I’ve created a new page, Comparing, to continue adding all the posts comparing Amherstburg to other municipalities for easier viewing.

I’ll be back in 2023.

Following up on yesterday’s post, Accounts Payable On Agenda: A Matter of Trust, Council’s discussion left me wondering – aren’t documents already accessible when they’re created? how do employees with disabilities access these documents? are employees with disabilities working at town hall?

As an aside, I also questioned why the majority of barriers I submitted were not included in the post-election report to council.

1. i’m writing to request an explanation for the verbal statement that if the accounts payable were to be placed back on the agenda it will cost about $1000.00 per month and 6 hours of work to render the document accessible.
   
   In order to render the document accessible and ensure it is in compliance with accessibility rules for municipal websites, the Town will need to contract with an outside service provider to do the work as we do not have the internal resource capacity. We anticipate that this will take anywhere between 6-10 hours of work depending on the size of each document.
   
   
2. i’m also writing to request an explanation for the $20,000. estimate for the same.
   
   It was suggested that an UP SET LIMIT of $20,000 be allocated to this issue in order to ensure we had built enough funding into the budget to complete the work however, that amount was not approved.
   
   
3. would you confirm that the documents are therefore currently inaccessible? 
   
   In order for the document to meet website accessibility requirements, they need to be rendered so, as is the case with many computer generated documents. The documentation requested is not currently being produced. As with any content that is created, effort is required to build accessible components into the work to meet the legislative requirements.
   
   
4. would you confirm that sending this information via email that would negate the necessity of making it accessible would result in inaccessible documents being emailed? 
   
   As is the case with many computer and word processed documents, they need to be adjusted to meet website accessibility requirements. To be emailed, they would also need to be rendered accessible.
   
   
5. how would elected officials then share those inaccessible documents with the public?
   
   If citizen needs a document tco be rendered accessible, we would work to have that done, but there could be costs involved.
   
   
6. what process is in place for elected officials with disabilities to receive accessible documents?
   
   The process would be the same as listed for question 5 above.
   
   
7. on what date did current members of council receive training in accessibility?
   
   November 29, 2022.
   
   
8. i also request an explanation for the post election report’s exclusion of the majority of 2022 election barriers i submitted.
   
   Administration developed a report which it felt was fulsome and the majority of your issues were mentioned.

Copyright – this information is protected by Canada’s Copyright Act. Request written permission from the burg watch at gmail dot com.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Should the focus be trust for administration or the public trust?

A long-standing practice, by a motion carried over a decade ago when transparency was the focus, was not reconsidered yet it will be reinstated as a pilot for the next ten months.

Councillor Pouget campaigned ‘to regain the loss of trust by many of our taxpayers.’ Following her motion to reinstate accounts payable on public agendas, council and administration discussed it for about fifteen minutes at the December 5 council meeting.

CAO Critchley mentioned a $1000. monthly cost to render documents accessible, noted other local municipalities no longer do this, there may be privacy concerns, and council approves a budget and it is administration’s professional responsibility to spend within that budget. The treasurer commented on KPMG findings after Councillor Pouget mentioned the report.

I rarely agree with Councillor McArthur, but I was pleasantly surprised that he supported the cost for reasons of accountability and transparency and accessibility. Councillor Allaire supported it for transparency reasons and Councillor Courtney also spoke of public trust and transparency and accountability.

Deputy Mayor Gibb dissented and spoke against the motion, using the royal ‘we.’ He thought we have a level of trust or we ought to have a level of trust for the administration we have. If we don’t have that level of trust, then we need to have a different conversation. He was not going to support spending what’s been told almost $1,000 a month to see cheques that have gone through when we approve a budget and administration is legally bound to follow that budget. He was the only one In a recorded vote to oppose.

Council represents the public, ensures the accountability and transparency of operations, and is to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality. Administration implements council’s decisions and undertakes research and provides advice. Read the full Municipal Act, 2001, or just these sections: 224, role of council, 227, role of administration and 229, discretionary CAO.

Given all the unbudgeted items that have been approved, this is money well spent if it helps to restore public trust and fulfills the obligation to represent the public interest.

Copyright – this information is protected by Canada’s Copyright Act. Request written permission from the burg watch at gmail dot com.