This blog is biased. Blogs are by their very nature a biased opinion piece. I have never denied that this blog is biased. It encapsulates council meetings as I see them, from my perspective. Sooooo, this blog is going to be even more biased! LOL I thought that Monday night’s meeting was one of the best meetings that I have watched in a long time. There were recorded votes, split votes that went 3-2, some well-managed discussion periods and the list goes on. If this blog generally gets you upset by reading it, then stop reading now. You’re not going to like it.
First, council met in-camera at 4:00. They had a lot of items to discuss. Here they are :
SPECIAL IN-CAMERA MEETING
That Council move into an In-Camera Meeting of Council pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended for the following reasons:
Item A – Legal Advice Regarding Committee
Section 239(2)(b) – Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.
• Section 239(2)(f) – Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
Item B – Notice Regarding First Right of Refusal on a Property Disposition
Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.
Item C – Striking Committee Information
Section 239(2)(b) – Personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees.
Item D – Undertaking with Regards to Property Disposition and Associated Negotiations Section 239(2)(c) – A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.
Section 239(2)(f) – advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;
• Section 239(2)(k) – a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board.
Item E – Organizational and Employment matters related to Identifiable Individuals
Section 239(2)(b)- personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees
Item F – Legal Advice regarding Development Agreements and Contractual Obligations
Section 239(2)(f) – advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose
I arrived at town hall shortly after 5:30 and I got the last available seat in the gallery. It was packed!
There was a revised agenda with some delegations added. Here are the links for the revised agenda, in case you want to refer to any of the reports.
And in PDF format https://calendar.amherstburg.ca/council/Detail/2023-11-27-1800-Regular-Council-Meeting/fad3f89d-e177-47bb-a00f-b0c4016380c1
****Mayor Prue and Councillor Allaire were both absent.***
***Councillor Courtney was present via Zoom and appeared to be at home***
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
Deputy Mayor Gibb declared a conflict of interest on item #14.1 Update to the Taxi Cab By-law for the Inclusion of Accessible Taxi Cab Service Amendments
Normally, this would not create much to blog about but since Deputy Mayor Gibb was chairing the meeting Monday night due to the Mayor’s absence, that meant that council would have to elect an interim chair for that one item. Again, normally, this would not be an item of interest, but it sure got interesting…..I’ll fill you in on the details when we get to that point in the agenda. 🙂
REPORT OUT FROM IN-CAMERA SESSION
Councillor McArthur made a motion to extend the deadline for residents to apply for the licensing committee. It was noted that there was a low number of applicants. The motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation: Tourism Windsor Essex Pelee Island – Gordon Orr – CEO, Lynnette Bain – Vice President, Destination Development, Jason Toner – Director of Marketing and Communications
Mr Orr presented virtually to council to share how the year is going so far regarding tourism and some items of interest for 2024. This was their 7th of 10 presentations to local councils. They appear annually in front of council and Mr Orr presented their organizational chart. He made reference to Ms Rota’s pending retirement as Manager of Tourism. Mr Orr spoke of the Best of Windsor/Essex Awards and explained how TWEPI’s social media reach is growing. Hotel indicators are rising and their website traffic is also on the rise. He presented a short promotional video.
The presentation was received.
DELEGATIONS
There were several delegations scheduled for Monday night’s meeting. Before the first delegation spoke, CAO Critchley advised that on council’s direction she was asked to give an update regarding the Boblo Ferry. It seems that on November 7th council directed that the town solicitor send a letter to Amico regarding some paperwork requested and to arrange a meeting between Amico and town administration. The CAO said that they are currently awaiting a response to the letter. She also noted that Cindy Prince, a representative of Amico, was on the line to listen to the Boblo residents’ concerns.
(Preamble, the delegations were quite lengthy and most went well past the 5 minute time limit. I’m going to summarize them as briefly as possible and try to be concise. As always, if you want the full details, please watch the video.)
