24,223 emails for review that he manually reviewed.

Paula Parker, the town’s FOI Coordinator, states three further records were disclosed: M-2018-16 Decision theburgwatch.com copy.  note: format originated from the town.

An Order will be issued.

Related posts:

Town of Amherstburg Ordered to Conduct Further Records Search

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Background Byte

In response to the RTT article, ‘County will not endorse Amherstburg’s request for AODA website compliance’ letter by Linda Saxon as published on November 4, 2020.

I appreciate Essex County Council not endorsing the town’s request.

Is COVID a convenient excuse?

For eighteen years, since September 2002, I appeared before town council and the town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee, emailed the town’s IT Department, wrote letters to the editor and appeared before the provincial Standing Committee on Justice Policy regarding the need for an accessible town website. The Manager of Information Technology assured me twice that a new website was being launched and would comply with web accessibility standards and informed council the site was standard compliant in July 2007. I provided site check results indicating the site failed minimum standards in June 2008 and in January 2009 after the launch of the newly designed site.

I served on the Essex County Website Redesign Committee when the county launched its redesigned site in 2014.  Why did Amherstburg wait until 2016 to hire the same web design company? And, in the four years since, what is the town’s excuse for non-compliance? Obviously, it isn’t COVID.

The Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee should have also ‘vehemently’ opposed the town’s resolution that was distributed to all other municipalities in the province.

Most disappointing was that council members placated administration when the question on behalf of the community they serve should have been, why are we not compliant by now?

Although the report to council claims COVID is the reason, administration explained at the council meeting that it was due to third parties. I guess no one on council realized the town is also responsible for third party vendors because no one commented.

From the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, nothing in the legislation prevents a community from implementing accessibility earlier than deadlines that were carefully considered and allowed for plenty of time to comply. It is shameful that the town requested an extension when it was aware of the compliance deadline for years; certainly, for longer than COVID has existed.

Related posts:

Town of Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Recommendation.

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Resolution

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Vote

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Follow Up Questions to Council

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Circulation of Resolution

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Essex County Council Does Not Endorse It

Amherstburg requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Third Party Vendors

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Essex County Council Does Not Endorse It

The River Town Times reports that on Wednesday October 21, Essex County council voted to not endorse the town of Amherstburg’s Resolution.

In a letter to county council, the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee (ECAAC) stated, “The ECAAC does not support the resolution from the Town of Amherstburg, but also vehemently opposes any extensions to this deadline for compliance.”

The members of the ECAAC noted that “fifteen years is long enough to take the necessary steps in achieving website compliance” and “not only does this request undermine the legislation as it stands, but also sends a message that meeting accessibility standards is not important”.

Kingsville Deputy Mayor Good Queen spoke against the resolution and Amherstburg Deputy Mayor Leo Meloche, in the absence of Mayor DiCarlo, offered an explanation.

View the discussion at county council meeting.

More to follow.

Related posts:

Town of Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Recommendation.

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Resolution

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Vote

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Follow Up Questions to Council

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – Circulation of Resolution

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Resolution

The following was included in the report to council for its September 14, 2020 meeting:

It is recommended that:

  1. WHEREAS Section 14(4) of O.Reg 191/11 under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires designated public sector organizations to conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA by January 1, 2021;
  2. AND WHEREAS the municipality remains committed to the provision of accessible goods and services;
  3. AND WHEREAS the municipality provides accommodations to meet any stated accessibility need, where possible;
  4. AND WHEREAS the declared pandemic, COVID-19, has impacted the finances and other resources of the municipality;
  5. AND WHEREAS the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act contemplates the need to consider the technical or economic considerations in the implementation of Accessibility Standards;
  6. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the municipality requests that the Province of Ontario extend the compliance deadline stated in Section 14(4) of O.Reg 191/11 to require designated public sector organizations to meet the compliance standards, by a minimum of one (1) year to at least January 1, 2022;
    AND,
  7. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the municipality requests that the Province of Ontario consider providing funding support and training resources to meet these compliance standards.

More to follow.

RelatedTown of Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension.

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Recommendation.

Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension – The Recommendation

What was recommended?

That the municipality requests the province of Ontario to extend the website compliance deadline to at least January 1, 2022 and that the province of Ontario consider providing funding support and training resources to meet these compliance standards.

The report for council’s September 24 meeting is not a status update; it is a request, 3 months in advance of the compliance deadline, for an extension to 15 months from now.

COVID-19/the pandemic is the most obvious reason for the recommendation and it is referenced nine times in the report:

  1. RECOMMENDATION: AND WHEREAS the declared pandemic, COVID-19, has impacted the finances and other resources;
  2. BACKGROUND:
    1. enhanced monitoring of declared pandemic, COVID-19;
    2. has been consumed by its response to COVID-19;
  3. DISCUSSION:
    1. did not anticipate the interruptions and redeployments caused by the declared pandemic, COVID-19.
    2. how the municipality ensures the provision of its services during a pandemic
    3. a number of staff were on unpaid leave during the pandemic,
    4. Due to the impact of the pandemic emergency on municipal operations
  4. FINANCIAL MATTERSsuggests that it cannot comply by January 1, 2021 due to COVID-19;
  5. CONCLUSION: extend the compliance deadline from January 1, 2021 to at least January 1, 2022 due to the impacts of the pandemic (COVID-19).

RISK ANALYSIS did not acknowledge the historical disadvantage of persons with disabilities. While the report mentioned administration will continue in its efforts to comply, the risk was relative to hypothetical consequences to the town: If non-compliant; can require; If this is the case; suggests that it cannot comply; may still enforce its timelines; there may be financial implications.

FINANCIAL MATTERS did not specify a dollar amount of hardship, given the reliance on how “COVID-19 has impacted the finances and other resources of the municipality.” Instead, it was noted the town might face financial implications in the form of administrative penalties or increased expenses in trying to meet the required standards after an order to comply. There was no mention of the AODA procedure relative to an Order.

CONSULTATIONS listed three staff; there was no mention of public consultations of ratepayers that pay for the town’s website or their thoughts on financial priorities for the community.

Council voted in favour of the resolution.

More to follow.

RelatedTown of Amherstburg Requests Website Compliance Deadline Extension.

UPDATE: Town of Amherstburg Ordered to Conduct Further Records Search

On August 10, 2020, the compliance date for Information and Privacy Commission ORDER MO-3934-I, the Town of Amherstburg requested an extension until September 30 to complete further searches and provide affidavits and representations about the additional searches in satisfaction of Order Provisions 1- 3.

As posted in Town of Amherstburg Ordered to Conduct Further Records Search). the first three Order provisions are:

  1. I order the town to conduct a further electronic search in response to the appellant’s request using the email addresses of the EA and any other staff in the CAO’s office.
  2. I order the town to conduct a further search of its electronic and paper record holdings for records that may flow from the May 8, 2017 email referred to in paragraph 24 of this order.
  3. I order the town to provide me with an affidavit sworn by the individual(s) who conduct(s) the further searches by August 10, 2020 describing its search efforts. The affidavit(s) should include the following information:
    1. the names and positions of the individuals who conducted the searches;
    2. information about the types of files searched, the nature and location of the search(es) and the steps taken in conducting the search(es);
    3. the results of the search(es); and,
    4. if the search described in order provision 2 does not yield any further results, an explanation.

The Adjudicator understood from the town’s letter that the Town of Amherstburg has commenced the additional searches, which have yielded a large volume of records that require review; and that there have been some delays in completing the additional searches due to demands on staff time because of emergency declarations for COVID-19 and flooding.

In response, the Adjudicator amended the compliance date in Order Provision 3 to be September 30, 2020.

Any further requests for extension must be made before September 15 and the appellant will be given an opportunity to make representations. Requests for additional time for compliance with Order Provisions 1-3 beyond September 30 that are received after September 15 will not be granted, unless extraordinary circumstances are present.

The Adjudicator clarified that the order was issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, which is an Office of the Legislative Assembly and independent from the provincial government.

