Tag Archives: politics

Defamation And Disability Advocacy

Posted on by
Reply

My defamation lawsuit against the town clerk and town of Amherstburg is the result of my disability advocacy four years ago.

In January 2022, I critiqued the draft multi-year accessibility plan council approved in December 2021.

I submitted what I perceived to be deficiencies of the draft plan to council, as I had done for decades.

I conveyed my concerns about the plan, council’s approval of the traditional voting method for 2022 and highlighted some barriers. 

I provided input on the town’s accessibility plans since the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) 2001 required organizations to create them annually.

The ODA’s purpose was to “improve opportunities for persons with disabilities and to provide for their involvement in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to their full participation in the life of the province.” 

The ODA mandated plan contents. 

Plans were to include a report on measures taken, measures in place, and the next year’s measures to take to identify, remove and prevent barriers. 

The town was also required to assess, review and list its by-laws, policies, programs, practices and services to identify barriers.

I delegated to council and the accessibility committee; I emailed and wrote letters to the editor to help raise awareness of some barriers.

I had already advocated for ten years for an accessible library, but the town remained silent.

Throughout the decade the town pursued funding for other projects like a marina and arena, despite the provincial government’s grant stipulation that accessibility was the number one priority.

Finally, my human rights complaint against the town was settled and an elevator was installed in the library along with accessible parking spaces.

The town installed a plaque in the library lobby crediting others with my accomplishment.

I reiterated some of the barriers that were either not included in the plans or were not removed when they could have been.

For example, an accessible town website was relegated to year 3 of the town’s first accessibility plan, then listed as a priority for 2005, and then 2006.

A 2007 report informed council that the website was compliant with W3C accessibility standards but it wasn’t, according to an external expert. 

In 2009, a newly designed website was unveiled and problems continued. 

In 2011, I mentioned difficulty navigating the website. 

In 2014, Amherstburg was invited to hire esolutions when Essex County redesigned its site to meet accessibility standards; Leamington and Essex had already hired the company, but Amherstburg declined. 

According to the town’s site, esolutions redesigned Amherstburg’s site in 2016, although it still had issues.

Thousands of dollars and redesigns later, in 2020 administration recommended, and council agreed, to request the province to extend the AODA January 1, 2021 website compliance deadline to at least January 1, 2022 due to COVID-19.

Following the January 1, 2022 deadline extension request, the province agreed the town’s work should be completed prior to December 31, 2024. 

The new website redesign and refresh was not to exceed $70,000, excluding HST.

The AODA 2005 now requires organizations to review their multi-year plans every five years but report annually on barrier removal progress.

Although the town’s plan review is due by December 2026, the town posted a 2026 Multi-Year Accessibility survey on January 26, 2026.

The survey introduction states, “The Town’s Multi-Year Accessibility Plan outlines the outcomes and initiatives that reaffirm the Town’s commitment to an accessible community and to building an equitable and inclusive society that values the contributions of people with disabilities.”

I do not feel like my contributions have been valued – my decades of input parallel decades of barriers.

Despite my repetitive requests for a strong commitment to accessibility, the town failed to meet the 2025 AODA compliance deadline.

In fact, Mayor Prue even declared, ‘this town has not been compliant.’

Commentary by Linda Saxon

RECAP Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting January 15, 2026

Posted on by
Reply

Another contentious and confusing committee meeting with chair Pat Simone on zoom. Both she and Alan Buterbaugh were re-elected to their respective positions of chair and vice. 

Not much was accomplished. As usual, Crain offered kudos to staff and asked admin to explain the purpose of the work plan for the benefit of viewers. Not sure why he didn’t just explain it himself. 

Most of the time was wasted on admin’s longwinded speeches to Councillor Pouget explaining why five delegates were denied the opportunity to speak at this meeting and Kurt Reffle’s preferential delegate treatment at the November 26 meeting.

My understanding of explanations is:

The appropriate time for delegates to speak was then, in November, not now, but delegates can speak in the future – only when the item is on the agenda, accompanied by an admin report. Furthermore, both must be true: there would have to be a report or by-law before the body and there would have to be an action or recommendation. So why was Kurt Reffle allowed to speak when neither was true? There was no admin report or recommendation. The clerk’s clarification was that the initial working session in November was a brainstorming session and the appropriate time to provide new ideas was then, as Kurt Reffle did. Delegations for January 15 were in order, but they’re in order for a future date. But the clerk said the work plan is a “living document so it can be revised, amended, as you need to.” (But five delegates were denied speaking on it?)

Following Robert’s rules of order would result in more efficient meetings.

MINUTES

Instead of first asking if there were any corrections, per Robert’s rules of order, Simone asked for a motion to approve the October 16 minutes and got a mover and seconder. 

Councillor Pouget noted an omission of her declaration of a conflict regarding Belle Vue.

After the clerk noted the minutes would be amended, Simone asked for a motion to adopt the minutes with those changes noted.

“Seeking confirmation from the mover and seconder that that is a friendly amendment,” said the clerk. 

(Not in the rules. Corrections are made and the chair simply asks for a motion to approve the minutes as corrected).

Simone repeated her request for a motion of adoption before asking if there were any corrections for the October 16 special in camera and November 26 meetings.

Councillor Pouget mentioned complaints about five delegates’ denials and Kurt Reffle’s delegation lasting over 11 minutes and how he spoke about items not on the agenda, an ongoing theme throughout the meeting.