Delegation: Item 15.1 Bois Blanc Ferry Update – J. David Green
Mr Green spoke first. He said he had a 10 minute presentation (powerpoint style). Council made a motion to allow him to speak longer than the 5 minutes allotted for delegations. Mr Green said he would be speaking to the 14 days that the ferry service was down. He felt that emergency services were compromised during that time. He was asking council to help the Boblo residents. He presented a powerpoint presentation that incorporated many pictures. He noted how the residents had to use a pontoon boat to get to and from the island and that golf carts were used to drive residents to their homes. He also noted that there were two injuries during the use of the pontoon boat.
He requested several items from council and I did my best to note them. It seemed that he was asking for the town to execute a simulation of the emergency training and to publish the results. He also asked that the town should license each of the ferries. It appeared that he was also asking to see documentation about the backup ferry and that it can be used for emergencies. He spoke of repairing and certifying the backup ferry and was asking that a plan be established.
Councillor Pouget thanked him for his presentation. She noted that council has been aware of the problems and are working actively, as noted by the CAO prior to the delegations. Then, she asked Fire Chief Montone if it would be possible to have the simulation one time per year as Mr Green had mentioned. The Chief replied that absolutely that would be possible and that he could bring a proposal forward to council with the funding required to execute the simulation.
Councillor Crain asked Chief Montone that if there had been a fire, if the fire department would have been able to put it out. Chief Montone said that a contingency plan for Boblo Island has been in place for over 20 years. He noted that while the ferry was down, the backup plan was put to the test since they helped employees of the Ministry of the Environment get to the island for required water testing. Councillor Crain asked again about fire measures. Chief Montone spoke of the response protocols and that they had authorization to use the backup ferry. If that were not possible, then a plan is in place to get firefighters to the island.
Deputy Mayor Gibb interjected that a motion to receive the delegate was required and that questions of staff would be held off for later, after the delegations.
Councillor Courtney asked the delegate if there was a board for the Boblo Island residents. He wondered how they participate as shareholders and how they interact with the ferry service company. Mr Green said that the next delegate would speak to those issues.
The delegation was then received.
Delegation: Item 15.1 Bois Blanc Ferry Update – Eric Farron
Mr Farron spoke next. He also explained that he was a resident of Boblo Island. He spoke about public safety and how the problems with the ferry could be addressed. He seemed to want to create a resident ferry committee, or a task force, and was asking the municipality to participate. It seems that he wants the committee to be composed of Island residents, council and residents of Amherstburg. He spoke about how much property taxes the residents of Boblo island pay to the town and noted that the Boblo residents pay $5,000 per year for ferry service to the Amherstburg Ferry Corporation (Amico).
Councillor McArthur asked if the concerns had been articulated to Amico and if the residents had sought a legal opinion to take legal action against the Ferry Corporation. He wondered if the residents had approached the entity providing the ferry service. Mr Farron felt that the Boblo Island HomeOwners Association was not effective. He seemed to feel that the Island residents had looked at the agreements and that a collaborative group was needed to fix the problems.
Councillor McArthur asked again about the Homeowners Association. He wondered if it was one association or multiple associations and how the residents were dealing with them. Mr Farron referred to the BBCA (not sure what this acronym stands for?) and that it is composed of the developer and island residents. He felt that there is a conflict of interest with that association and that a separate entity is required.
Councillor Crain noted the work already undertaken by council and the town and that questions were sent regarding the certification by Transport Canada of the ferries. He also mentioned that an emergency plan is in place and that council’s action to date was noted at the beginning of the meeting. Mr Farron felt that was encouraging but seemed to be seeking actions.
Councillor Pouget asked if the Association had had a meeting and if the residents had met with the developer. Mr Farron said that an Annual Association Meeting was held and that minutes were provided and a discussion was had but he felt it was ambiguous.
Councillor Courtney then spoke about the town’s purview. He talked about the development on the south end of the island. He felt that if a house on an island has a fire, that it will burn. He noted that there are logistics and that time is of the essence. Getting to a house on an island will take longer to get to. He noted that he lives in a remote area of Amherstburg and that it is riskier living there, since they are not near a fire hall or a hospital. He also pointed out that a neighbouring house recently burned to the ground. Councillor Courtney felt that it is necessary for island residents (or those living in remote areas) to accept delays. He asked Mr Farron if he could acknowledge that services would be delayed when someone lives on an island.