Town of Amherstburg Ordered to Conduct Further Records Search

The Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario issued ORDER MO-3934-I regarding the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act request to the town for correspondence regarding the police costing from the town’s CAO (and his staff) to the OPP.

ORDER:

  1. I order the town to conduct a further electronic search in response to the appellant’s request using the email addresses of the EA and any other staff in the CAO’s office.
  2. I order the town to conduct a further search of its electronic and paper record holdings for records that may flow from the May 8, 2017 email referred to in paragraph 24 of this order.
  3. I order the town to provide me with an affidavit sworn by the individual(s) who conduct(s) the further searches by August 10, 2020 describing its search efforts. The affidavit(s) should include the following information:
    1. the names and positions of the individuals who conducted the searches;
    2. information about the types of files searched, the nature and location of the search(es) and the steps taken in conducting the search(es);
    3. the results of the search(es); and,
    4. if the search described in order provision 2 does not yield any further results, an explanation.
  4. The information should be provided by way of representations with the affidavit that may be shared with the appellant unless there is an overriding confidentiality concern.
  5. If the town locates additional responsive records as a result of its further search, I order it to issue an access decision to the appellant in accordance with the requirements of this Act , treating the date of this order as the date of the request.
  6. I reserve the right to require the town to provide me with a copy of the information it discloses to the appellant in accordance with this order.
  7. I remain seized of this appeal to deal with: any outstanding issues arising from order provisions 1 to 3; and, if the parties are unable to resolve them, any additional time that may be required by the town to comply with the order due to the current COVID-19 situation.

Police Costing Comparison Amherstburg And Orangeville Part 3 Council Motions Requesting OPP Costing

Any municipality wishing to request a contract proposal for the provision of policing services by the OPP must submit a council resolution requesting a proposal for the cost of OPP policing to the Ministry.

Orangeville
First request:
January 2014 Council Resolution to request costing proposal from OPP.
April 2017 OPP Costing Analysis presentation to Council.

Second request:
December 2018 Council Resolution to request a costing proposal from OPP.
January 2019 Town’s request approved and an initial meeting with OPP was held.

Amherstburg
December 2014 Resolution to obtain an OPP Costing.
January 2017 Resolution, in part, to work with the OPP on the OPP costing.
No initial meeting with OPP was held.
Fall 2017 cancelled.

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.

the burg watch is 7 years old

Seven years ago, the burg watch was the first site to create a permanent record of the performance of council members and staff.

Some of the burg watch’s posts were about council’s contravention of the Municipal Act following the Ombudsman Review Of Closed Meeting, council’s flip flops and a lack of commitment to accessibility.

In 2014, the burg watch was the first to provide residents with an opportunity to question the candidates. Despite being threatened with legal action by a candidate, I feel it was a worthwhile endeavour although not everyone responded.

Since then, posts referenced Ombudsman’s Reports of council’s contravention of the Municipal Act along with the JPAC’s in camera meetings on the Policing RFP, council’s decision to choose Windsor Police Service without obtaining an OPP costing as promised and still, a lack of commitment to accessibility.

In 2018, a new council was elected but time will tell what, if any, patterns will be repeated.

Thank you to those who support the burg watch.

Town Business Should Be Transparent

The River Town Times article on the recent Ombudsman Report mentioned Mayor Aldo DiCarlo said in the three-and-a-half years this council has been in office, it is only the second time that an Ombudsman’s report has found contraventions.

Letter to the editor RTT

Re: Ombudsman finds contravention in how JPAC, council handled meetings.

The article noted Mayor DiCarlo’s comment that during this council’s term, this is only the second contravention found by the Ombudsman.

Mayor DiCarlo referred to the early contravention and how town clerk Paula Parker’s absence resulted in uncertainty about in camera reasons. However, the Ombudsman noted the Chief Administrative Officer and the acting Clerk were present at the meeting.

In its first contravention, the Ombudsman concluded this Council was not permitted to discuss bank signing authorities in closed session at the meeting, and in doing so violated the Act.

The second contravention was of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the municipality’s procedure by-law when this council approved accounts payable over email in December 2014 and January 2015.

