Monday January 22nd Regular town council meeting

Tonight was a pretty good news evening overall.

**Deputy Mayor DiPasquale was absent tonight**

I arrived around 5:45 for the 6:00 meeting. Council was still in-camera discussing the 4 items (plus a new added one).

Around 6:40 the doors opened and we were allowed in. The meeting resumed around 6:50.

First up, council had an in-camera report out.

ITEM A – Greater Essex County District School Board (GECDSB) High School
Location 

There was a motion made to sell 15 acres at Centennial Park as surplus for $2,457,000 with the amount put into park reserves. This is the site for the new high school to be built. The motion carried.

ITEM B – 7860 County Road 20

This was a longer motion, I’m not sure if I caught it all. This parcel of land is where the “little white church” is located at the corner of Howard and County Rd 20 it is also to be declared surplus and sever the property, enter into an agreement with the Malden Fire Association and dispose the rest of the property. Councillor Pouget asked if the Heritage Committee could look at the issue. The CAO said he could discuss the RFP with the Heritage committee.  The motion carried.

ITEM C – Hobbs Litigation Update

There was nothing further to report.

ITEM D – Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Update – Boblo Island 

There was nothing further to report.

ITEM E – Joint Police Advisory Committee Composition (JPAC)

This item was added into the original 4 points for the in-camera meeting. Interesting…..However, there was nothing further to report.

“Nothing further to report” basically means there was no motion so it’s just acknowledging that council talked about whatever the subject was.

At this point, the Mayor left for some photo ops with the School Board officials. When they came back, council was allowed to address the School Board officials with any comments or questions. Several members of council thanked them for their hard work and expressed how pleased they were to keep a high school in Amherstburg. Councillor Fryer spoke quite a bit about how happy he was to keep the skilled trades and hands-on programs available. The Trustee, Mr LeClair explained that he had lobbied for Western Secondary since the beginning. The School Board said they would be issuing a press release with further details but a September 2020 opening is planned. Overall, this is fantastic news for Amherstburg!

DELEGATIONS

Proposed Renovation to Cenotaph and Creation of “Walk of Heros” – Laurie Cavanaugh, President, Lena Mangoff Lazanja, Secretary, RCL Branch 157, and Chris Gibb Board Member, Marsh Collection

Mr Gibb spoke first and explained that he was representing the Marsh Collection Society. He was presenting the first of 2 remembrance initiatives for our veterans. Amherstburg has 6 World War 1 veterans who died in the war. November 2018 marks 100 years since the end of World War 1 and the Marsh Society has assembled life stories and photos of each of these 6 men. They feel it’s a way to promote remembrance. The stories would include what they did before they enlisted, where they fought, with letters that they had written home. Three bodies were never recovered and rest somewhere under the farm fields of France. The Marsh Society, in conjunction with the Legion would like to erect 6 permanent story boards in the Kings Navy Yard Park. They would be placed as an addition to the cenotaph and would enhance the historic nature of the Navy Yard Park.

Ms Lazanja spoke about another initiative The Legion is looking to piggy back on an idea that exists in other provinces. Banners are hung in memory of local deceased veterans. The banners are sponsored by families. She explained that Wheatley has them and the family can sponsor the banner and make a donation to the Legion. She was looking for permission to hang the banners from the Legion, along Dalhousie, up to Fort Malden. They would be hung from the third week of September, which is Legion week up to including November 11th. They would need the town’s assistance only with erecting and removing the banners.

Ms Lazanja also explained that the Legion had “poppy money” that can be used to fund story boards.

Councillor Fryer felt it was a fantastic idea as did Councillor Courtney. Councillor Pouget did as well and asked they could add working with the Parks Committee and the Heritage committee.

Council approved this initiative with a motion. So the ball is rolling. I can’t wait to see the final product!

Engineering Services – Southeast Quadrant Servicing Class Environmental Assessment

This seems to be an agreement to get the services done for the area of Fryer Street and Lowes Side Road. There will be 777 homes built. More good news for Amherstburg! This carried.

Multi-Use Tractor Unit – Tender Results

Council also quickly approved the purchase of one of those little funny looking machines that shovel the snow on the sidewalks and can cut weeds in ditches in the summer. Impressive.

Open Air Fires – Consultation Results and Final Report

For those of you who recall, there were 3 public sessions about changing our existing bylaw for open air fires in Amherstburg. Basically, if a resident wants to have a camp fire, they have to call the fire department for a permit. The fire department will come and inspect to see if the property meets the requirements. There will be a $25 fee. Chief Montone suggested that people start calling now for their permit inspection as things could get very busy in late spring or summer. Councillor Meloche had a few questions about the size and types of fires permitted.

Councillor Pouget spoke of the 3 public meetings in the summer time. She said there were 100 residents that attended across the 3 sessions and that the opinions were evenly split 50/50 for and against this new bylaw. She said she was against this bylaw for many reasons (I got as many as I could, I write my notes by hand)….open air fires are contrary to the bylaw and few fines are issued currently….they violate quality of life….they’re like tobacco smoke (and she had a lengthy list of chemicals)…..they’re implicated in heart attacks and asthma….they stress the immune system…they’re a fire hazard where homes are close….they pit neighbour against neighbour since one neighbour on a small lot may not be allowed a fire, yet their neighbour on a larger lot can have a fire…..the fires could results in more complaints….. ( I half wonder if some of these concerns listed are side effects of attending council meetings…...)

Councillor Courtney spoke about how this bylaw was contentious and thanked the Fire Chief for his hard work. She was satisfied with the way it was presented, with 3 sessions so that the residents could have their questions answered. She felt that there was an overwhelming wish from the people for this, so was going to go with that.  Councillor Fryer then listed the benefits of campfires…..frees thinking…..uplifts spirits….social experience…..He felt that if a camp fire were that bad, our ancestors used fire as a means to feed themselves, that none of us would be here if fires were that bad. He cited the AM800 survey that 7 out of 10 people were in favour. (With all due respect to all, such a survey is not scientifically valid. Not even close.)

Councillor Pouget felt that our ancestors didn’t live as long as we do and a lot of that had to do with open burns. (While I agree that our ancestors didn’t not live as long as people today, I would think there are a lot of factors involved in that, but I’m no scientist….) She wanted to know where was the support for this since the groups were evenly split at the public meetings.

