Tag Archives: Town of Amherstburg

Job Experience Needed?

Posted on by

Is previous council experience really needed? Four years ago, three candidates without any council experience were elected to council: Ron Sutherland, Carolyn Davies and Bart DiPasquale. During the past four tumultuous years, residents witnessed:

  • a high rate of staff turnover
  • a record amount of debt
  • flip flops on the:
    • financial audit
    • St. Joseph’s Church in River Canard
    • Sandwich Street repaving
    • installation of railings at what is now the Libro Centre
  • the discussion of the sale of a municipal asset – essex power shares
  • public input not being welcomed
  • two references to ‘lynching’ regarding a public meeting
  • Ombudsman Ontario’s finding that council contravened the Municipal Act by voting in a closed session in March 2011
  • Ombudsman Ontario’s Report that confirmed council repeatedly contravened the Municipal Act and its own procedure by-law. Council discussed issues in closed session that were not permitted under the exceptions to the Municipal Act, and also routinely engaged in improper voting behind closed doors in December 2011
  • UCCU Centre naming scandal and subsequent lawsuit
  • no commitment to the cost-saving OPP policing option
  • grants for the tourist booth and Laird Avenue and not Texas Road
  • the decision to close the tourist booth due to budget
  • 5 CAOs in four years
  • the hiring of CAO Phipps, his notice to leave and then his decision to stay
  • a council approved secretive process to hire CAO Miceli
  • a lack of provincially mandated policies
  • a lack of commitment to accessibility, including the town’s website.

Is this the experience the community wants to continue with? Tomorrow’s the big day – it’s up to the voters to decide what they need.

November 3 Council Meeting On, Off, On And Off Again

Posted on by

Commentary by Linda Saxon

An October 20 post that the November 3 meeting would be held was subsequent to a petition to Paula Parker to call a special meeting following Mayor Wayne Hurst’s postponement of meetings.

A day later, the town posted a notice on its website that the November 3 meeting was postponed and rescheduled to Monday, November 17, 2014.

Are the Municipal Act and the town’s procedural by-law both not being complied with? Both are quite clear and specifically contain a mandatory clause for when the clerk shall call a meeting:

Section 240. of the Act: Subject to the procedure by-law passed under section 238,
(b) upon receipt of a petition of the majority of the members of council, the clerk shall call a special meeting for the purpose and at the time mentioned in the petition.

Procedural By-Law Section 9. b) the clerk shall summon a special meeting upon receipt of a petition of the majority of the council members for the purpose and at the time and date mentioned in the petition.

The issue is not the Mayor’s postponement, but who is making decisions that circumvent Council members’ legislated authority to call a Special Meeting and what will be done about it.

Craig Pearson, The Windsor Star, reports CAO Miceli also said that, after discussing the councillors’ petition with a town lawyer, he determined a special meeting was not warranted. “I advised all the members of council that calling for a special meeting is not to deal with regular town business,” Miceli said. “It’s to deal with special issues. What they (the councillors) proposed to discuss at that meeting did not meet the criteria for a special meeting.”

Special meetings of council 2014 were held to consider issues ranging from zoning by-law amendments and drain improvements to the Sale of Shares Offer from Entegrus Inc.

Since there is no criteria for a special meeting in either the Municipal Act or Procedural By-Law, and since both contain clear language, I would argue that there is no basis whatsoever for any objection to a majority of council calling a special meeting.

Town Hall Removing Election Signs

Posted on by

The Municipal Elections Act does not regulate signs, but an amended town Election Policy does and the candidates have been put on notice through a series of emails:

October 10, Paula Parker, Manager of Municipal Governance for the town emailed the candidates:

In light of a few election sign complaints, please note that all signs should be placed on private property.

Section 70(4) of The Municipal Elections Act specifically prohibits a municipality from making a contribution to a candidate’s election campaign. The Act also prohibits a candidate, or someone acting on the candidate’s behalf, from accepting a contribution from a person who is not entitled to make a contribution.

Contributions, as defined in section 66(1) of the Elections Act are; money, goods and services. As such, any use by a candidate of the Corporation’s resources for his or her election campaign, would be seen as a contribution by the Town to the candidate, which is a violation of the Act.