The third contravention, and current Ombudsman Report, noted council violated the Municipal Act in closing a meeting under the security of the property and the JPAC failed to comply with its terms of reference in closing several meetings using the security of the property exception.

Mayor DiCarlo made comparisons to the previous council’s violations.

The Ombudsman website lists ten Reports on Amherstburg: of the six during the previous council’s term, three were negative and of the four on this council, three were negative.

Experienced staff and council members should have known the meeting exceptions and in camera criteria, especially if previous Ombudsman recommendations were implemented.

How disappointing that transparency and accountability has to be legislated but can so easily be set aside to conduct business on behalf of ratepayers while excluding them.

Linda Saxon

Lack Of Transparency Part 1 – Police Advisor Updated

The Lack Of Transparency Part 1 – Police Advisor has been updated to reflect the fact that in addition to Midland, The Town Of Hanover And Municipality Of West Grey Also Issued A Request For Proposal – Study And Analysis Of The Feasibility Of The Amalgamation Of The Hanover And West Grey Police Services.

Michael Mitchell of MPM Consulting was the successful respondent and undertook the project beginning on March 21, 2016.

Lack Of Transparency Part 1 – Police Advisor

Ratepayers expect promises of accountability and transparency to be fulfilled. A series of posts will examine the lack of transparency when this council was to examine and compare policing costs.

A committee was established to review all the options and naturally, one would expect such committee members to possess the necessary expertise to advise council.

CAO Miceli initially informed Council the Joint Police Advisory Committee (JPAC) should be formed as a first step to ensure an open and transparent process for the review of policing options. Mayor DiCarlo stated, “we realized we need to get the committee in place and look at all the options.”

CAO Miceli’s recommendation to form a committee was based on the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) A Process Guidebook for the Review of Policing Options 2012′ he relied on.

If the committee requested assistance, Ministry Police Advisors were referred to and their role was explained in the Guidebook on page 6:

During any consideration of policing options, the initial responsibility of the advisor is to outline for the Board and Council their options and responsibilities under the Act and the potential implications of each. During a review of Policing Options, the advisor is available upon request to provide information and advice to participants in the process. Their advice is based on the legislation contained in the PSA, its regulations, and Ministry guidelines, as well as best practices that arise from other similar restructuring experiences.

Miceli would not confirm if any Ministry Advisors were involved in the police costing process here in Amherstburg.

Mike Mitchell, MPM Consulting, attended the inaugural July 2016 JPAC meeting wherein policing options were discussed: the OPP, Windsor and LaSalle.

MPM Consulting was to provide its proposal for consulting services through Miceli; Mitchell’s July 2016 Proposal was received at the January 16, 2017 JPAC meeting.

Council received Miceli’s report an the JPAC recommendation and agreed to hire MPM Consulting at its January 23, 2017 meeting.

The Town of Midland issued an RFP FOR THE PROVISION OF THE STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF POLICING SERVICES – MIDLAND POLICE SERVICE AND OPP.

The OPP commenced policing of Midland on February 8, 2018.

Edited: The Town Of Hanover And Municipality Of West Grey Also Issued A Request For Proposal – Study And Analysis Of The Feasibility Of The Amalgamation Of The Hanover And West Grey Police Services.

Michael Mitchell of MPM Consulting was the successful respondent and undertook the project beginning on March 21, 2016.

Ombudsman Reports Of Councils Compared

Mayor Aldo DiCarlo commented on the current council’s record in the Windsor Star article, Amherstburg contravened Municipal Act with closed meetings on policing.

The Ombudsman issued five Reports on the previous council; three were negative: council improperly voted twice and repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law.

The Ombudsman issued five Reports during the current council’s term; one was for the previous council, three were negative: it violated the Municipal Act, contravened the Municipal Act and its procedure by-law and council violated the Municipal Act in closing a meeting under the security of the property exception. Additionally, the Joint Police Advisory Committee’s discussions about the police costing RFP on June 1, June 22, July 6, and December 7, 2017 did not fit within the “security of the property” closed meeting exception.

I don’t know how anyone could conclude this council is doing much better.