Thank Me, Blame Council!

I had been emailing council members since February and urging them to update the procedural by-law and at no point did anyone mention that a review was underway. In September I asked on what date did members of council give direction to admin to update the by-law?

CAO Critchley answered – August 14, 2023. Technically, that was the day council rubber-stamped the by-law so neither council nor the public had any input, unlike other municipalities. As an example, Port Hope where ‘staff will work with all members of Council to gather their individual input on meeting processes and specific elements of the procedural by-law to ensure the recommended draft by-law is reflective of all points of view on Council.’

When I requested an explanation for missing speaking notes from two October 10 delegates, Critchley answered that ‘Both delegates have indicated that they did not have additional materials to provide and both met the requirements of section 9.4 of the Town’s Procedural By-law. While we certainly welcome delegates to share additional information that they may have in advance, if the requirements of the procedural by-law have been met then the Clerk is required to register the delegation.

It wasn’t just my concern. I shared the Centre For Free Expression’s response with council:

I have never heard of a municipality requiring the delegation speaker’s notes, much less the text of the speech, to be submitted ahead of the event. And, I have never heard of a requirement for a copy of the notes or speech text to be submitted with the application to appear. Sometimes when I appear before parliamentary bodies they request a copy of my submission ahead of time so they can distribute it to the committee members and, where there is simultaneous translation, to give a copy to the translators so as to help them. But, this is only after I have been accepted as a speaker and it is not a requirement.
While I feel it is both wrong and bad practice for your municipal council to do as yours is doing, it is not illegal to the best of my knowledge. It is something that should be fought in the court of public opinion.

ames L. TurkDirector, Centre for Free Expression
The Creative School
Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly Ryerson University)

It also wasn’t my only concern. On several occasions I shared my concerns regarding accommodations for persons with disabilities who were unable to be attend meetings and I mentioned comparator municipalities. Ironically, council has considered comparators for staff wages, budgets, and recommending removing the cheque registry from the agenda. Two more inconsistencies.

My comparator chart was attached to the agenda.

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

Lack Of Audio = Lack Of Transparency

I asked CAO Critchley for an explanation for the August 10 Amherstburg Heritage Committee meeting audio starting at 45:40. Just to be sure it wasn’t my computer, other residents verified the same.

This morning Critchley answered, “A technical issue prevented the capture of audio for the first portion of this meeting but was able to be resolved later in the meeting.

The Ontario Ombudsman Open Meetings Guide for Municipalities states:

What are the objectives of the open meeting rules?

The open meeting requirements set out in section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 permit the public to observe municipal government in progress. The Supreme Court of Canada answered this question in its decision in the 2007 case, London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc. The judges noted “the public’s demand for more accountable municipal government” and stated that open meetings are essential to “robust democratic legitimacy” of local administrations. They also observed that s. 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 “was intended to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government by ensuring the open and transparent exercise of municipal power.” (original emphasis).

Also from the Guide:

“The democratic legitimacy of municipal decisions does not spring solely from periodic elections, but also from a decision-making process that is transparent, accessible to the public, and mandated by law.”

– Hon. Madam Justice Louise Charron, Supreme Court of Canada