Simone didn’t offer an explanation at this meeting why she didn’t stop Reffle after five minutes, which is the procedural by-law limit (and usually strictly enforced), but CAO Critchley answered my inquiry. Critchley stated “…the chair was attending remotely and did not see the email from the Policy & Committee Co-ordinator alerting her that the delegate was “at time.”

Simone asked the clerk to speak, and he did at length. To summarize, he pointed out the discussion was about the minutes. As for the delegates, the initial working session was a brainstorming session and the appropriate time to provide new ideas for the work plan suggestion was during the November meeting for which Mr. Reffle did. 

Pouget said she would raise it at the appropriate time.

Proposed 2026 – 2030 Economic Development Advisory Committee Workplan

Simone first asked if administration would like to speak on any of those items. 

(This seems to be a bad habit – asking admin to speak before council/committee members).

Deputy CAO Osborne believed they captured what was said but noted a member identified a missed item. 

Michael Deneau noted one item discussed last week (it was November) was additional infrastructure investments be endorsed to provide for expanded events and short term accommodations, which includes, but not limited to festival stage and Marina and expanded KNYP. 

Councillor Crain said he had a question, not on that topic, just a question overall about the work plan.

Simone said go ahead. 

(she shouldn’t have allowed Crain’s question if it was unrelated to the topic. Why wasn’t he told this was not the appropriate time? There seems to be no hesitation to tell Councillor Pouget when it’s inappropriate.).

Crain asked Osborne, for the public’s knowledge, if she’d be able to reiterate the purpose of the work plan and next steps overall. 

(Shouldn’t he have just been able to inform the public himself? Some of us watched the November 26, 2025 meeting discussion re the purpose of the work plan so I’m not sure we needed a reminder of what it’s all about).

Osborne explained the work plan is a work plan for this committee to adopt. It then goes to council, not for approval, but for awareness and adoption only. It does not set direction to council. It is just really what will inform this group for the remainder of the term, as well as the next potential Economic Development Advisory Committee, presuming that the next council strikes said committee. So this would help inform the next council as well what this committee feels its purpose and reason is for the community as well is they consider that particular item as well. 

(got it?)

Pouget spoke about the potential closure of Murray Street and the relevant 2024 council motions. On this work plan, it says ‘near,’ which means close or at hand for the term for our goals, that administration be directed to bring the report back regarding the potential closure of Murray Street to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for the Committee’s review and comments to be provided to council. 

Pouget noted the item remained on the unfinished business list and wasn’t brought forward. She said they asked why not. 

Well, it was because it was a very controversial issue and council was aware most people were opposed, and there was a petition against it. Unfortunately, no one was allowed to present the petition to council because it was never on the agenda. It wasn’t on the agenda. At no time in one and a half years did administration check with business owners and people thought it was a dead issue, until Mr. Reffle and three members of the chamber appeared. It was not on the agenda. 

Under the work plan’s midterm goals, Pouget noted additional programming around Open Air weekends was also never on the agenda, but Reffle spoke about it and it became part of the work plan. Yet five delegations wanted to speak on the work plan, and they were all denied. So, what is the difference?

The clerk spoke again about the five delegates’ requests. He started off with certainly, which he uses quite frequently, they have not been denied; they’ve been held in abeyance.

(Not being allowed to exercise one’s right to freedom of expression when one requests to do so is a denial). 

He continued, there’s a structural difference in that meaning – that meaning is that those requests are held until that matter comes before the body. (But it was before the body January 15). So tonight, the merits of the items are not for discussion. Those would happen at the point when those reports come back. At this point, it’s merely the discussion on what pertains to what is in the work plan. At the last meeting, when that delegation was made, a delegation was to include that as a future work plan item and so it certainly was in order. These delegations while in order, they’re in order for a future date when that matter should come back to them. 

(got it?)

Pouget said Open Air was not addressed. No one was allowed to speak on it for two years, yet Reffle spoke on it and these people can’t. 

Pouget noted the other unaddressed item was why they didn’t proceed with direction from council to meet with all the businesses – they’re here tonight to tell you that no one met with them, no one in one and a half years; but that’s put on our plan.

Osborne provided a long winded response not just about why the conversations haven’t happened; she spoke about Kurt Reffle’s delegation last November and the delegates that were denied an opportunity to speak at this meeting. 

Osborne explained: Quite simply, there was a miscommunication internally, because the direction and the transportation master plan was brought forward by infrastructure services. Our understanding is that infrastructure services were given the direction by council to solicit the businesses. Infrastructure services felt that that is (inaudible) normally part of theirs and it would be economic development, and we have since (inaudible) that, and we will be working with the businesses in the area to bring a report back to council on the matter. 

More repetition about the delegates’ denial. Osborne reiterated the delegates’ requests are held in abeyance until the report comes back. Then they can either address this committee, or council. What he was trying, in earnest to do, (does she know his state of mind?) was to ensure that when the actual report comes forward, and these people are likely wanting to speak to council directly and/or this committee, that those rights are continued to be preserved, and that’s simply what we’re attempting to do. The meeting that happened in November was specific about the work plan and proper delegations were received. 

If delegates wish to delegate at that time to this committee, they’re welcome to, understanding if they delegate on that matter before this committee, they will not be able to delegate before Council on the same one. That is the way the procedural by law works. 