As a result of the above noted, and as per the recently amended Town of Amherstburg Election Policy (attached again for your reference), please refrain from putting signs on municipal property. (this includes municipal road allowances)

If you have any questions regarding where your signs should be located, administration is always here to help. Feel free to call or email.

October 20 at 12:08 pm, Paula Parker advised the candidates that the town was still receiving complaints about election signs and that effective 12 pm on the following day, the policy would be enforced and signs on municipal property would be removed. Signs removed by the town would be available for pick up on October 22.

October 20, Aldo DiCarlo emailed Paula Parker that it would be helpful to know whose signs have been complained about.

October 20 Paula Parker responded: The purpose of the previous email was to provide all candidates with information as it relates to the Town’s Election Policy.  In cases where a contravention of the Town’s Election Policy were noted, the Town has been proactive and has directly contacted those candidates affected.

This email also serves as a reminder to all candidates that the Town will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action where necessary.

October 21 Marc Renaud notified Paula Parker that signs were removed on Fort and Balaclava without notification.

October 21 Paula Parker advised that yesterday’s email served as notice that signs would be removed today at 12pm if they were on Town property and available for pick up October 22.

October 21 Glenn Swinton emailed Paula Parker: Having not received ANY such notification, I will assume that all of my issued signage is compliant and exactly where I left it.

October 21 Paula Parker replied: On August 11, 2014, Council adopted the Election Policy. The report advised Council that the Election Policy would supersede the Town’s Sign By-law in accordance with Section 70(4) and 66(1) of the Municipal Elections Act. All candidates were advised of these sections of the Act via email on Friday, October 10, 2014. The Town will continue to enforce the Election Policy up to and including Election Day. We are asking all candidates to abide by the Council approved Election Policy.

I hope that you can appreciate that the Town does not only manage its responsibilities through a complaint driven process, but also takes the necessary steps to enforce Town policies as required, with a proactive approach. Elections are sensitive in nature and the Town must govern itself accordingly.

October 21 Glenn Swinton responded: Please don’t patronize me by trying to suggest the town takes a proactive approach on policies. Without beating a dead horse on the subject please note,

Your “Election Policy” as amended August 11, 2014 clearly states:

12-b) “Election signs shall be removed if a complaint is received about a specific sign;”

12-c) ” The candidate shall, within 24 hours after receiving verbal instructions from a municipal official, remove a sign that contravenes the above. The Town reserves the right to remove election signs if the candidate fails to remove the contravening sign/signs within the 24-hour time frame.”

By way of your own policy I suggest the Town of Amherstburg has illegally removed campaigning signs outside of the “election Policy” provided from your office. Since this chain of emails has been shared with all, including the current Council members of Amherstburg that are seeking re-election, perhaps one of them could jump in and direct their staff on the laws they have passed for the taxpayers.

This is ridiculous.

Council Meeting Will Be Held November 3

Posted on by

The Town of Amherstburg’s website notice regarding Mayor Hurst’s postponement of the regular council meetings scheduled for October 6 and November 3 has not yet been updated.

As a result of a Municipal Act s.240 petition to Paula Parker, town clerk, a November 3, 2014 Special Council Meeting has been scheduled.

Edited: The petition, signed by Deputy Mayor Sutherland, Councillors Bart DiPasquale, Robert Pillon and Diane Pouget was presented to Paula Parker on Friday morning at 9:30 a.m.

No Commitment To Remove OPP Clause In Police Contract – Followup

Posted on by

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Current Amherstburg Police Services Board member and council candidate Pauline Gemmell’s responses to questions about the OPP clause in the police contract were set out in a previous post.

The Employment Standards Act does not apply to police officers.

No Commitment To Remove OPP Clause In Police Contract

Posted on by

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Readers of the burg watch have submitted three separate questions regarding the contentious Amherstburg police contract clause about switching specifically to OPP policing.

Current Police Services Board member and mayoral candidate John Sutton has not answered any questions, nor has current Police Services Board member and council candidate Frank Cleminson.

Current Police Services Board member and council candidate Pauline Gemmell responded, but did not answer specific questions or commit to the removal of the clause.