Chief Montone explained that the town’s survey of almost 800 residents had almost all in favour of the new bylaw. Councillor Pouget wondered why the different numbers, compared to the public meetings. Chief Montone explained that the public sessions did not comprise a vote, it was a reflection of the comments received. He said he realized it was a contentious issue regarding the smoke and had added some wording to the bylaw, for example the fire has to be out so coals are cold to the touch, to eliminate smoldering. Councillor Pouget felt she couldn’t play Russian roulette with the residents health and safety and expressed concern where houses are close together.

So finally, the motion to accept the new open burn bylaw went to a recorded vote as per Councillor Pouget’s request :

In favour : Councillors Fryer, Courtney, Meloche, Lavigne and Mayor DiCarlo

Opposed: Councillor Pouget

Information Reports

Council receives many reports simply for information, however, they can ask questions about them and make a motion if need be.

Councillor Courtney asked about the police meeting minutes because she was disturbed to read that the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Amherstburg Mission were paying for not only police clearances but also for finger printing. They’re 100% volunteer driven with their volunteers even donating by using their own vehicles for gas and mileage with no reimbursement. Chief Berthiaume explained that this cost was not a result of the RCMP or the local police. He said that insurers and organisations require it. He’s met with the groups and is working on a policy. He explained that if a name is flagged (it could be close to another name of someone with a record), the RCMP will not guarantee if the applicant has a record or not unless they have finger prints to compare. Councillor Fryer felt that once finger prints were taken then they should remain on file for next time. The Chief explained that the fingerprints aren’t inked, the they had to purchase an expensive machine that the RCMP obligated them to get, they are scanned electronically and sent but not retained.

Councillor Lavigne explained that the RCMP by law is not allowed to keep the applicant’s prints. He said that moving forward, they may be able to absorb some costs for certain organisations. Councillor Fryer seemed concerned since this would affect the police budget and then there would be picking and choosing of which groups to help. He felt then that other groups would come forward and want financial help for the costs involved to get police clearances. The Chief explained that the RCMP bills the department $25 each time they sent an application. He said some charities have the ability to recuperate some costs but others don’t. Councillor Lavigne clarified that the financial help would not be for people seeking employment opportunities, it would target charities that are not for profit.

There was some more repetitive discussion about rumble strips, concession roads and other things but I was tired out by then.

The meeting wrapped up around 8:20 ish I think. I’ll be honest, I’m still somewhat distracted and thinking about the policing issue.

Overall, tonight’s meeting, while it started very late and kept us waiting in the lobby for quite a while, had a lot of positive news. And for those of you who wanted to…..get ready to Burn Baby Burn…..Disco inferno!

 

The great policing debate – Amherstburg or Windsorburg? That is the question…

I apologise in advance, this blog is long, however this issue deserves every single word.

Well, I had the chance to attend the Public Consultation meeting concerning the contract proposal for Windsor to take over policing in Amherstburg. I attended the meeting on Thursday January 18 at the Knights of Columbus Hall in McGregor. I would guesstimate there were about 60 people there, but approximately half were police officers and/or their family members and/or town hall staff. So, realistically, probably only about 30 true members of the public who probably don’t have a personal interest in the police department.

I saw Councillors Lavigne and Meloche there listening intently. Mayor DiCarlo was also on Skype due to illness.

The meeting started on time and the panel was presented:

• Mike Mitchell, the Consultant hired for this process and a member of the JPAC committee
• CAO, John Micelli
• Tim Berthiaume, Amhersburg Police Chief
• Al Frederick, Windsor Police Chief
• Vince Powers, Deputy Police Chief, Windsor
• Brandon Dodd (from Windsor Police, sorry I did not catch his title)
• Ron LeClair, staff sergeant Windsor Police

I take my notes by hand, so I sincerely apologize if I did not accurately spell names or accurately give the proper titles.

The CAO started the presentation stating that concerns about the policing budget were raised during the last election. Our policing costs are 23% of our overall budget. There was a motion in December 2014 in which town council directed administration to look into an OPP costing and shared policing services. The JPAC (Joint Police Advisory Committee) was approved with terms of reference, passed by council, on April 25, 2016. The members of the JPAC Committe are :

• John Miceli, CAO
• Tim Berthiaume, Amherstburg Police Chief
• Michael Mitchell, Consultant
• Shawn McCurdy, local Police Association President
• Pat Simon, Amherstburg Police Service Board members
• Bob Rozankovick, Police Service Board members

Mr Mitchell felt that it’s a mistake to look solely at cost. ( I agree). He said it was important to consider the level of autonomy, the level of service and the cost. He explained that the OPP never provided a response with costing, LaSalle elected not to respond and Windsor replied with a comprehensive contract proposal. It’s important to note that this is NOT an amalgamation, it is a contract that is being proposed.

Basically, most things stay the same…..the number of members (minus the Chief and Deputy Chief but addition of a special sergeant), the number of full time civilians remains the same, the shift schedules remain the same (one sergeant, 4 constables), the response stays the same, patrols stay the same, patrol zones stay the same, GPS locators in cars and radios stays the same, equipment stays the same… There will be an upgrade with the body armour and there is no commitment yet about the body cameras.

Amherstburg will have a higher level of supervision in the off hours, access to various “enhancements”, (ex. victim services, K9 etc), but by far the most important thing……NONE of our Amherstburg officers will be transferred to Windsor unless they request the transfer or they receive a promotion.

I must take a quick moment to say that I have the utmost respect and admiration for police officers. They have an extremely stressful career and provide a vital service with little to no thanks. They work 12 hour shifts, terrible hours, holidays, weekends, nights etc. I think they deserve A LOT of credit.

One key point is that the current police building remains the property of the Town of Amherstburg. The building will still be staffed the same hours. The only difference is that the phone outside the building (for off hours) would go directly to Windsor for dispatch.

If the Windsor Police proposal goes through, the Amherstburg Police Board would be disbanded and the Mayor would have a voting seat on the Windsor Police Board.

The CAO then spoke again about the money aspect. He explained that this contract will provide an annual savings of approximately $567,000 annually for 5 years. Also, the current police reserve of approximately $381,000 could be re-purposed by council. The town can opt out of the contract during or after the 5 year term is finished. Once again, the Police Department building, stays the property of Amherstburg. In Amherstburg, our officers will continue to enforce municipal bylaws, even though they do not in Windsor.