Mr Farron did not agree that the town is expunged of providing services. He felt that no one is asking the town for money “right now”. He felt that we are all stakeholders.
The delegation was received.
Delegation: Item 15.1 Bois Blanc Ferry Update – Kenneth Morrison, Boblo Island Homeowners Association
Mr Morrison spoke next. He had another man with him that also spoke but I did not catch his name. Mr Morrison noted that there is currently a diverse age-range of residents living on the island. He noted that there are families with infants and school-aged children up to elderly residents in their 90s living on the island. He asked that the town look at the development agreement that is already in place. Mr Morrison asked that the town revisit the agreement between the residents and the Ferry Corporation. He also asked that the town of Amherstburg take over the ferry service.
Councillor McArthur said that multiple emails were received by council, many referring to the Homeowners Association. He asked if the Association was incorporated and how it was composed. Mr Morrison said that yes, it is incorporated but he was unsure of the composition. He felt it was in favour of the developer. Mr Morrison felt that he was speaking for the residents and asking the town to take over the ferry service for the residents.
Councillor McArthur asked by what authority Mr Morrison was making the request. He asked who voted on the request. He also asked if the developer voted in favour of the town taking over the ferry service. Mr Morrison said yes…..
Councillor Pouget spoke and said many emails were received and many residents said that the Homeowners Association was not speaking on their behalf. She also noted that it is very clear in the development agreement that the developer is to provide the ferry service. She felt that the town cannot and should not take over operation of the ferry and that she would not vote in support of the town taking over operation of the ferry.
Councillor McArthur asked, while the ferry was down for two weeks, if the Association had taken any steps with the Ferry Corporation regarding the service they were not receiving. It seems that questions were asked. Councillor McArthur asked if an email was sent, or a stern letter or if legal counsel had been hired to represent the residents. It seems that no legal action has been taken as of yet. Councillor McArthur also wondered if the Association had contacted the province about taking over the ferry since they could have economies of scale and have expertise since they already provide ferry services to other islands in Ontario. Mr Morrison said that they had come to council first but that other avenues are on the list.
Councillor Courtney felt that services from the town, such as garbage, recycling, snow removal etc, are available to the island residents. He felt that council is doing their part as per the letter sent by the town’s legal counsel. Councillor Courtney felt that Councillor McArthur was spot on that the residents are paying $5,000 per year for a service that they are not receiving and he would think they would call a meeting and hire a lawyer to take care of it. He felt that the ferry was down for two weeks and that there are other courses of action that should be taken, rather than asking council. He mentioned seeking legal advice and felt that more needed to be done by the residents of the Homeowners Association.
The delegation was received. (in my notes it was now 7:21PM, just for reference).
Bois Blanc Ferry Update
At the last meeting, a motion was made for a report about the back-up ferry for Boblo Island. This report allowed residents to delegate about the ferry since this was now an agenda item. The agenda came out ten days in advance and this allowed all residents ample time to submit delegation forms if they wanted to speak about this item. This item was brought forward on the agenda since the delegations received thus far were about this report.
Councillor Pouget asked CAO Critchley if the town had received a response from Amico from the letter that was sent and when the response was received if it would be public or just for council. The CAO said a response had not been received as of yet. She also said that she will need to see what the response says and it will be presented to council in-camera and from there a recommendation would be given if it could be released publicly.
Councillor McArthur noted that council had received a delegation stating that the Boblo island developer had voted for the town to take over the ferry service. He asked if the CAO had heard of this. CAO Critchley said that she had not heard of it.
Deputy Mayor Gibb said that the town has an agreement with the developer and that the town has reasonable access to the ferry for emergency services. He also noted that council had been in touch with a lawyer almost immediately and suggested that the residents of the island shouldn’t wait for the government to help them.
A motion to receive the report was made and it carried.