Regarding Gemmell’s statement, “The buyout clause is outlined in the contract. As with any corporation preparing to lay off large numbers (this would be situation here) the Employment Standards Act prescribes the basic requirements for any payout,” follow up questions were emailed: are you suggesting that there would be lay offs at the police service? can you provide me with the section of the Employment Standards Act that prescribes the basic requirements for any such payout?

Gemmell’s response is, “The ESA provides for basic but in the case of a contract those requirements are typically more than what ESA provides. Have you spoken to Chief Berthieume about this? He is very helpful when anyone from the public asks questions.”

The three questions in full, along with Gemmell’s responses are:

Question 6:  If elected, will you commit to council obtaining an OPP costing and if appointed to the police services board, will you commit to removing the OPP takeover clause in the police contract? If running for re-election, why did you not consider doing the above?

The current costing model for OPP is changing and as such will be difficult to get a clear cost for OPP at this time. I think that council should always be looking at the cost of all services and be looking to less expensive and equal quality alternatives. We have a great Police service here in Amherstburg and there are many benefits that we enjoy as a result of having a local police service. Our officers are skilled and dedicated to this community.

Question 13: The Town now is in the process of negotiating a new contract with our local police force. Within this contract (expires Dec 2014) is a clause which if activated could cost our town dearly! What is your knowledge of this buyout clause? what is your understanding of the rational behind the inclusion of it in our contract? What and how many officers would be involved? What would be the cost to our town if enforced one day? From my understanding, we are talking anywhere from 8-10 million dollars would be paid out to officers changing uniforms, not losing jobs? Your thoughts please!

I believe that our Police provide an excellent service. The buyout clause is outlined in the contract. As with any corporation preparing to lay off large numbers (this would be situation here) the Employment Standards Act prescribes the basic requirements for any payout. Beyond that the town would be required to honor provisions found in the contract.

We have a good and effective police service in our community. The cost factor needs to be discussed once the negotiations but other factors also must be considered along with the cost factor. It’s important that we all know what would be the result of having OPP in our community instead of our own police services. We need to look to other communities who have done this. Where are the officers dispatched from? There is a new costing formula and that also needs to be considered.

Question 18:  Do you believe the Poison Pill Clause should be eliminated in the Police Contract in order to get an OPP costing to compare the costs of policing of OPP versus Amherstburg Police.

Having a costing for alternative services is not dependent on a clause in a contract. The police services is currently beginning to prepare to negotiate a new contract and as such this is something that should be considered during these negotiations.

Phipps’ Stand On Request For Policies

Posted on by
October 9, 2014 email from Phipps at 8.32 p.m.
Dear Ms Saxon. I have decided to intervene again on correspondence you have carried on with Paula Parker. Some time ago you requested electronic copies of the following various policies:
Hiring of employees
Procurement of goods and services
When and how notice is provided to the public
How the municipality tries to ensure accountability and transparency to the public
Delegation of powers and duties
You also asked if there was a competitive process for the Elections Coordinator position and a copy of the advertisement/notice.
You finally accuse staff of being insolent. So by notice Ms Saxon, you will no longer have to deal with any “insolent” staff because you will deal with me only.
In a recent email you stated to Ms Parker that “no one has responded” to your request regarding the procedural by-law.
You also recently wrote requesting considerable information regarding the process for hiring the new CAO.
Ms Saxon, I will not allow staff time to be wasted responding to all your requests for information. Although you are a citizen, you have no rights over and above any other citizen. Ironically, from time to time we have some other citizens who request considerable information and we’ve taken the same approach we now will with you. We will not spend staff time and everyone’s tax dollars chasing down everything you’ve requested.
Having said that, here are my comments regarding the above issues you raised:
1 We will not be providing you with hiring policies or the procurement of goods and services unless you can provide me with a reasonable explanation for the request.
2 I have no idea what you mean by “when and how notice is provided to the public”
3 With respect to accountability and transparency, I believe the Town has done as much as is reasonably possible to ensure both. There are no written policies.
4 I have no idea again what you want re delegation of powers and duties
5 The Elections Coordinator was not advertised because it is so specialized based on many years experience required. Therefore you will not receive a copy of any advertisement.
6 I will be providing you with nothing regarding the CAO hiring process.
Just a reminder, you will be required to communicate with me until the new CAO Mr Micelli takes office.
Note by Linda Saxon: Does this mean the town is not in compliance with Section 270 (1) of the Municipal Act? If the policies exist and can be emailed to me, is that a request for considerable information?

