KUDOS and 80-KABILLION THANK YOU'S to The Peterborough Examiner for their Editorial, "Mixed message; Ombudsman as investigator would settle any doubt".
The following Peterborough Examiner Editorial has just won the first ever --created only this morning-- "MISSISSAUGA WATCH Edward R. Murrow Heads-Up-Stick-on-the-Ice-Media-Award". (We're designing it over the weekend)
Mixed message; Ombudsman as investigator would settle any doubt
Editorial - Friday, August 03, 2007 @ 00:00
For a public body that says it is committed to open and transparent government, Peterborough County council is sending an odd message.
That message comes in the context of provincial legislation that will affect every Ontario municipality. Cities, towns and townships have until Jan. 1, 2008. to appoint an investigator who will look into citizen complaints that public business was done behind closed doors.
If a municipality chooses not to arrange for an investigator on its own, complaints that provincial regulations governing what can and can't be done in a closed meeting were violated will be looked into by provincial ombudsman Andre Marin.
On Wednesday, county councillors endorsed a proposal to hire Stephen Fournier, about to retire as the CAO of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville in Eastern Ontario. Fournier would also be the investigator for any member townships that agree to use him.
Fournier is an experienced municipal administrator. He might turn out to be a tough-minded investigator who will hold the county to the highest standard of openess and accountability.
But councillors were told that one reason he was the only candidate presented to them is that he is "familiar." Peterborough County wardens have worked with him as part of Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus and know him.
That leaves the impression that council is hiring one of its own, someone with the same background and outlook. They will be paying him to review their decisions as to whether a piece of business done in a closed meeting should have been open to public view. True or not, familiar suggests like-minded.
That perception is heightened by comments on the possibility that Marin, the provincial ombudsman, might end up representing Peterborough County citizens.
County CAO Gary King referred to Marin as "a bit of a media hound" who "loves to get attention" and is not highly regarded by many people "in municipal circles."
Marin is brash, even boastful. However he has a track record as a highly talented, successful defender of public rights. His investigations exposed bureaucrats who harassed victims of crime rather than see that they got the compensation they deserved; led to criminal charges in the recent Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. scandal; and forced the Ontario Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (MPAC) to change its high-handed, arrogant treatment of people who appealed assessments of their homes for property tax purposes.
Former city councillor Terry Guiel and Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Reeve Ron Gerow both praised Marin's scathing MPAC report when it was released last year. Many Ontario municipalities referred to it when they successfully pressed the province to freeze new assessments until Marin's recommendations were carried out.
The ombudsman was held in high regard when he was serving a cause municipalities supported. Having him poised to represent people who aren't happy with municipalities seems to be a different matter.
King's reference to "disgruntled ratepayers" (and the media) being the only ones likely to ask for an investigation is also troubling. The Oxford Dictionary definition of disgruntled is "having grievances," so in a literal sense King is right. But it carries a connotation of grumblers and complainers and was an unfortunate choice of adjective.
As for the media, The Examiner will continue to press for open, accountable government when we believe it is necessary. We don't consider that to be "taking a run" at the county, as King described it.
Another concern is the $125 fee King has suggested be charged to anyone whose complaint is investigated. A nominal fee of $25 or so might be fair; $125 is more than some people could afford and would effectively take away their right to an investigation.
The county does not have to hire its own investigator right now. Another option is to use someone on a fee-for-service basis from a pool of investigators who will be appointed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Better still would be to let Marin handle the job. If he was called in the county would have to pay his costs, but it is now ready to pay Fournier a $2,000 annual retainer plus $75 an hour during any investigation.
Marin is an experienced investigator. He would, as King has said, be impartial. He would also be dogged, and he comes with a virtual guarantee of public confidence in a fair and thorough investigation. The best outcome would be for the province to drop the hired investigator option and give the job of overseeing open municipal government to Marin and his staff.
Ya know, here in Mississauga we're reading about downloading being Theee Issue. Here's one paper that ain't fooled.
Here's the reality. Had The Province given The Ontario Ombudsman the power to investigate municipalities, Mr. Antonio Batista would have been able to go to Andre Marin when he felt that Pat Saito and Hazel McCallion weren't helping him with his problems.
Instead, to quote Andre Marin (June 27, 2007), The Province (McGuinty) looked the other way so that "Millions of Ontarians are at the mercy of a special kind of Big Brother". And they continue to be.
If real estate is about Location Location Location
this Provincial Election should be about
Ombudsman, Ombudsman, Ombudsman.
Just ask Antonio Batista.
Signed,
The Mississauga Muse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Edward R. Murrow --My Hero". To Go Directly to the clip on YouTube or Google Video)
"Mississauga Saga". To Go Directly to the clip on YouTube or Google Video)
"A Flag named The Andre Marin". To Go Directly to the clip on YouTube or Google Video)
All "Antonio Batista Pothole Poet Trial" Blog entries:
THEIR MISSISSAUGA, yes, and ever increasingly --THEIR MISSISSAUGA (May 27, 2007)
Hypocrisy Democracy (May 28, 2007 7:27 am)
"What would Edward R. Murrow do? What would he want me to do?" (May 28, 2007 11:55 pm)
"We have to send a message to the public" Crown Attorney. (May 29, 2007 2:51 PM)
A pothole never loomed so large (John Stewart's "Random Access") (May 30, 2007)
"The government must not silence its critics by force." ---Clayton Ruby (May 29, 2007) (May 31, 2007)
"She does not think how you feel" Antonio Batista (June 4, 2007)
"Mrs. McCALLION what is wrong with the City of Mississauga?" (Antonio Batista) (June 5, 2007)
"Reasonable Person Test" --Crown Witness (June 6, 2007)
And I bet you thought that I'd forgotten about Antonio Batista, huh? (July 16, 2007)
On the nature of "accountable" "accountability" (July 18, 2007)
The Mississauga PotHole Trial --more insight from Freedom of Information results (July 19, 2007)
Bottom of The Bucket. Are we there yet? (July 24, 2007)
Another PotHole Poem: "Peering through a pothole of a Mississauga steamboat..."
(July 28, 2007)
Time Travel to Portugal 1920's-1940's (PotHole Poet Antonio Batista) -- heads up thanks to Don Barber (July 30, 2007)
"We must employ every possible tactic to dissuade those who try to silence us with fear"
---The Mississauga News Editorial (2007-03-24)
Click here for John Stewart's Blog
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------