Delegation: Items 12.1 – 12.4 Street Lighting – Mahayarrahh – Starr Livingstone, Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Windsor Chapter
Mr Livingstone made a presentation to council regarding light pollution. He spoke about glare and various light sources that can cause issues. He felt that the town should consider a bylaw about light pollution. He spoke about birds getting confused by light and how lights can affect human health. He noted that the plans for Kingsbridge provided a plan for 4,000K of lighting and he felt that all residential lighting should be at a 3,000K level.
The delegation was received.
A woman approached the podium and wanted to speak. Something was said about her delegation being declined, but it seemed that she wanted to speak to another item that wasn’t being discussed at the moment.
All four items regarding the Kingsbridge development were brought forward in regards to the delegation noted above.
Kingsbridge Subdivision Phase 5A – Assumption of Streetlights, Surface Asphalt and Sidewalks
Kingsbridge Subdivision Phase 5B–Assumption of Streetlights, Surface Asphalt and Sidewalks
Kingsbridge Subdivision Phase 7B – Assumption of Streetlights Surface Asphalt and Sidewalk
Kingsbridge Subdivision Phase 10C – Assumption of Underground Infrastructure, Curbs, Base Asphalt, Streetlights and Surface Asphalt. Placement of Sidewalks on a 2-year maintenance.
Councillor Pouget asked administration which number the delegation had been referring to and she wondered what the recommendation for lighting level is currently. Ms Giofu, Director of Engineering said that the town is following the requirements and that infrastructure is already in place and would be costly to change. It was confirmed that 4,000 is the approved number.
All four items were moved and carried.
Delegation: Item 22.1 Notice of Motion re: Reconsider By-Law 2023 -085 – Linda Saxon
Ms Saxon delegated to council via Zoom. Ms Saxon said she had been emailing concerns to council since February regarding accommodations. She felt that there is an increased number of times that delegations are refused. She felt that public consultation should be done regarding council’s procedural bylaw. She felt that the bylaw was revised in August without public consultation or input. She felt that equal opportunity was paramount. She requested that council reconsider their position regarding the bylaw and that public consultation be done.
The delegation was received.
Delegation: Item 22.1 Notice of Motion re: Reconsider By-law 2023-085 – Vince Laframboise
Mr Laframboise delegated to council about the procedural bylaw as well. He felt that three issues were before council in regards to the bylaw. First, he mentioned the demonstration of council’s competence and duties. Second, he said the on-going support of the work done by the town and not wasting staff time. Third, he felt that ensuring equitable access to council by all taxpayers was an issue. Mr Laframboise assumed that all of council had done their homework and due diligence on August 14th when they voted unanimously to support the new procedural bylaw. He felt that lately, council had been having refreshing meetings that were running more smoothly, without scrambling to find information based on questions asked without an accompanying report. He felt that town staff must feel supported not having to play catch up and felt that delegating on agenda items only was one of council’s best ways to represent us in the most equitable way. He felt that gone are the days of last minute issues, that may or may not even require council. He felt that people can now register to delegate in a very clear and fair process, without favoritism, preferential treatment or “old boys clubs”, or because they’re Facebook friends etc. He seemed to feel that the new bylaw was a good way to move the business of the town forward. He asked council to leave the new bylaw “as is” and that it should be given much more than 3 months to see how it’s working. He asked that council prove to the ratepayers that they had done their homework. Mr Laframboise also felt that the new bylaw guarantees better and equitable access for the residents to council and he noted that the process to delegate was simple and easy and took less than 5 minutes.
The delegation was received.