(I’ve asked the Critchley to provide me with the procedural by-law section of this rule). 

How many times does the work plan have to be explained?

The clerk explained to Pouget: a work plan in itself is future work to be undertaken. And so what you do when you create a work plan is you brainstorm what it is that you’d like to discuss in the future to provide recommendations. This body is a body that cannot make determinations. It can only provide recommendations to council. And so at the time at which they (not they, since Pouget is on the committee) were doing their brainstorming session, you guys were doing your brainstorming session. The idea behind that session was that the work plan was going to be discussed, which would entail what work the committee would like to undertake, as you can understand, presupposing what work the committee would want to undertake would prevent that committee members from doing the essential job of brainstorming those ideas. That session is intended to provide that those ideas would be generated for future discussion. And so the agenda itself references that they’re going to have a discussion, the body, about what future work they would undertake, and then the appropriate time to delegate on those matters would be when those matters come back. So I don’t want to confuse the issues at the time at which a work plan is being generated. It is, by its very nature, a brainstorming session where ideas are thrown at the wall to see whether or not the body as a whole wants to discuss them at a future point in time. 

(got it?)

Crain had two comments. I feel like we’re going in circles here (then blame admin). First comment is under new business any member of this committee or anyone at Council can bring up any item they want to discuss under new business. Opinions aside, that’s the purpose of new business. (Who needs an explanation of the purpose of new business?) And quite frankly, there’s many motions that are brought up under new business at every council meeting that I may not agree with or that the public is not able to speak on. (For example, when Crain votes against hearing people speak). So it was in order. The committee voted on it, council voted on it, and I imagine there’s going to be items under new business tonight that the public isn’t able to speak on with advance notice. Secondly, (here comes the cheerleading) the year and a half comment, I believe staff have a lot of competing priorities and a lot on their plate. And folks in the audience can make comments if they wish, (as is their right), but I think there’s a lot more pressing issues that the town is facing that staff are working on, and I think they’re doing a great job in balancing what they can so those are my thoughts.

(a year and a half of inaction is not something that should be cheered).

Buterbaugh asked if there is a document that the public has access to that defines the criteria for being a delegate. (he doesn’t know??) And if so, is it, is it described in the way you’ve described it tonight? 

The clerk answered: yes, so the procedural by law sets out what is a delegation and how that would work. Further to that, there is also, of course, the web page where it sets out if you want to speak at a council or committee meeting and how you do that, and it sets out the parameters for doing so. 

Buterbaugh then asks is that document clear about the fact that an item, an item needs to be on the agenda for a delegate to speak to it?

The clerks answers yes, there must be a report or a by law before the body. Further to that, the delegation in the definition of it, there has to be an action item associated with it, or a recommendation that’s being made to council. Both of those things would have to be true. There would have to be a report or a by law before the body, and there would have to be some sort of action or recommendation to come out of that.

(Reffle’s November 26, 2025 delegation request form stated the item he wished to speak to was not on the agenda, contrary to the town’s procedural by-law. 

Buterbaugh continued: then it appears to me that there has been a misunderstanding around the purpose of the work plan, because it’s in a work plan, it’s not necessarily an agenda item, and I think that’s where the confusion is.

The clerk confirmed he was correct.

Crain asked if they were seeking a motion on 8.1 or just to receive.

Simone should’ve been able to answer but the clerk advised what the appropriate action would be – adopt a work plan tonight; of course, it is a living document, so it can be revised, amended, as you need to, but it gives some guidance to council on what you’re working on and to administration, what further reports and items you’d like to see in the future.

Crain moved the work plan for adoption.

Pouget: further to what Alan just stated. We just heard it has to be on the agenda. It has to be on the agenda. Our previous speaker in November spoke on items that were not on the agenda. There was no motion, no direction, regarding Murray Street or Open Air, and he spoke on both of them, that’s what my point is, and no matter what we do, how good this committee is, that will be forever, that shadow will follow us no matter what we do.

Simone said, I believe the clerk has answered that question as well as administration, the delegate came forward knowing that the work plan was on the agenda, and he was providing his comments and suggestions to make Amherstburg a tourist destination, if I remember the presentation correctly. So he did speak on items that were on the agenda and the clerk or administration, if I’ve misinterpreted that, please let me know. But that is my understanding.

Osborne  You are correct, Madam Chair. So the work plan itself was the discussion on the November meeting for which he delegated, and all of the topics that he spoke to were things that were identified in the previous work plan that were being discussed at that time about whether or not they should proceed or be amended. Administration had provided identification of things that had already been completed. And he spoke to Murray Street, which was on the agenda, and I do believe Open Air was as well in this particular listing, as well. 

The clerk chimed in: just to build on that, I have loaded up the agenda and placed on the screen so that it’s clear that the previous work plan, which does include things like the closure of Murray was on the agenda, was there for public notice so that people could provide any comments they wished.

(I thought both must be true: there would have to be a report or by-law before the body and there would have to be an action or recommendation, which there wasn’t).

Simone, because she was on zoom, wasn’t sure if there were any other questions or comments. 

Comments about the establishment of ‘districts’ in the area. 

(Like the Anchor District?)

Economic Development Newsletter

Jack Edwards asked questions about the signs. 