The floor was opened up for questions and comments. I won’t go into details for each one, however, I’ll try to provide an oversight of what was said.

One lady spoke of how she was part of the hospital mergers in Windsor. It was a very difficult time and they did not have a choice about it. She talked about the stress and difficulties endured at the time. She was concerned that the front line workers would have a say. (She later told me that in the long term, even though their hospital amalgamation was difficult, it all worked out for the best.). Fortunately, the police officers are unionized, therefore, they will have their say and their votes when it comes to contract negotiations. Mr Mitchell explained that this situation is a contract, NOT an amalgamation, therefore there is fall back available.

One gentleman questioned the savings and how the number was found. Chief Frederick explained that cost savings came from dispatch, the elimination of the Chief and Deputy Chief and general expenses. He explained that Windsor’s costs are higher in general because they are obligated to have a Tactical Team etc in Windsor. He also cited that Windsor has 10 officers dedicated to cyber crime. This department would not have to be expanded, but Amherstburg would get the benefit by having access to this service. Windsor also gets their gas for 15 cents per liter cheaper. The list goes on and on. The gentleman at the microphone wanted to know when the public would see the RFP. Chief Frederick explained that because of the Police Services Act, police departments only report to the boards, not to council. They go through their budget line by line with the board, then council says yes or no to the amount. He said that line items can not be shared due to the laws of Ontario.

One gentleman asked what would the costs be if we do not go with the proposal and we maintain the status quo. Chief Berthiaume explained that costs will go up slightly, however, there is a healthy reserve in place that can help offset the costs. The Chief also talked about the waterways and how they’re not exactly sure how that may or may not obligate the town to police the river, but they’re looking at a plan.

Someone asked if other communities have gone back after trying a contract with a neighbouring municipality. Mr Mitchell said there was one that did, however, the rest have signed on to extend the contract.

It was pointed out that only 55% of our Amherstburg officers actually live in Amherstburg. (If that makes a difference for anybody, it doesn’t for me.)

Chief Frederick said that he knows our Amherstburg Police Service is second to none and that will continue. He then cited some big accomplishments of the Windsor Police Service (ex, only city administering Street Check’s properly, etc.) He explained that the two forces already cross train together and the equipment is very similar. He feels that the awesome police service we have will not change.

One particularly animated gentleman spoke. At the end of his speech, he said to Mr Miceli “Try not to talk us into something we don’t want.” About 5 people in the audience clapped.

Chief Frederick explained that the Windsor police were there to try to enhance their service and explained that every regional police department costs a fraction of Windsor Police Service and Amherstburg Police Servce. He felt it was about sharing services, to provide a better service at a cheaper cost. Superintendent Dodd form WPS said that his department is excited for this on a communications level. He works more with IT responsibility and technical aspects. He pointed out that he is NOT a resident of Windsor. He explained that this situation would provide regional cooperation and improved communication which in turns improves officer safety and resident safety. He pointed out that Windsor officers have a great relationship with Amherstburg officers and that they talk all the time.

When a resident questioned if anything were hidden in the RFP, Chief Berthiaume said no, there is nothing hidden in the RFP. (I heard that with my own two ears.)

One Amherstburg officer spoke and asked a technical question about rank that I did not understand.. (Sorry, I’m not a police officer, nor do I know any very well to ask….I truly don’t know how it all works in a police department.) The officer also asked what if Chief Berthiaume chooses not to take Senior Command in Amherstburg, what would happen. Chief Frederick explained that the current Chief and Deputy Chief would be offered positions in Windsor and that Windsor and Amherstburg would continue to benefit from their expertise. The officer that spoke felt that the APD would be loosing the captain of their ship.

Another officer, Shawn McCurdy spoke and explained how difficult and stressful this has been on the Amherstburg officers. He assured all of us that no matter what happens, the residents of Amherstburg will retain the same level of service. He also pointed out that he sat on the JPAC Committee.

When I stood to put on my coat at the end of the meeting, I was shocked to see Councillor Pouget in attendance at the meeting. She also attended Wednesday night’s public meeting. WHY????? Sure, she’s a resident, however, above that she is a councilor, an elected official for the Town of Amherstburg. She was elected to represent the residents of our town. She has chosen to hide behind a legal opinion that the tax payers paid for, yet have not seen and claiming she has a conflict of interest. I have done extensive reading on this issue and I just can not see how she possibly has one. The only grounds for a conflict is pecuniary interest (monetary, gain or loss). It has been made very clear that none of the officers will gain or lose any money if this contract happens. Therefore, where’s the conflict? I find it insulting as a taxpayer that she has attended both public meetings, where anger, pain, frustration and raw emotion has been expressed about this situation. She is in a position to act and do something, yet has decided to wash her hands of her responsibility to represent the taxpayers and vote on this issue. When she chose to declare a conflict, that means she can not discuss the issue, try to influence the vote, nor vote on the issue. Her attendance at these meetings is insulting and to me, shows a complete disregard for the tax payers and our police department and the feelings and emotions about this issue.

Should the policing decision go to a public ballot (referendum)?

In my humble opinion, it should not. And here’s why I think this. First, we live in a representative democracy, where we elect people to make decisions on our behalf. When we voted, we decided who we trust to make decisions for us in a fully informed way. Council was elected to make the decisions, the big ones and the small ones. Some of their decisions may be supported and applauded, others may not be and may receive criticism and objection. My personal fear, should this go to a referendum, is that people will vote without educating themselves at all. I think people may vote with their heart rather than an educated, rationalized decision. We elected 7 people (5 of whom will be following through with their duties to us) to make an informed, educated decision on our behalf that takes into account the best interests of the Town of Amherstburg and it’s residents as a whole. In general, people are of the nature of fearing and resisting change. There is a TON of misinformation, innuendo and rumours all over the internet about this policing issue. The people with access to the confidential information are in the best position to make a decision, for us, the people. Often, one reason for maintaining the status quo is that it is familiar to us and we know what to expect. Would people vote for the status quo, simply just because? I think so, at least for the most part. Therefore, I firmly believe that our elected representatives are the best and only option to make this decision for us.

Let’s take a walk down memory lane….