So, the notice of motion was brought forward for debate based on the two previous delegations.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Notice of Motion of November 13, 2023 – Motion to Reconsider By-Law 2023-085-Councillor Pouget
To be deliberated November 27, 2023
The Notice of Motion state that:
1.Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare amendments to Bylaw 2023-085 (Being a By-law to govern the proceedings of Council, the conduct of its members and the calling of meetings), for further Council deliberation with regards to:
1. Section 9 – Deliberations, item 9.4., to identify that delegations are permitted which do not include an administrative report or by-law before the assembly (for further clarity, delegations may be accepted, even though the item they wish to address is not on the agenda);
2. Section 14 – Conduct of Proceedings, item 14.5., to identify that the rules of order may be suspended by majority vote of Council and shall be time limited and specific;
3. Section 14 – Members of Council should not vacate their seats during the conduct of proceedings, unless excused by the Mayor;
2. Consideration BE GIVEN to public consultation concerning the Procedural By-law.
The Clerk explained that originally the notice of motion was for reconsideration but since it was already a law, specific amendments were proposed (as noted above) instead. This follows Parliamentary Procedure.
Councillor Pouget made a motion to defer her notice of motion to the first meeting of January 2024 so that administration could seek public consultation and answer Ms Saxon’s questions. Councillor Courtney seconded her motion to defer.
It went to a vote (not recorded – I watched). It was 2-2. Councillors Crain and McArthur voted in opposition to the deferral. Deputy Mayor Gibb broke the tie and also opposed the deferral.
So the debate was on. Councillor Pouget made the motion as written above with the amendments and Councillor Courtney seconded it.
Councillor Pouget said that the reason for her motion was that administration did not consult with members of council or the public about the new procedural bylaw. She felt that it was unfair to not allow people to speak at council meetings unless it was an agenda item. She also felt it was unfair to have a unanimous vote to waive the rules of order. She felt that the new procedural bylaw discourages public engagement.
Councillor Courtney felt that he did not like to go backwards but felt that a couple of issues should be reconsidered. He felt that it was too stringent.
Councillor Crain said that he did not support the amendments. He felt that the current procedural bylaw gives reasonable notice for the agenda and that it is very transparent. He did not feel that council was doing its due diligence to make decisions on the fly. He also seemed to feel that there are multiple ways where possible for public engagement are possible, as the delegate had mentioned. (I completely agreed.)
Councillor McArthur also said he does not support the amendments. He felt that the time for the debate was on August 14th. (Agreed! Not one question was asked nor comment made on August 14th….yet here we are looking backwards and wasting time…..) He mentioned that he was expecting debate on August 14th and was ready for it. He felt that at first glance of the bylaw that it seemed restrictive but in reality it was very freeing. He noted that staff time costs money and that council should be careful to maximize its use. Councillor McArthur felt that the new procedural bylaw allowed for informed discussion. He also noted that on the surface, to see hands in the air from the public looks like democracy but in fact it is the opposite. (I sooooo agree!!) It creates discussions and decisions on the fly, without proper information and that is unfair to the taxpayers. He felt that the current bylaw is working well since it allowed the people of Boblo to speak at this meeting. He noted that it is not an imposition to put an item on the agenda and that residents have a week to sign up to delegate. He also felt he did not have a problem with having a “unanimous” decision to waive the rules of order. He felt that how members of council vote to waive the rules can have a political price anyway. Councillor McArthur encouraged residents to delegate to council and he also said he did not agree with having to ask the chair of the meeting to be excused to go to the washroom. He noted that this debate should have all happened on August 14th. (Personally…..why have rules of order if you’re just going to waive them willy-nilly?)
Councillor Pouget spoke again. She said that she had just been released from the hospital on August 14th and that voting for this item was a mistake and she willingly admitted that. (Just my own personal thought…..if a member of council was ill and in hospital and unable to prepare for a meeting, it would be okay to call in sick right? Better to miss the meeting if someone is unwell and unprepared? Just a thought?) Councillor Pouget went on that she felt that the new bylaw is not inclusive and she felt that Amherstburg is the only one with restrictive policies. She noted that Boblo residents had wanted to come in October to delegate but they had to wait for her to bring it up at New Business in order to delegate at this meeting. (Again….my thoughts…..it seemed far more efficient to have reports and agreements in front of council to accompany the delegation presentations tonight…..rather than delegations and no documentation to refer to….or scrambling to find it while people spoke….) Councillor Pouget noted that she had been on council for 15 years and that if she wanted to leave the meeting she had to give a note to the mayor in order to leave the meeting. (I have been watching council meetings since 2014, and Councillor Pouget was on the 2014-2018 council…..not once did I see any member of council hand a note to the mayor or ask permission to leave the meeting….I noticed on occasion a member of council would leave briefly – I’m assuming to use the washroom -. Heck, I’ve seen members of council leave their seats to go have a conversation with a resident in the lobby…..never once did I see a note given to the Chair or permission requested…..) Councillor Pouget felt that it was unfair if council did not change the three items noted in her motion.