Osborne answered: council directed administration to seek an advertising agency that would be able to advertise on those signs with guaranteed revenue to the community. So that has since happened. However, the town continues to secure rights on the digital signs for any advertisements that are required for town business and or nonprofits, and there’s a process for that. However, anything that’s business related goes through the third party, which is Patterson, and those revenues are directed to an economic development reserve fund for use as and when we request it to council and with their approval.

Unfinished Business – none.

New Business

Simone believed there were some items that wanted to be discussed on this section.

Osborne had a couple of ‘new business items that we wanted to bring forward.’

(Who is we?)

  1. Nominations will open in February for the chamber’s excellence awards.
  2. This week’s RTT River Bookshop ad about what makes Amherstburg great, a collection of businesses, stories, history, families, social heritage that they are looking to do. I believe it’s every week for the next 50 weeks to share those good news messages. And just wanted to relay that to this economic development committee. We’ve been given permission by them to use it as and when appropriate for any of our marketing and advertising for prospective investors.
  3. The only other item that I would want to add, and I guess this could have been under unfinished business. Just before the holidays, people are probably already aware, but the Diageo plant has been listed officially for sale. It’s our understanding that they’re not entertaining any walk throughs until the February timeframe, we have been in dialogue with various parties, and we have been in dialogue with Diageo as and when appropriate. However, at least, it is moved forward in that particular regard, and we are certainly actively pursuing as and when we have the opportunity to help reactivate or reimagine that site to additional jobs or new jobs. 

Jen Ibraham also wanted to bring to their attention the chamber’s annual general meeting on March 4 and they are looking for board members. 

Mr. Morrison asked about future meeting dates.

The clerk said he didn’t have it in front of him, but he’d send out the schedule. 

Pouget asked if there was an approximate timeline for meeting.

Alan said not a new item but regarding the work plan, will the updated work plan be sent out to this committee.

Osborne said the updated work plan, as amended based on motions today, will be sent to you, and then it will be also on the next council agenda, which might be February 9. 

The clerk advised the committee that during an election year committees usually don’t meet after June.

Pouget said Peggy Thompson requested to ask a question, but she wasn’t sure if she’d be allowed. Pouget asked if they could waive the rules of order.

Simone thought procedural by-laws for a committee do not allow for that like at Council. 

The clerk the chair is correct. The delegation of authority that exists only extends to council to waive Council’s by laws. There is no provision for a committee to do so, and so it is not possible for a committee to waive Council’s procedural by law.

Meeting adjourned.

Delegations Discouraged At This Time – Murray Street Closure Concept

Posted on by

This is what delegates requesting to appear before the January 15, 2026 Economic Development Committee meeting might receive from admin:

Thank you for your delegation request submission. Upon review, the item that has been identified for discussion purposes is drawn from the Committees future work plan, and not something that is before the body at this time to make any determinations. For background, Council last directed that Administration consult with businesses in the Downtown area regarding the concept of closing Murray Street and then report back to Council. This consultation will be done this year and the report will then be brought back for consideration. The action item associated with this issue in the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) work plan is simply to bring this future report to the Committee first before presenting it to Council so that the Committee can provide its comments. To be clear, there is no report or recommendation regarding the closure of Murray Street being presented to either the Committee or Council at this time.

For this reason, should you wish you delegate regarding the merits of closing Murray Street, the appropriate time would be when this report is completed and presented to the Economic Development Advisory Committee for discussion. At this time, the only thing on the agenda is a notation of that future work, not a discussion in relation to what recommendation may be made with regards to that future report. Furthermore, it should be noted that section 9.4. (d) states that, “Delegations appearing before Council, who have previously appeared before Council on the same subject matter, shall be limited to providing only new information in any subsequent delegation request.” What this means is that, should you choose to delegate to the Committee either now, or in the future when the report on closure is before the Committee, you will not be able to delegate on the same matter to Council, except to provide any additional information not provided to the Committee. For all of these reasons your delegation requested will be noted in relation to this matter and when the report moves forward to come to the committee, we will contact you to inquire if you continue to desire to speak to it, have any need to change your previous submission upon having the chance to have read the report, and, provide you the opportunity to delegate at that time.

Happy Election Year!

Posted on by

We get to exercise our democratic right to vote for candidates we feel will best represent us.

I haven’t felt represented, except for Councillor Pouget who isn’t even on the accessibility committee.

At the start of 2025, Prue referenced the AODA and said, ‘this town has not been compliant. And I have promised, as mayor, and the council has promised, that we will hence for, hence forward, going forward, always be AOD compliant. And I want people to know that the those who have disabilities have every right to use every one of the services in this town, the same as everyone else.’

Parks were touted as accessible but still pose barriers to some children with disabilities.

Councillor Allaire said she would like the library to have a new place ‘that’s accessible’ and our library service is small and ‘not as accessible as we want it to be,’ and ‘its challenges are inaccessibility.’ She has refused to answer questions about her statements.

Council decided to continue the time old tradition of in person voting, which will still create barriers for some disabled residents.

Councillor Crain led the momentum to shut down any further debate about the contentious Open Air, aka Closed Streets, which will continue to pose barriers to some residents with disabilities.

Council took no meaningful action in response to the number one Open Air survey complaint – accessibility.

Council hasn’t reviewed the controversial procedure by-law that reduced opportunities for residents’ participation in the decision making process.

Some residents were allowed to bypass the procedure by-law rules.

