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?)
- Nominations will open in February for the chamber’s excellence awards.
- 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.
- 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.
the burg watch 