A recorded vote was requested.
Deputy Mayor Gibb said that he was surprised at the discussion since it had been passed unanimously. He felt that council is obligated to inform the public what will be discussed during council meetings. He did not want to take away that right from the residents. He felt that the new bylaw was going well and noted how the residents of Boblo were able to come forward and delegate. Deputy Mayor Gibb also noted that the bike group would be coming forward at a future meeting since a report was requested under new business as well at the last meeting. He felt that having a unanimous decision to waive the rules of order was important since waiving the rules of order is an extremely important decision. He noted that some feel that we have a divided council and that a requirement for unanimity to waive the rules would force members of council to work together.
It went to a recorded vote, to amend the procedural bylaw.
In favour : Councillors Courtney and Pouget
Opposed : Councillors Crain and McArthur and Deputy Mayor Gibb
The motion failed. The procedural bylaw remains in place, as is, as adopted unanimously on August 14th. (Good! The meetings have been far more smooth as of late and frankly, Monday night’s meeting was the smoothest yet! Hope we keep heading in that direction…..efficient, productive and timely meetings…..that’s what we need! Well, I guess that’s what we need if we want to move forward and not backwards….)
Ironically, there was a person in the gallery that wanted to speak to this item, the procedural bylaw. He had put his hand up once the motion was on the floor, so the rules could not be waived at that time. Now that the item had been voted on, a motion to waive the rules of order was made by Councillor Pouget and seconded by Councillor McArthur. It went to a vote but Councillor Crain stuck to his position and opposed the motion, therefore the rules of order were not waived and the meeting moved on. (I was very impressed. I like it when people stick to their principles. And waiving the rules of order should only be done in the most rare and extreme of circumstances….again, otherwise, why bother having rules of order?)
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA-17-23 for 7368 Howard Avenue
Remember earlier when I mentioned a lady had gone to the podium and wanted to speak? Well, it seems that it was about this item, the Howard Avenue Zoning bylaw amendment. Deputy Mayor Gibb said that the town had held the statutory public meeting and that was the time to speak to this item. Councillor Pouget, again, made a motion to waive the rules of order and, again, Councillor McArthur seconded it. And again, Councillor Crain opposed the motion. So the rules were not waived (since it has to be unanimous) and the meeting continued. (Once again, kudos to Councillor Crain)
There was some discussion about this item, but ultimately it carried. Councillor Pouget did not vote.
Update to the Taxi Cab By-law for the Inclusion of Accessible Taxi Cab Service Amendments
If you recall, this was the item for which Deputy Mayor Gibb had declared a conflict. Since he was chairing the meeting, council had to elect a temporary chair for this item only. Normally, this would be quite uneventful…..but…..follow me here…..
Councillor McArthur nominated Councillor Crain. There was some hesitation for a seconder so Councillor Crain seconded the motion. Then Councillor Pouget nominated Councillor Courtney to chair the meeting. There was no seconder for that motion.
It went to a vote for Councillor Crain to chair this section of the meeting…..3-1….Councillor Pouget voted in opposition. (Draw your own conclusions to this one I guess…..)
Anyway, there were no questions, there was no debate and the item regarding amendments for accessible taxi cab services carried.