Speaking of social media….many are asking why this is suddenly an issue and why it’s being “rushed through”. To the contrary, this has been an issue for 4 years! Anyone remember the group called the ACRG, the small political group who watched the previous council and supported certain members of our current council? They prided themselves that they helped to shape the previous election, in fact. The ACRG pushed for OPP costings and other policing options because they felt we were spending too much money on policing. So, yes, as a matter of fact, this was an election issue leading up to the October 2014 election. In fact, one of the very first motions made by council (Dec 2014) was to get the ball rolling and get some prices. We have now arrived to the culmination of years worth of work to get the prices that council and the ACRG wanted. The ACRG had two “principles” as they called themselves, that is Graham Hobbs (now deceased) and John McDonald. They had an unknown number of followers, but I suspect few. As a matter of fact, I received an anonymous package in the spring of 2016 (as my blog was gaining popularity) that appeared to be from the ACRG. It was unsigned and anonymous and contained a multitude of photocopies of the Amherstburg Police budget with certain items highlighted for criticism. I can only assume they were trying to get me on board and hoped that I would blog about it. I never did. How can I blog about a bunch of papers that made little to no sense? I did show the papers to Chief Berthiaume and it seems similar anonymous packages were sent out to others. The whole thing was strange and somewhat creepy really. So anyway, all of this to say that guess what? Several members of our current town council were supported by this group during and after the election. This police costing is hardly being “rushed”, it’s been brewing for years.

John Miceli

I have also read much commentary about our CAO, Mr Miceli on social media. Has he ever said anything that rubbed me the wrong way? Sure, a couple times. Has he ever said anything that ticked me off? Yep, a couple times. Has he done an awesome job as CAO of Amherstburg? Absolutely. I have sat through countless council meetings, truly countless. He is professional, well spoken and does his job extremely well. I have never caught him in a lie (although I can’t say the same for a couple of councillors….). As a taxpayer, do I want to pay him a huge salary to sit in his office, twiddle his thumbs and maintain the status quo? No, I don’t. He did the job that council asked him to do. He went out and found options for policing and now here we are.

And now, my thoughts and opinions about the Windsor Police Contract Proposal

I have truly spent a lot of time reflecting on this issue. My opinion is a soft “yes” for the Windsor Police Proposal. Here’s why.

It’s not the money. The savings is negligible in my opinion. However, with my support comes one big condition for council……the savings and the money from the police reserve, MUST ABSOLUTELY ONLY GO INTO RESERVES……no surprise giveaways to the ERCA Foundation for trails, to any charities, pet projects, relatives LOL or anything else. RESERVES ONLY. I say this because IF, after 5 years, this contract truly does not work out (although I think it will), it does give us the option to return to where we are right now.

I also feel that Amherstburg, in general, has missed out on opportunities for change or advancement due to our need to keep things the same. I feel that this Windsor Police Proposal is a viable option and is truly an opportunity for Amherstburg.

I also feel that this is an opportunity to “dip our toes in the water” so to speak, since it is only a contract and not a full amalgamation. We do have an out if things really and truly end up terrible, which I firmly believe they won’t.

I also think that eventually, the province may impose policing amalgamations on municipalities. It seems to be the direction of most things these days. Hospitals, school boards, towns, businesses have been amalgamating for years now. Many have been imposed. We have the chance to enter into a deal that meets our criteria. I also think that if this works out, that LaSalle may want to join in and as the OPP contracts expire in Essex and Leamington, they may want to join in too. I look at this as a new beginning and an opportunity.

I FEEL sad to see our local force go, in a sense of nostalgia I guess. However, there won’t be job losses and I look at the positives for the officers who may want bigger opportunities and advancement opportunities.

I have to trust that the information being provided by the JPAC, the CAO and the two Police Chief’s is factual and correct. I see no reason why they would lie or misrepresent this to us, the residents. Do I think this proposal is perfect? No, but it’s pretty good. Do I feel empathy for our APD and the officers? Absolutely. I went through a full amalgamation myself with a previous employer and I know it’s stressful. However, in the end, it did all work out for the best.

It seems to be the way of the world lately. Shared resources, less of an US versus THEM attitude. Universities work together with research grants, for example, and this provides enhanced communication and results.

Rather than focus on the negative and scary aspects of change, we should embrace this as an opportunity of growth. I am choosing to embrace the change, being open to the opportunities while appreciating the positive and negative aspects of the change. There are a few negatives to this, without a doubt, which is why I feel a soft yes is the right move. And that’s my opinion.

I had said I would take a stand and share my opinion. I’m sure there are some that will disagree and that’s okay. I didn’t decide to cower in the corner in silence on such an important issue (or declare a “conflict”). I hope that all of the residents of Amherstburg take the time to share their opinion either way with our town council. Social media is definitely not the only option, whether it’s Facebook or the Talk the Burg site of the town. Reach out to your councillors, send an email, call them, do whatever you feel is best. And finally, thank them. Thank them for the time they’ve given to this issue. Thank them for listening to you and thank them for representing all of us and voting on this issue. The Mayor has been all over social media trying to respond to questions. He should be commended in my books for the time and effort he has given to this great town of Amherstburg. The 5 members of council who will ultimately decide this for us, need to know how people feel. All I ask is that they consider each person as ONE opinion. Some have chosen to repeat their opinions dozens of time on Facebook, but it must be remembered that just because it’s said multiple times, it’s still ONE opinion.

So, here is my ONE opinion…..soft yes to Windsor Police.

This has definitely been the most difficult blog I have written to date.

 

 

In preparation for Monday January 22nd Regular town council meeting

Well, it’s busy, very busy lately in Amherstburg. Time to get ready for Monday night. The agenda is 373 pages, so this meeting may last a little longer than the one two weeks ago.

It appears that council will be meeting in-camera BEFORE the regular meeting at 6:00. Four issues to discuss and they’re suppose to be ready for the 6:00 regular meeting?? I highly doubt it, but I hope I’m wrong. Here’s what they’ll be discussing :

SPECIAL IN-CAMERA COUNCIL  MEETING
That Council move into an In-Camera Meeting of Council at 5:00 p.m. pursuant
to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, for the following
reasons:
ITEM A – Greater Essex County District School Board (GECDSB) High School
Location – Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition
of land by the municipality or local board.
ITEM B – 7860 County Road 20 – Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending
acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.
ITEM C – Hobbs Litigation Update – Section 239(2)(e) – Litigation or potential
litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the
municipality or local board; and, Section 239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to
solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
ITEM D – Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Update – Boblo Island – Section
239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose.

As for Item A, very interesting……I wonder if there will be a report-out so that the information becomes public?