The town continued its swim arrangement with Movati, forcing some disabled residents to go to LaSalle if they wanted to swim – but they had to pay.

The town continued to unapologetically approve inaccessible businesses.

The town applied for, and received, a grant to promote the Aphasia Friendly initiative where some businesses might become Aphasia friendly yet they may remain inaccessible. I reached out to the group a few times but my questions remain unanswered.

The accessibility committee continued with its annual symbolic flag raising ceremony during National AccessAbility Week, requiring minimal effort.

The town hall still has some accessibility issues. Money spent on pickleball, trails and a dog park could’ve been prioritized for accessiblity.

When the first dog park opened Prue was quoted as saying, it ‘reflects our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive community for all residents, including our beloved canine companions.’

For as long as barriers exist, and they do, no one should claim we are an inclusive community. It takes strong leadership and a strong commitment to remove the barriers and keep promises.

The Burg Watch Is 14 years old

Posted on by

In 2011, right after the 2010 election, I became Amherstburg’s first local blogger. Having a record to review to make more informed decisions about future candidates was my goal.

I was also the first one to facilitate questions to the candidates, for which I endured threat of legal action and harassment.

Some candidates ignored me while others were happy to answer. Even though I allowed for generous deadlines, one claimed she couldn’t meet it. Funny how she posted about 45 tweets in the same time frame; I discovered just how nasty some people are.

Another candidate was nasty when I shared my observations of what appeared to be a slate. (I’m sure there will be more commonalities among candidates in 2026. The facts are not my opinion).

As a person with disabilities, and an advocate, I let candidates know about their inaccessible campaigns. Anyone excluding a marginalized community, while hypocritically campaigning to represent everyone, wouldn’t get my vote. Attitudinal barriers are obvious.

In 2014, the three candidates who created websites had accessibility issues. In 2022 more candidates used social media yet didn’t provide accessible information, even after I pointed it out to them and after they received information about conducting accessible campaigns. Lori Wightman’s website had accessibility issues in 2018 and 2022. 

Noteworthy about the 2022-2026 council:

  • the more restrictive procedural by-law limiting citizen participation; delegates can only speak to an issue that’s listed on the agenda and if it’s accompanied by an admin report or a by-law.
  • Councillor Crain and Deputy Mayor Gibb voted a couple of times against audience members speaking to council.
  • the amount of time some council members spend on self promotion while ignoring emails from residents.
  • failing to meet the January 1, 2025 AODA deadline.
  • no decision on an inaccessible town hall.
  • claims of inaccessibility at the library without accountability for statements (Councillors McArthur and Allaire).
  • pickleball – almost $500,000.00 June 2023: ‘The motion has passed now the thorny issue of how do we pay for it?’ said Mayor Prue. (yes, money is found for some things).
  • a future fire hall being slowly built

Unchanged Common Themes:

  • lack of decorum (I blame a lack of leadership for allowing the incivility)
  • council 4-3 divisions
  • excessive kudos to staff
  • staff participation in council meetings
  • demands for FOI requests
  • a high number of in-camera meetings
  • lack of public consultation
  • preferential treatment (some items get moved quickly)
  • over expenditures
  • police costs
  • ableism
  • lack of commitment to accessibility – a decades old issue.

Thank you to those who continue to follow, stay connected and share my vision of a more inclusive community.

Evaluating Amherstburg’s Commitment to Accessibility: A Community Call

Posted on by

The accessibility committee will discuss a report in favour of in-person voting that council already approved last month, review my 3 year old voting barriers submission to council that was to go to committee before council’s decision (as per council’s motion) and receive a communications plan for next May’s National AccessAbility Week with key messages. I have a few too, in blue below the town’s.

• Accessibility is a shared responsibility—together, residents, businesses, and community partners can help make Amherstburg more inclusive for everyone.

But some residents’ concerns have been dismissed and council took no meaningful action on the number one complaint of accessibility in the residents’ Open Air survey. My repeated requests for consultations with the disability community have also been dismissed. My emails to council members have been disregarded, except for Councillor Pouget and she’s not even an accessibility committee member. Councillor McArthur volunteered to be on the committee and he actively champions trails and Open Air, although I have encouraged him to equally champion accessibility. The town has approved, and welcomed, inaccessible businesses.

• Throughout the week, the Town will showcase local accessibility features in municipal parks, trails, and facilities, and share supports available to persons with disabilities.

The minimally accessible yet not inclusive parks that still exclude some children with disabilities? the trails that need more rest areas? lack shade? lack washrooms? lack drinking fountains? Facilities like the town hall that has accessibility barriers? the Gordon House that is inaccessible? Which supports? The Aphasia Friendly initiative where some businesses might become Aphasia friendly yet remain inaccessible?

• The flag raising ceremony will serve as a symbol of our continued commitment to accessibility, inclusion, and community collaboration.

A flag raising, or symbolic gesture, requires minimal effort. There can be no community collaboration if the disability community is ignored. Continued commitment? Dictionary meaning: existing firm decision. When barriers at Closed Streets are embraced, the least accessible voting method is endorsed, parks are not inclusive, and other barriers continue to exist or are created, the decision is that accessibility is not a priority. I have been requesting a stronger commitment to accessibility for over 3 decades.