Special Events Approval – Part Twelve
The True Fest is coming back for 2024! Here is the recommendation :
It is recommended that:
1. The following events BE APPROVED: a. True Fest – January 27th, 2024
2. An exemption from table number 3-1(2) of Noise By-law #2001-43, as amended with respect to the operation of any electronic device or group of connected electronic devices incorporating one or more loudspeakers to allow for music BE GRANTED for the following events:
a. True Fest – January 27th, 2024 from 1800hrs till 2300hrs
3. The following events BE EXEMPT and PERMITTED for road closures to begin prior to 5pm: a. True Fest – January 27th, 2024 from 0900hrs till 2330hrs
4. The Special Events Resource Team BE DIRECTED to confirm that the requirements identified by the Committee are met prior to the event.
Councillor Courtney noted that in the past government grants had funded this festival. He asked if it was now fully funded by the town. Ms Baillargeon, Director of Parks and Recreation said that yes, it is now fully funded by the town.
Councillor Courtney felt that this is the only festival that he’s heard anything controversial about. (I thought there were people that don’t like Open Air and the Uncommon Festival and the Cars Gone Crazy? But I guess it’s just this one festival now?) He felt that a winter dance party is inclusive but felt that some people take offense to the drag queen show. He felt it’s not inclusive and some feel that it is risque. He felt that the town promotes inclusivity but that there are males dressed as females. He asked what is the benefit to this festival and if it’s inclusive. He said he’s heard criticism and that some won’t attend. He felt that since tax dollars are funding the event, do we need drag queens for it to be inclusive and could we not get “normal” music groups to perform.
CAO Critchley said that drag queens are a form of entertainment and that it is all vetted by town staff. She felt that it was done in good taste and it is a diverse form of entertainment.
Councillor Pouget said that she received numerous phone calls from people that are angry and upset. She felt that council did not agree to spend money on drag queens and she would not support this event.
Councillor McArthur said that he fully supports the event. He attended with his daughter and had a fantastic time. He noted that the streets were packed last year with people roasting marshmallows and having fun. He noted that kids today are raised differently and that he’s thankful to see the changes such as the rainbow crosswalk. He felt that the event attracted money to the town and put us on the map for the right reasons. He expected that administration will still seek grant funding if it’s available. He plans to attend the event this year and have a good time once again.
Councillor Crain then spoke and said his opinion in support of diversity has always been clear. He noted that the rainbow crosswalk was entirely funded by donations. He also noted that the True Fest had overwhelming support. He also said that there will always be people opposed to anything and that there are people opposed to River Lights and using tax money for that event. He felt that if people don’t like the event, they simply can choose not to attend. He said he would fully support the motion. (And once again, kudos! So true…..if people don’t like an event, they don’t have to attend….they can stay home….it is a choice after all….)
Councillor Courtney spoke again about it being a contentious event. He felt that the rainbow crosswalk was supported unanimously and while it was privately funded via donations, it was painted on town pavement. (…..I’m going to contain my inner voice here…..)
The motion was made to approve the event for road closures and the noise bylaw by Councillor Crain and seconded by Councillor McArthur.
Deputy Mayor Gibb said that he believes in an open, inclusive and loving Amherstburg. He also said that Amherstburg needs more love.
It went to a vote (not recorded – I watched). It was a 2-2 tie.
In support : Councillors Crain and McArthur, Deputy Mayor Gibb broke the tie
Opposed : Councillors Courtney and Pouget
Cheque Registry Pilot Project
As you may recall, council had decided during budget deliberations to re-implement the publication of the monthly cheque register at a cost of about $1,000 per month to render the document accessible. This was done for 10 months of 2023. This document is published monthly and includes a list of all cheques written during that month.
Councillor Crain made a motion to no longer continue with publishing the cheque registry. Councillor McArthur seconded it for discussion.
Councillor Crain spoke and said that there had been no issues raised regarding the cheques for ten months. He noted that there are a number of risks providing this cheque registry report. He said that staff follows the process to create the report, redact the report and then remediate it for accessibility. He noted that the town has 32 financial policies in place already and he’s not sure if any other boards review every single cheque that is written. He noted that there are already many checks and balances in place. (I don’t think he meant for the pun but I found it punny LOL). He didn’t see any value in providing the cheque registry and wanted to save the taxpayers money by discontinuing it.