As for Item B…..who knows what that’s about? Not me.

As for Item C……hmmmmm……That’s the lawsuit where the estate of the late Graham Hobbs (the man banned from town hall) is suing the town for $100,000. I know that at least 2, if not 3 of our councilors were close, personal friends with him…..I wonder if anyone will declare a conflict? Doubt it. They haven’t yet on this issue.

As for Item D…..hmmmm…..I think there was just an article in the Windsor Star about this….some people trying to stop development on the Island. I hope there’s some resolution and a report out on this one.

DELEGATIONS

Proposed Renovation to Cenotaph and Creation of “Walk of Heros” – Laurie Cavanaugh, President, Lena Mangoff Lazanja, Secretary, RCL Branch 157, and Chris Gibb Board Member, Marsh Collection

It looks like Ms Lazanja and Mr Gibb will be talking about a renovation to the Cenotaph/Memorial Monument in the Kings Navy Yard Park. According to the delegation request, they’ll be seeking permission to add to the monument with stand alone plaques with stories and information about those listed on the cenotaph. Also, it mentions a “Walk of Heroes” with banners with pictures of veterans . I’ve heard that Mr Gibb loves a microphone. Hopefully he keeps it under 5 minutes. LOL This looks like a great initiative.

Engineering Services – Southeast Quadrant Servicing Class Environmental Assessment

This appears to be a next step towards development in the Fryer Street/Lowes Side Road area. It appears all is in order and should be a go. We’ll see what council has to say. Let’s hope for a good result.
Multi-Use Tractor Unit – Tender Results

It looks like the town wants to buy one of those funny-looking (my opinion) little machines for the sidewalk snow removal program. It looks to be a multi-use machine that can be used in the summer for ditch weed control too. I would guess this will happen since council just recently approved the continuation of the snow removal program. They wouldn’t approve the sidewalk program and they deny the equipment to carry out the work would they????

Open Air Fires – Consultation Results and Final Report

It’s baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! The long-awaited open air burn by-law. Councillor Fryer opened up this hot topic in June, giving the impression that we’d be roasting marshmallows within weeks. Well, weeks turned into months and several public consultation meetings. So, here we are finally.

From the report :

“To address feedback received, each property should be assessed by Fire Department
staff to determine fire safety conditions as well as a demand within the community.
Open air Campfires will be permitted where the conditions permit throughout the
municipality but, Bon Fires and larger brush burning will continue to not be permitted in any residential area.”

“The proposed by-law permits campfires only within the settlement areas of the
municipality but restricts their size to 3 ft. X 3 ft. (1mX1m) and only where such burning
can be carried out safely based on an approved site inspection and provides for control
over open air fires. Bonfires will not be allowed in any residential location within the
municipality.”

The comments and the survey results are all included in the report. It made for some interesting reading. I didn’t read through all of the fine print, there’s a lot, but it appears to be what was proposed back this summer……apply for a permit for $25 and they’ll come and inspect to see if you qualify to have a campfire. Funny, it seems so long ago that the town was so concerned with this issue, yet it was only a little more than 6 months ago. I think there will be some interesting debate on this issue.

Accounts Payable

Well, I looked through the accounts payable. I didn’t notice anything of interest. I tallied up our legal fees and they totaled about $13,700.00 . Not too bad, I guess.

I’m interested to see what happens Monday night, especially in regards to the open burn bylaw. I’m already singing Burn Baby Burn….Disco Inferno…. 🙂

Police Public Consultation Meeting

Yes, I did attend Thursday night’s public consultation meeting about the Windsor Police Services offer. Yes, I will be blogging about it. I’m hoping to make that my project for tomorrow. I’ve been thinking, reflecting and asking a few more questions, but I’m almost ready to try to put it all together. Many people have asked me and yes, I will deliver, after all I promised to. I just need one more night to sleep on it and let the information simmer in my head. 🙂

 

 

Special Edition – More conflict confusion… Who’s right?

The discussion surrounding council members and their declarations of conflict has been growing. I felt this couldn’t go by without more people seeing it. Today, on my blog I received the following comment :

Tiggr Andrews

The use of Town funds to pay legal fees for councillors to seek a legal opinion regarding potential conflicts of interest is nothing new. In 2014-15, Mayor DiCarlo set the pace and sought a legal opinion regarding his potential conflict of interest in discussions on the Texas Road repaving and drainage improvements. That legal opnion was never made public as far as I am aware. Interesting in the Texas Road matter, in my opinion, Rick Fryer, took the high road and properly recused himself, whereas the Mayor did not. Public officials should err on the side of caution and look to public perception or appearance of a potential conflict of interest versus expensive legal opinions. Legal opinions are in themselves just what they say they are – an opinion.

Aldo DiCarlo then replied to Mr Andrews :

Unless I have completely lost my mind, Mr. Andrews information is incorrect. I never sought, nor paid for any legal opinion regarding any matters of Texas Road. Therefore, I set no such ‘pace’ for conflicts of interest in regards to paying for opinions. The Act was very clear to me without the need for a paid legal opinion from a lawyer. My mother still resides on Texas Road, but neither I nor her received any pecuniary (financial) gain directly from the improvements to Texas Road that I am aware of. The Act further clarifies that even if we had, as long as it was also a benefit to a great number of other residents (which it obviously was), there is also no need to declare a conflict of pecuniary interest. The Act does not refer to ‘public perception or appearance’ in regards to conflicts of interest that I know of, as there will likely be some residents that would perceive a conflict on just about any issue, thereby denying the elected official their accountability to the residents who elected them to address such issues. Regardless, the Act does not include ‘public perception or appearance’ as a bonafide reason to declare a conflict that I know of. I would agree that there isn’t always a reason to pay for a legal opinion when the Act seems clear, and so I did not. I take my responsibility as Mayor very seriously, which is why I tend to avoid declaring a conflict unless one seems obvious, but that’s my position for myself. Further, if Mr. Andrews’ comments were accurate, how would he have come by information that ‘was never made public’ as he states? Perhaps he would like to make that person public so that we can all be aware? Apparently he was given inaccurate (false, not true) information and he chose to believe that person, to the point of making a public statement, without simply asking me if it were true. If he had, I would have told him it wasn’t true (unless I’ve completely lost my mind). I am appreciative of the comments however, as it gave me the opportunity to provide this ‘opinion’ on accusations made about me. The Act needs to be read in it’s entirety to determine a conflict, but I offer this specific section I believe might help. As well as this section, anyone can read the online document to confirm my opinion here (https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m50):