Adoption of policies

270.  (1)  A municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the following matters:

1. Its sale and other disposition of land.

2. Its hiring of employees.

3. Its procurement of goods and services.

4. The circumstances in which the municipality shall provide notice to the public and, if notice is to be provided, the form, manner and times notice shall be given.

5. The manner in which the municipality will try to ensure that it is accountable to the public for its actions, and the manner in which the municipality will try to ensure that its actions are transparent to the public.

6. The delegation of its powers and duties. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 113.

Town of Amherstburg’s ‘subscribe to updates’ Useless

Posted on by

There have been seven new candidates for council since I subscribed to receive updates and I’ve not received one email notification. I even submitted feedback to the site advising it was useless and oh, by the way, captchas should not be used for accessibility reasons. As predicted, I did not receive a response to that either.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Edited: 11 candidates registered since I subscribed to receive updates from the town’s website, but I was not notified once.

Location And Name Change of Financial Review Session

Posted on by

The town’s website states the September 11, 2014 Workshop has been moved from the board room to Council Chambers and it is now called a Special Council Meeting; the agenda, in the usual confusing manner, is posted to an external link.

Public interest in the town’s civic and financial matters has grown to the point where it is ‘standing room only’ at the town hall. Shame on council for not holding such meetings at the Libro Centre where large crowds can easily be accommodated, including providing room for persons with disabilities, and for not advertising this meeting sooner.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

Proposed Procedural By-law Flawed

Posted on by

The town’s proposed procedural by-law was deferred to September 8 from the August 11 council meeting due to time restrictions, according to Ms. Parker; I could not locate the by-law on the September 8 agenda but there is a link from the town’s website, of course, to an external link. 

In an earlier post, Public Input Not Welcome? I mentioned Phipps’ stated, “There was no notice to the public regarding the draft Procedural By-law. Incidentally, there is no requirement for notice.”

Despite input not being sought, I am submitting my opinion to the current council, not as the Chair of the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee, but as a ratepayer and individual with a disability. To summarize my concerns:

  • The document is difficult to navigate; there is no index and the numbering system deviates from the traditional numbering of legislation: sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, clauses, subclauses, schedules, appendices or forms.
  • The place of meetings is not listed contrary to the Municipal Act.
  • The proposed definition of committee conflicts with the Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act 2005
  • “special meeting” is defined, but “meeting” should be since it is titled a By-law to govern the proceedings of Council, the conduct of its members and the calling of meetings.
  • I object to the latter portion of the proposed “Special Meeting” definition: “Special Meeting” means a meeting not scheduled in accordance with the approved calendar/schedule of meetings; and further includes any meeting of Council called prior to the regular session of Council at every regularly scheduled meeting. This is not in keeping with accountability, transparency and notices to the public of meetings.
  • I would question why the town’s procedural by-law would exceed S. 240 (Mayor or Clerk) and include “the CAO may, at any time, summon a special meeting.”
  • Regarding Special In-Camera Council Meetings: the discretionary and mandatory exceptions to public meetings needs to be noted since “may be held” and “shall be held” in camera have disparate meanings and are set out in the Act.
  • Public Notice of Meetings does not state dates and times of notices on the town’s website, just that agendas with attachments will be available on the town’s website; however, one must navigate through a series of links and it is not verified that the available documents, once located, are accessible. There is no reason whatsoever for not posting the agenda on the actual website.
  • Council needs to consider persons with disabilities when setting rules for delegates; for example, insisting that everyone provide the Clerk with written material poses a barrier as defined in Section 2 of the Accessibility For Ontarians With Disabilities Act: “barrier” means anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice; (“obstacle”).
  • Why is there a need to state the Clerk and/or CAO may refuse or defer the delegation based on the subject matter to be presented? Is this not contrary to open government, transparency and accountability?

Commentary by Linda Saxon