Councillor Courtney then spoke. He seemed to address Councillor Crain directly, which I don’t believe is allowed but I digress. Councillor Courtney referred to a KPMG audit that the previous council had requested and they had found that former staff had been signing off on amounts that were over their limits. He felt that former staff weren’t on the up and up. He seemed to feel that the reason for the cheque registry report was for that reason, to see if things are on the up and up and that it is the cost of doing business. Councillor Courtney did acknowledge that only some residents read the document and wondered if it wasn’t prepared for council where they could find the information.
CAO Critchely said that it could be put on line but that it would not be fully rendered.
Councillor Pouget said that she had been on council for 15 years. (I think she may have mentioned that before? Maybe not? LOL) She went through her version of the history of how the document came to be. She felt that people wanted the cheque register back. She also claimed that her phone rings off the hook about it. She made a statement about taking offense to something that she thought Councillor Crain had said (he denied it) and started to speak to him directly and Deputy Mayor Gibb interjected that crosstalk was not allowed and that she should just state her position. Councillor Pouget noted that she had asked about a $232,000 bill just a couple of weeks ago.
Councillor Crain offered his final thoughts. He noted that while he was knocking on doors there was never a mention about the cheque registry. He felt that the past is in the past. The document was reviewed for ten months and there were no issues. He also asked which other local councils publish their cheque registers. (none) He felt that council could review the document independently without publishing it online. He noted the many risks with the report that it left the town exposed to cyber security risks, that phishing attempts could easily be made based on this information. He again noted that there are other processes in place to review financial information. (Spot on once again!)
Councillor McArthur said that he had originally seconded it for discussion but that he had been swayed by something Councillor Pouget said. He said that the public need to trust town staff. But if council wants the public to trust town staff, council needs to trust them first. He noted that no other municipality in the area posts all of this information and there are big cyber security risks. He felt that saying we need the cheque register to hold staff accountable is sending a bad message and that council needs to mend fences. He noted that it costs money to make it accessible and he asked if the document could be sent to council privately and then council could ask questions in public. (Makes complete sense!)
The Clerk said that yes, the document could be sent to council but they would just have to be careful not to share the document with members of the public, since it would not be redacted.
Councillor Courtney then spoke and said he had been swayed to stop the cheque register too. He felt it had been put in place for a reason but that council could just look at it themselves and ask questions publicly. He felt that the $14,000 could be earmarked for something else.
Deputy Mayor Gibb asked some questions about insurance for breach of privacy and cyber security. He felt that now that the serious risks have been pointed out to council that if something were to happen and the insurer became aware that council was aware of the risks…..that would not be a good thing…..
It went to a recorded vote to discontinue the cheque registry :
In favour : Councillors Courtney, Crain, McArthur and Deputy Mayor Gibb
Opposed : Councillor Pouget.
NEW BUSINESS
Councillor Courtney made a motion for the cheque register to be provided to council only. Councillor Pouget was already packing up her things. The motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:16 PM.
Considering the multitude of delegations that lasted I think until well after 8:00, that was pretty darn efficient!
As I wrote up this blog something really jumped out at me……There were a lot of 2 – 2 votes, with the Deputy Mayor breaking the tie. It hit me that it was always the top 2 vote getters (Crain and McArthur) VS the bottom 2 vote getters (Courtney and Pouget). So the top two versus the bottom two…..kind of interesting when you think about…..maybe the voters of Amherstburg really do want change and a new way of thinking and doing things, since generally, Crain and McArthur would be considered much more progressive than Courtney and Pouget? Just a thought…..but something to think about regardless.
Overall, a pretty great meeting I think! Things moved forward, ran fairly efficiently and overall, somewhat refreshing!
Don’t worry. I know it won’t last. The budget will be tabled next week, on December 4th and then another regular meeting is scheduled for December 11th…..which means I’ll be reading another meeting agenda in just a few short days. 🙂 But for now, I am enjoying the moment! And it was a great moment (meeting)!
Have a great week Amherstburg!
amherstburg2 