Have you heard the term “performative allyship?” It’s used to describe when someone claims to be an ally to a marginalized group, but their actions don’t match their words. Performative allyship can be harmful because it can lead to tokenism, exploitation, and a false sense of progress. Read the full article.

Last but not least, the town used grant funding on this segregated accessible swing at Jack Purdie Park. Shameful.

Same Old In Person Voting For 2026

Posted on by

If I could give out awards for last night’s council dumpster fire, Deputy Mayor Gibb would be the recipient but there would be some runner ups. It would be so refreshing to listen to council members who would demonstrate they’ve conducted independent research. Instead, ableism was on full display, along with the race to ‘support the recommendation of administration.’

Gibb said he wanted to stick with in-person voting, “you can’t get more accessible than that.” Because two dozen people used in home voting? He said accessibility options have been addressed. And I have strongly encouraged him to take more training in accessibility and human rights.

Councillor Crain mentioned cybersecurity and believed the in-person method should be continued. Okay, then stop being on social media and meet all the constituents in person. Oh, and get rid of the town’s Talk the Burg online surveys.

Councillor Allaire said in-person voting gave residents at Seasons a sense of independence. She doesn’t get it and has a lot to learn. Her statement that online voters could be influenced if others are looking over their shoulders was what convinced me.

Councillor Courtney said it was a hybrid option already with the in-home option for people with accessibility needs. I don’t think he gets it either.

Councillor Pouget thought the decision could be deferred pending more consultation. The clerk said a bylaw needs to be passed prior to May 1, 2026, but resources need to be secured as quickly as possible. But admin is to blame for not bringing the report back by mid-term as the CAO mentioned. (Shhh; no kudos for admin). Like the policing renewal contract that was delayed until there was no choice but to stay with Windsor, oh, time ran out to consult the public so stick with the same old and stay comfortable with that.

Councillor Don McArthur agreed with Pouget. He said voting at the polls is “democracy in action” but acknowledged it is harder for some to get to the polling stations than others. I think democracy in action is the voting process, not the voting method.

Mayor Prue said “I’m a little nervous about going with the computer system until I get a little more safeguards than I saw in the report.” But I mentioned the accredited standard that wasn’t mentioned in the report. Did he not catch that when I spoke?

A post-election survey was mentioned, along with the 73% in favour of in person voting. I support taxes being put toward calculators for members of council. A man was asking voters at the Libro how they liked to vote and used tally marks. When I asked him when the survey was decided he said that day he was given pen and paper.

As I advised council, the 73% represents only about 16% of eligible voters in town. Using 2022 eligible voters’ data, about 9000 residents have a disability or have a family member with a disability. Remember how council members voted before you vote in 2026.

Repeating Request For Patio Policy

Posted on by

While council will discuss temporary patio user fees at its February 24, 2025 meeting, it has yet to enact a patio policy, despite my emailing council and/or delegating about it seven times to ensure AODA compliance. I even provided resources.

So, for an eighth time, I’ve emailed council but this time I reminded them of their promises by Mayor Prue during the January 27, 2025 council meeting:

“this town has not been compliant. And I have promised, as mayor, and the council has promised, that we will hence for hence forward, going forward, always be AOD compliant. And I want people to know that the those who have disabilities have every right to use every one of the services in this town, the same as everyone else.”

I also quote the Municipal Act, section 14 (1):

A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,
(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or
(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval, made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation.  2001, c. 25, s. 14.

I also reminded them about Prue’s October 15, 2024 comment: “I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio? If they won’t get out of the way on the sidewalk, they won’t get out of the way. And so I think that this is a business case has been made, and I do believe that is in the best interest of the town to be a welcoming and friendly place for people to sit out and have a meal in the sun. So I, will not be supporting the motion.”

I advised them that many municipalities have enacted patio policies that include AODA compliance and barrier removal and asked, will you keep your promises to do the same?

This council has proven how business friendly it is. Making a strong commitment to removing barriers and being AODA compliant is long overdue.

Majority Rules – Right Or Wrong?

Posted on by

Jack Edwards told Councillor Pouget that ‘the majority has to rule on this’ during the Open Air Report discussion at the November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting.

And we frequently see the 4 votes at council meetings.

The following article is reprinted with permission of the author, Registered Parliamentarian Eli Mina.

Is the majority always right?

During a coffee break at a training session, a newly elected municipal official spoke to me
privately and said this: A wise person taught me that with a council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can
provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish.
After all, the majority is always right. What do you think about these words of wisdom?

On the surface, what he said sounded correct. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a basic
principle of decision making is that the majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a
measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the motion is
defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are ultimately the only thing that matter. Right?

Not so fast. Something significant is missing with this logic.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its
will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being
stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and
thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but
this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed; possibly leading to
flawed decisions that the majority, the minority, and the community, will regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it
may be making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, and loud and
aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a
careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end—getting enough votes—justifies the means, which
may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they’ll vote. On the other hand,
with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a
meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to and learn from
everyone, and treat minorities as partners in decision making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With
knowledge-based democracies, the individuals with the most relevant information and the most
astute and compelling analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning,
inquiry and excellence in decision making.

Ultimately, numbers-based democracies are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone
decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce
informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for affected organizations.