From the Act :

Exceptions
Where s. 5 does not apply
4 Section 5 does not apply to a pecuniary interest in any matter that a member may have,

(b) by reason of the member being entitled to receive on terms common to other persons any service or commodity or any subsidy, loan or other such benefit offered by the municipality or local board;

End of comments.  Now, my thoughts and commentary:

I have read and reread both comments. First, I find it concerning that Mr Andrews would think that  public officials could “err on the side of caution and look to public perception or appearance of a potential conflict of interest”. If this were the case, I’m not sure if any of our councillors would ever vote on anything! What if they begged off every difficult issue?….LOL

One thing that really struck me was where the Mayor says…..”as long as it was also a benefit to a great number of other residents (which it obviously was), there is also no need to declare a conflict of pecuniary interest.” So basically, as long as the entire neighbourhood is affected, there’s no need to declare a conflict, is how I interpret this. Therefore, this leads me to question the Belle Vue conflicts, once again. If the entire neighbourhood is impacted by Belle Vue, then, at least to me, Councillor Pouget and Councillor Lavigne would not have had a conflict, right? Belle Vue would not have a financial impact on the property values of ONLY Councillor Pouget’s property or ONLY Councillor Lavigne’s parent’s property, it would have an effect (maybe, that’s a stretch in my opinion that there would be any effect) on the entire neighbourhood, which would mean there was really no conflict to begin with. However, they were both able to walk away from voting on this.

As for the police, considering there seems to be no pay gains or losses, what effect would this have for Councillor Pouget or Deputy Mayor DiPasquale’s family members? AND, even if there were pay gains or losses, I would have to guess that it would affect the ENTIRE department and not just these 2 individuals…..therefore, once again, no direct financial gain or loss for only the two people.

It seems a shame that the public has no recourse on questioning these conflicts being declared so quickly by certain members of town council. I guess our only recourse is to remember this at election time and remember who fulfilled their duties to us, the taxpayers, by representing us and voting for us on all of the issues, the easy ones and the difficult ones.

 

Monday January 8th Regular Town council meeting

Before I begin, if you didn’t read my pre-meeting blog that I wrote this weekend, you should probably read it. It will help you to make sense ( ish I guess, I hope) of tonight’s meeting.

Pay particular attention to the accounts payable portion…..the two payments to Leardi Law Firm for $500 each on behalf of Councillor Pouget and Deputy Mayor DiPasquale as well as the $27,000 in legal fees payable to the Police Association.

Here’s the link :

https://amherstburg2.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/special-edition-2018-blog-and-in-preparation-for-monday-january-8th-regular-town-council-meeting/

OK, now if you’re all caught up, here we go for tonight’s meeting.

***Deputy Mayor DiPasquale was absent.***

The Mayor started the meeting by wishing us all a Happy New Year and offering a few words about an exciting year to come. (If only we had known about the excitement that  was about to come in the very, very, very near future…..) He then asked if there was any declaration of pecuniary interest. This is standard practice and always asked at the beginning of the meeting. Councillor Pouget then declared a conflict about page 3 of the accounts payable since it had to do with paying a lawyer for legal advice for her conflict. (I’m assuming she was referring to the conflict she declared about the Windsor Police Proposal.)

So, council accepted the minutes of the previous meetings and then moved on to the information report, which included the accounts payable. Then the Mayor asked if someone could move simply the legal item only. Councillor Meloche, seconded by Councillor Fryer did just that. Councillor Pouget got up and left the room the minute the Mayor asked for the motion. (This is where I feel there should be more consistency…..sometimes councillors leave the room during their “conflicts”, other times they stand behind their chair, other times they sit there and move their chair back, and other times they come and sit in the gallery with the rest of the public…….there is zero consistency with this stuff…..just sayin’….) Anyway, this part of the information report carried immediately without discussion, so Councillor Pouget then returned almost as quickly as she left.

Councillor Fryer then made a motion to accept the rest of the information report and that was seconded by Councillor Meloche. So, this part was for the remainder of the accounts payable, minus the two $500 payments to the Leardi Law Firm for the two conflict legal advice opinions. Councillor Pouget then spoke. She said that both she and the Deputy Mayor had received legal advice and it was made public. She went on to point out that both she and the Deputy Mayor were named on the accounts payable as well as the law firm. She then asked why the legal fees of $27,000, paid to the Police Association had no names attached to it. Mr Rousseau, the Treasurer, explained that the legal fees are a request for reimbursement by the Police Association. He said that typically council members are named, with the law firm and fees, employees aren’t listed the same. Councillor Pouget felt that this is a public issue and that the public has a right to know and that she can’t vote for it. (Speaking of public issues and rights to know……she never offered to show the public a copy of the legal advice that she received that we paid for…….hmmmm…...who knows? Maybe there’s a press release coming very shortly with a copy of the letter?……I’ll hold my breath and wait patiently……) The Mayor then asked the Police Chief if he would be able to give the name of the law firm. Chief Berthiaume provided the name of a Toronto firm. Councillor Pouget then asked who they were representing. The Police Chief then said he had misspoke and that these fees were to settle a grievance. It was simply a reimbursement and that due to privacy, he can’t reveal who the firm was representing.

Councillor Meloche then spoke and wondered about the criteria to disclose or not. He felt that if it were a grievance, with a union contract, it’s public and the person who is subject to the grievance should be named. Then Councillor Lavigne spoke and said that even when the town has legal fees they don’t reveal employees names. He felt that employees were different from elected officials and that this was out of council’s realm. (Thank you Councillor Lavigne! I almost got up and clapped. Yes, elected officials are held to a different and higher standard especially in regards to public disclosure! Employees are not the same thing. There are privacy laws and other laws to protect employees. To begin to compare the two as being the same is bringing us right back to square one where this council started 3 years ago…..stepping into Human Resource issues…..it was a mess! Speaking of……I wonder how much this current council cost us in legal fees, especially the first year when they kept poking their nose into affairs that were not theirs…..and the lawyers kept coming and telling them they were overstepping……) The Police Chief then offered to go back and get legal advice to see what he could report. (No, thanks…..just more money paid out for nothing, just my thoughts….)