RECAP November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting – Open Air 2025 to 2026

Posted on by

Spoiler Alert: admin is already making plans for Open Air 2025 and the committee, thanks to cheerleader Councillor Crain, carried a motion that it continue as is into 2026. Crain did co-author the THRIVE White Paper on Open Air. Jack Edwards suggested hair stylists cut and style hair outdoors and dismissed complainers as a ‘small group of people that have been naysayers since the get go’ and vitriol. I was appalled that Edwards used the offensive and outdated ‘handicap’ and Alan Buterbaugh used ‘people that have handicapped needs. It appears there is a limited knowledge of barriers to accessibility: converted accessible parking will address the issue.

After deciding the next committee meeting would be held on January 16, 2025, the dumpster fire started. Cheerleaders Edwards and Crain gushed over the admin report, or as Edwards called it, ‘absolutely magnificent’ while Crain thanked staff and called it ‘exceptional.’ I’ll never understand why so many kudos are warranted for people doing their jobs.

Admin’s recommendation was for the committee to receive the Report Back on Open Air Business Open House for information but Edwards said this huge report, which he thought was excellent, also thought they were going to talk about it.

Deputy CAO Melissa Osborne answered, without going through the chair, that’s her understanding; if there are any questions of administration on it, or comments or recommendations for council, that this is the opportunity.

Edwards; unofficial transcript: I’m absolutely amazed that the amount of time and effort is being spent on this Open Air, and it’s gone to council a couple times, had been a divided vote, and the mayor had to split the vote. It seems such and from the report, and by the way, Jennifer, I assume that majority of this work is yours, and it’s just absolutely magnificent report and all the effort and the work has gone into this, and we will now have another vote of council whether we go ahead with it. I can’t fathom why anybody would be against open air. It has been so successful wherever it’s been tried around the world, and it’s successful for Amherstburg and the comments by all the people that answer the survey, all the percentages are so high, everybody’s in favour. And I know there’s a beautiful stylist down there, and I assume she’s the one that wrote three pages of comments in your report, and if she can’t figure a way to make her business viable during open house, and I was thinking of her as I said, all she has to do is do what everybody else move a chair outside, cut hair, style hair outside. Give a 25% coupon when you can’t park next door. The complaints in the report were so and you were at the meeting at the little cafe, you must have seen the vitriol list. Is that a word, the vitriol accent of the people that were there, but to me as the representatives on economic development and to me as our councillors and to me as the administration, it is a no brainer. It’s got to go forward. It’s good for this town. It’s good for the county. And thinking of this report, I thought, what an opportunity we have. The Valente, I knew Remo in Windsor a long time ago. They are a good family business, and now they own the high school. Look at that beautiful piece of property, that (unintelligible) onto open air. What you can do with all that green area to have something magnificent. It just doesn’t make any sense that we you have to go through 50, 60 pages of discussion in order to again bring it up at the Council where Councillor Crain, Councillor Pouget  and the other five will have to vote on this.

Osborne clarified that this report is merely the information back from the business survey as well as Open Air itself. At this particular time, the motion that has been put forward and approved by Council and is built in our base budget, is the 14 week, Friday to Sunday, Open Air, which, unless there is new direction from Council by way of a motion, at this point Open Air will proceed in 2025 as defined in the base budget and as defined as the last motion back in March so that doesn’t change unless Council makes a motion to make that change.

There was some back and forth about the motion and council’s direction between Osborne and Edwards.

Councillor Pouget commented; unofficial transcript: I can tell you without a doubt, with everything that’s going on in Council this is probably one of the most controversial issues there is because without a doubt, I get so many complaints about Open Air, numerous, numerous complaints, not only because we’re paying significant amount of money and tax dollars for it. But also many, many businesses, in fact, if you look at this, the survey, 70% of the businesses say they don’t want Open Air. And the motion that I think we’re referring to was the motion that was made March 25, 2024 that at the end of Open Air events in September, administration, business and council, if they so wish, participate in a meeting together to discuss the footprint, frequency, benefits and improvements for Open Air for all businesses within and outside the footprint up to 500 meters. But the motion of March 25 was supposed to be within and outside the 500 meter footprint. But the business survey actually says, and this is on page 2 of 13, the direction from council was to survey all businesses within the open air footprint. It doesn’t say within and outside. So many of the businesses from outside of the Open Air footprint didn’t receive an official invitation, so therefore they weren’t present at that meeting and they weren’t aware of the survey,

Simone called on admin to clarify and Pouget continued; unofficial transcript: But as I said, many of the businesses that wanted to participate that were outside that 500 meters, they weren’t allowed to participate yet they pay taxes for this and when we talk about the barber shop, she closes on Saturday because she can’t get her clients there and for hairdressing, as we know, Saturday is a day for weddings, and these people are dropped off. They want their veils put in, and they have to park two or three blocks away. They can’t get to their hairdressing shops. And people with accessibility issues, you have no idea how many phone calls and complaints I received because loved ones that take care of people with accessibility issues, they work and they can’t get to the bank until after hours, and by three o’clock on Friday afternoon, the streets are closed so they can’t get to the bank, and they can’t very well just drop off their loved ones and say, make it to the bank yourselves, or they can’t take part of services. They wanted to attend the music in the parks. They can’t even get close to it. They have to park at least five to six blocks away. So it’s accessibility issues. We put barriers in place. So there’s just so many issues to deal with this and 14 weeks if you received how many emails I received that show that the place is absolutely bare. Nobody’s there, and yet those streets are closed.