Councillor Pouget then spoke again and felt that council was being asked to approve this payment with no explanation and that she’s not able to speak on it. She felt that it’s her job to make sure accounts payable are correct. Councillor Lavigne then pointed out that council was simply RECEIVING the report, NOT approving the report. The bills were already paid and done, council simply sees and receives the report. (For those who recall, this process was changed about 2 years ago, once it was discovered that the breaks in between meetings to approve the payable items was tying up the process of getting the bills paid on time. Then, council finally saw the light and changed to this process of receiving the information.) Councillor Meloche then asked if the Police Board reviews the fees. Mayor DiCarlo advised that yes, at the in-camera meetings, the confidential information and all costs are reviewed by the Police Board.

The Police Chief then asked if council could provide which questions they’d like answered, that way he could ensure to ask them when he seeks legal advice. Councillor Pouget said she couldn’t since it was a public meeting. She then also asked for a recorded vote.

Now, this may be a first. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a recorded vote to simply RECEIVE an information report, but here we were…..the motion was to receive the information report for accounts payable, excluding the legal advice on page 3.

Support : Councillor Courtney, Councillor Fryer, Councillor Lavigne, Councillor Meloche, Mayor DiCarlo

Opposed : Councillor Pouget

All of this discussion and for what?

Accessibility Committee Minutes

The Accessibility Committee had recommended to install hand rails at the Libro Centre. This was approved after some discussion. I think there were a few people posturing for reelection. I’ll leave it at that.

Unfinished Business

Councillor Pouget then asked when the report would be coming back about the rumble strips. Administration said the goal is for the next agenda. Councillor Fryer shared his opinion, again, that he feels that the rumble strip concept is good but that they went too deep. He had a comparison about a road in Strathroy and the volume etc. and reiterated that they need to concentrate on the depth of the rumble strips. (I’m sorry…..my patience was wearing thin…..it wasn’t running too deep tonight either……not much seemed to be running deep, really…..)

Finally, at 6:22, (yes, I know…..22 minutes that felt like 2 hours…..) the meeting that probably could have been wrapped up in half the time, was over. Then council went off to meet behind closed doors, as usual, to discuss :

SPECIAL IN-CAMERA COUNCIL MEETING
That Council move into an In-Camera Meeting of Council directly following
Regular session pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as
amended, for the following reason:
ITEM A – Integrity Commissioner – Section 239(2)(b) – Personal matters about
an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees
ITEM B – Training Officer/Fulltime Firefighter – Section 239(2)(b) – Personal
matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board
employees

I feel obliged to go back to naming a Councillor of the week again as I used to a while ago. Tonight, hands down, without a doubt, the award goes to Councillor Lavigne. Thank you for some much needed logic and sound reasoning. Councillor Lavigne seems to understand the difference between the roles and responsibilities of elected officials and those of employees. He seems to understand that elected officials are held to a different public standard than employees. Elected officials have different obligations for transparency and accountability, for themselves! If it weren’t for his logic tonight, we may have been back at square one with a motion to investigate all employee qualifications. Geez. What am I missing?

 

Special Edition 2018 blog and in preparation for Monday January 8th Regular town council meeting

Happy New Year Amherstburg! I am predicting an interesting fun-filled political year ahead as we enter into a provincial election in the spring, followed by a municipal election in the fall.

First, I opened the agenda for Monday night’s meeting and almost fell off my chair. It’s only 72 pages! This must be some type of late Christmas present. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a short agenda for a regular meeting. Well, I perused the agenda and I can see why it’s so short. There’s nothing in it…LOL. There aren’t any delegations, there aren’t any reports (any major ones anyway) coming forward, really nothing of much interest at all. Council will have to adopt minutes of previous meetings, accept some information reports and correspondence etc but truly, nothing of too much excitement. From what I can see, unless there is some surprise Monday night, the meeting should be wrapped up within about 15 minutes.

Of course, council is scheduled to go in-camera after the regular meeting to discuss :

SPECIAL IN-CAMERA COUNCIL MEETING
That Council move into an In-Camera Meeting of Council directly following
Regular session pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as
amended, for the following reason:
ITEM A – Integrity Commissioner – Section 239(2)(b) – Personal matters about
an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees
ITEM B – Training Officer/Fulltime Firefighter – Section 239(2)(b) – Personal
matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board
employees

As for Item A……hmmmmm……interesting…..but we’ll never know, for it will go on behind closed doors…Again

As for Item B, this appears to be the “full report” that council had requested about the hiring in the Fire Department that happened this summer. To me, it’s dicey when council gets involved in Human Resources matters, they’ve been told time and again that it puts them, and the town, at risk…but what do I know? Again, we’ll never really know, for all of this will go on behind closed doors again.

Seems difficult to show transparency when meetings frequently happen in private. Where have I heard that phrase before? Transparency????? Oh yes, the last election. Well that was then and this is now so maybe some forgot.

Accounts Payable

Since there were no reports to read or presentations to prepare for, I was able to spend a little extra time reading the accounts payable. I always look for anything of interest as well as what we’ve paid out in legal fees.

So, this caught my eye. Big time.

LEARDI LAW FIRM
DEC 11, 2017  2LAW ADVICE                                                     1459 11-Dec-2017 11-Dec-2017
10-5-1001012-0325     DEPUTY MAYOR – LEGAL FE                  500.00

LEARDI LAW FIRM
DEC 11, 2017 LAW ADVICE                                                         1459 11-Dec-2017 11-Dec-2017 DEPARTMENT 1001016 COUNCIL –              COUNCILLOR 3
10-5-1001016-0325     POUGET, D. – LEGAL FEES                        500.00

For those of you who may recall, Councillor Pouget and Deputy Mayor DiPasquale both declared conflicts of interest in regards to the Windsor Police Proposal at the December meeting when the proposal was brought forward. I had blogged about conflicts in general in my year end review and there have been many comments on social media about these conflicts. Well, regardless, the conflicts were declared in December and now it appears that we, the tax payers have paid for these members of council to seek legal advice. I believe, members of council are entitled to get legal advice at tax payer expense, so that’s cool I guess. However, considering that we the tax payers have now paid for their legal advice, wouldn’t that mean that we should be entitled to see the legal advice that was provided? Councillor Pouget mentioned at the meeting that she had a letter that said she could not vote on the Windsor Police Proposal. Should Councillor Pouget and Deputy Mayor DiPasquale have to provide the tax payers with a copy of the legal advice that the taxpayers paid for? Would that be too much of an expectation for transparency and accountability from our elected members of council ? 

Here is what I previously wrote about conflicts for those who may have missed it, including commentary from the Mayor and some links to information:

” I have seen a few questions and comments on social media about this recent conflict declared by Deputy Mayor DiPasquale and Councillor Pouget. Deputy Mayor DiPasquale said that the he has a daughter who works for the Windsor Police Department. Councillor Pouget said she has an in-law who works for the Windsor Police Department. So, someone questioned why Mayor DiCarlo hasn’t declared a conflict since he has an in-law who works for Amherstburg Police Department. Here is the Mayor’s reply (I found it on Amherstburg Election Project on Facebook ) :

“The answer is simple, the Act is narrow on conflicts of interest for a reason, to ensure elected representatives can remain accountable to the voters. First the Act only stipulates immediate family, such as my wife and children, not brothers, sisters or associated in laws. In order for me to have a conflict, my brother in law would have to be my son, working for APS or WPS, and receiving financial gain simply because Amherstburg might switch to Windsor. From what I know of the RFP and contract, no one working for WPS will be getting any financial gains or raises if we switched. If it helps, I’ll include some links that might help: ….After reading the Act, it should be clear I do not have a conflict of interest.”

Here are the links the Mayor provided as well :

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m50

http://www.osum.ca/OSUM-Docs/Conference/2016/Presentations/APrimeronMunicipalConflictofInterest.aspx

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90m50

From what I can tell, financial gain seems to be the only conflict under the act. How will Councillor Pouget and Deputy Mayor DiPasquale’s relatives be getting any financial gain whether or not the police proposal goes through?”

Do you agree? In the interest of transparency and accountability, should the tax payers be provided with a copy of the legal advice these 2 elected members of council received that the tax payers appear to have paid for? Or is that making the process too transparent and accountable? 

This also caught my eye : 

AMH22 AMHERSTBURG POLICE ASSOCIATION
DECEMBER 20 LEGAL FEES                                                         1429 06-Dec-2017 06-Dec-2017
10-5-2020000-0325     LEGAL FEES                            27,000.00

Wowza! That’s a big chunk of legal fees for the police department. If the amalgamation were to move forward, would that mean that Windsor would be responsible for the legal fees? I have to guess that this big chunk of money in legal fees may have to do with the ongoing Tims-Fryer lawsuit against the police department. I’m not sure however, I could be wrong. 

Windsor Police Proposal

I have been approached a few times recently about my thoughts regarding the Windsor Police Proposal. For the moment, I am trying to keep an open mind and look at all sides of the issue, the good, the bad and the ugly. I plan on attending one of the four public information meetings to ensure that I have as much information as possible before I make up my mind. Here’s a quick reminder for the dates and times of these meetings : 

• Wednesday January 17 – 6:00 to 8:00 Amherstburg Town Hall
• Thursday January 18 – 6:00 to 8:00 McGregor Knights of Columbus
• Thursday January 25 – 6:00 to 8:00 St. Peter’s School
• Saturday January 27 – 11 AM to 1 PM The Libro Centre

Once I’ve had a chance to attend one of the meetings, I will write a special edition blog about what I learned and what I think. In general, I truly try to step back and look at things from every angle. That means that I may not strongly come down on one side or the other, but I will come down on one side. I won’t declare a conflict and then never share my thoughts or opinion on this issue. It’s too important of an issue to hide in the shadows and not be involved and educated. I hope that as many people as possible attend one of the four meetings. 

Blogging in the 21st Century

Yesterday, I celebrated my 2 year blogging anniversary. Hugs and kisses all around. I’ve done my best to provide this odd service to the residents of Amherstburg. As you are all aware, I attend council meetings regularly. I read (well, sort of read, kind of skim usually) the long agendas to inform myself before the meetings so that I can follow the discussion. I then weigh in after the meetings with my thoughts and opinions and the way I saw things go down at the meeting. I try to be funny and make it entertaining when possible, but at the end of the day, it is how I understood what went on, including my thoughts and opinions. I have had a recent accusation of “bashing” from a councillor’s family member. I truly feel that my blog is a fair and honest rendition of what I see happen at public council meetings. I am by far not alone in my political blogging hobby. There are many out there. Here’s a few interesting ones for those of you who are interested. I think you will see that my blog is pretty darn fair over all, even if you don’t agree with any of my thoughts and opinions. 

https://auroracitizen.ca/

The link above will bring you to a blog that seemed to be very active a few years ago in the City of Aurora Ontario. It appears that the mayor and the town even tried to sue the blogger over the content. From what I can see the lawsuit was shot down in court. Then the Mayor had to issue an apology letter to the blogger. You’ll find it on the first page of the blog. It looks like the page isn’t very active now, however, if you take the time to read some of the older content I think it will be an eye opener, for some, of what real political criticism can look like. 

http://newsalertniagara.blogspot.ca/2017/

The link above will bring you to a blog that focuses on politics in the Niagara Region and also on provincial politics to some degree. It states that the blue links will give you Niagara Region content. Again, this blog is loaded with political criticism. In this case, very recently, the blogger and a reporter had property seized during a meeting and the Ombudsman office is investigating. It also appears the Niagara blogger sits at the media table at meetings……(hmmmmm…….maybe I should try that???). Anyway, it’s got some interesting, colourful and very straight forward commentary if you have some time to peruse this blog to get a look at real political criticism. Here’s a link to the article about the whole fiasco of being kicked out and having property seized:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/12/14/ombudsman-to-probe-niagara-regional-government-after-reporters-gear-seized.html

 

https://www.facebook.com/OntarioProud/

There is also a page on Facebook called Ontario Proud. It seems to make extreme commentary and criticism towards provincial politics, in particular to the current Premier of Ontario. It makes my blog appear to be a child’s bed time story. 

So, I guess, overall, think of tonight’s blog as an information session to political blogging and commentary. I’m pretty sure that the family member that accused me of “bashing” never took the time to check other political blogs for a reference for comparison. I plan to continue blogging away for the rest of this council’s term and including my thoughts, opinions, questions and commentary about the goings on at the public council meetings. 

I’m looking forward to what 2018 has to bring to Amherstburg! 

And, I’m looking forward to a very short and sweet meeting Monday night! 🙂