Crain; unofficial transcript: I have to say thank you to staff. This report is exceptional, and I agree with what Jack had mentioned. The report speaks to the economic impact and the over 104,000 attendees that took place in 2024. I voiced this at Council several times. We continue to poke at open air and try to, in some cases, shorten the timelines, lower the cost and shorten the event. But really, we should be looking at, how can we enhance this to make it even better, because we see the economic drivers and the activity it’s bringing in and the spending that’s taking place in town. So I fully support the report I would like to make a motion. I think it’s important that this committee speaks loud and clear to council, so that we do not continue to have surveys that yield the same results. And in my opinion, sometimes can waste staff time, if we’re asking the same questions every single year and really it’s the same result. So I would like to make a motion that the Economic Development Committee endorses the report and recommends that Council supports the continuation of Open Air. If I can get a seconder. 

Edwards responded to Pouget; unofficial transcript: I’d like to add comments to what Councillor Pouget had to say. I agree, because I’m one of the people that use handicap; there are ways about it, and I think having the high school part will help. The people have to do something that our administration will be doing something to answer the questions of the few. And they are few that are getting a hold of you are doing all of the complaining about it. It’s the majority that elect you people, and it’s the majority that we’re thinking about tonight, and the majority want this, and the people of Essex County want this, and I 100% support the motion. Oh, by the way, one other question to that we could take all of those parking spots that border on Navy Yard Park and make them all handicapped. You have access to them, and you can solve the problems of the majority. And I’m in that majority that has a problem getting downtown. The majority has to rule on this.

Michael Deneau supported Edwards; unofficial transcript: it was perfect Jack. As someone who had, I’ve had an opportunity to go down there several times during the summer, probably over 10 and what I had witnessed is a lot of density. In regards to people walking the streets, people going into shops, lineups. There was significant density. The atmosphere was wonderful. It was something that seemed to catch on even beyond the borders of Amherstburg to Jack’s point. There are things that can be done to go and satisfy accessibility, and those are techniques to be considered, and certainly things that could be overcome, but I would say that it would be a complete shame for us not to take full advantage of that environment, full advantage of all the shops, stores, and it’s like, like we said, it’s the majority that I believe are truly behind the initiative. And this is an initiative that not only Amherstburg carries, but many other communities like us carry. So with that said, I completely support it.

Alan Buterbaugh chimed in; unofficial transcript: So what I find is that this is an amazing treasure that we have for this community. I think it brings a great number of people overall, over the years, looking at the programming and the added programming that’s been coming, it’s got, there’s even more diverse things that people can participate in. And I think things like Rib Fest, when I attended that last year. When you look at the density and number of people that are attending, that it’s just phenomenal. There’s always going to be periods of time at any festival or any kind of event where it’s not going to be as busy as others, but that’s just the way it works, because of a variety of things. But you look at this thing, by and large, 104,000 people going downtown, spending money participating. It’s a phenomenal thing to be able to witness and for families to be able to have that freedom, to be in the streets with their children and not have to worry about cars or other things, kind of moving through the environment. It’s a pretty unique treasure. You know, in terms of the accessibility, my understanding is, I’ll ask staff, that the Navy Yard parking lot, that was my understanding, converted so that during that period of time, that’s all accessible parking just for people that have handicapped needs. And that was one of the accommodations that was made a couple of years back, when it was questioned about losing some of those accessibility spots. Is that fair?

Admin spoke about the conversion and placement of accessible parking at the perimeter, which is of little use to people with hidden mobility disabilities.

Edwards then had another suggestion; set up a table at the Budget Open House with a set of signs asking are you in favour of Open Air? Yes or no, and you would know instead of a small group of people that have been naysayers since the get go. Osborne said it wouldn’t be feasible.

Crain then amended his motion to add that it be the same format that we have now, which is Friday to Sunday, 5 to 8pm and he believes it’s 14 weeks, and that they support the continuation of Open Air for the remaining term of this council. And the reason he believes they should make this amendment is that it avoids having to continue to debate this until 2026.

Councillor Pouget requested a recorded vote.

In favour: Jack Edwards, Crain, Kenneth Morrison, Michael Deneau, Chair Patricia Simone.

Opposed: Pouget.

Motion carried.

The meeting minutes, attached to the November 25 council meeting, state that two motions were made:

  1. The report on the Open Air including the Business Survey and Open House BE RECEIVED for information; and
  2. The Economic Development Advisory Committee RECOMMEND that Council support the continuation of Open Air, in the same format, same times, and same duration, for the remainder of the current term of Council. Motion Carried.

There was no motion to receive the report.

Crain’s motion was:

  1. that the Economic Development Committee endorses the report and recommends that Council supports the continuation of Open Air.
  2. Then he wanted to amend it to add that it be the same format that we have now, which is Friday to Sunday, 5 to 8pm and I believe it’s 14 weeks, and that we support the continuation of Open Air for the remaining term of this council.

The town’s Terms of Reference for Committees defines an Advisory Committee: ‘Advisory Committee – a committee that provides advice and recommendations to Council as requested on areas within their mandate with no authority for decision making or independent actions. Members are appointed by Council and membership typically includes one member of Council as liaison.’

Councillor Pouget and Councillor Crain are both members of this committee. Actually, this is the only committee Pouget sits on, whereas Crain sits on three.