"Allow the Ontario Ombudsman into Municipalities!" (Please click here to go directly to YouTube)
GRIM NEWS from CITIZEN-BLOGGER
On Tuesday, fellow citizen-Blogger Karem Allen confirmed that her municipality has voted to oust the Ontario Ombudsman in favour of hiring "investigators" through a subsidiary corporation of AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario).
I feel so badly.
Ms. Allen first contacted me in July all enthused about her Town of Ajax --how open it was. Well, you know what email's like --one thing leads to another-- and I informed her that if Ajax really is as transparent and accountable as she believes, they'd keep the path to the Ontario Ombudsman open. That was back in the summer.
All I got from Ms. Allen on Tuesday was:
"Ajax will go with LAS."
I'm tellin' you. Karem'll never view her city council the same way again. The Ombudsman section of Bill 130 is a true Canary-in-the-Mine. It telegraphs the state of local democracy.
To mix metaphors and similies, the Municipal Canaries of Ontario are dropping like flies.
And clearly we ain't seen nothin' yet. Seems the skulk-strategy is to have most municipalities deal with the Investigator issue during the busy Christmas season when citizens are paying even LESS attention to local government than usual.
Delaying important/contentious issues until December is a Big Yellow Tried-and-True... Example?
Check this out.
GENERAL COMMITTEE
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2006 - 9:09 AM
Ah here it is... Page 3.
INDEX - GENERAL COMMITTEE – DECEMBER 6, 2006 cont’d…
MATTERS CONSIDERED cont’d…30. New Corporate Policy and Procedure – Video Surveillance
31. Revised Corporate Policy 05-01-07 – Violence and Vandalism
Yep, two important policies, moved, seconded and sent along to Council without a word of discussion, where they were passed by Council on December 13, 2006 without discussion.
And yep, I know... one is the Video Surveillance Policy (isn't that a HOOT?!) And with eleven months of hindsight it's one fun read.
I know that one End-of-Year observation period can't confirm a pattern but --Prediction-- expect the Bill 130 Investigator issue to come up some time during the 2007 Mississauga *HO* *HO* *HO* Season...
THE REALLY HUGELY SURPRISING NEWS
In my last Blog entry I wrote that Brampton's Council agenda made mention of Accountability and Transparency items so I figured they were going to address the Bill 130 Investigator Appointment. I wrote:
"Trouble is with the Brampton meeting at 9:30 and Mississauga Council at 9:00 there's almost a conflict."
Tuesday afternoon I actually zipped up to Brampton City Hall to check. False Alarm --the item wasn't the Investigator one. I'm told that's still to come up (Like. Some time in December...)
It was only by accident that I was at yesterday's Mississauga Council meeting instead. OK. So. I go up the escalator, settle down and the first thing I do is take a big red magic marker and doodle:
and hold it up. I figured I might as well make it easy for "Pelco One" instead of them having to read my stuff upside down or mirror-imaged. (I am, if not thoughtful.)
And then Mississauga Council Drone is happening and---
THEN HOKEY SMOKE MY JAW DROPPED! DON BARBER WALKED IN!
Now I knew The Corporation lifted his ban last Thursday. Still. I freaked.
Tough enough for me to keep an eye on who's keeping an eye on me. Now I had to watch who's keeping an eye on Don Barber! I can't tell you what actually happened during Council --I was too preoccupied watching them watching Barber.
Anyway, Council ends. Mr. Barber came over to me and said:
"I see they put up the video surveillance signs."
I will now approximate our conversation (although if I bothered listening to my digital recorder, I could lay down a transcript.)
"What signs? Where?"
"There's one at the bottom of the escalator."
"No way, I went UP the escalator to get in here. No way."
"See for yourself."
I would have but something infinitely more intriguing was taking place. Ward 7 Councillor Nando Iannicca was talking it up with a class from the Peel District School Board. Having an intense interest in Peel/Mississauga relationships, I videotaped what transpired. To his credit, Mr. Barber patiently waited.
When Councillor Iannicca bid the students farewell, a city hall tour guide took over, smiled at the kids and waxed lyrical and poetic about the Mississauga Council Chambers. She pointed to the Council ceiling, to the Mayor's chair, Councillor's chairs, to the Gold Seal...
I was waiting for the tour guide to point out "Pelco One" and discuss the subtle intricacies of Mississauga Video Surveillance. But it was not to be. (Rack that omission up as Mississauga Disappointment Number 14,027)
MOVING FORWARD
Whenever I leave Council I use the door where there's no Corporate Security guard. Usually that's the north door and it was yesterday as well. Sure enough, there was a small yellow video surveillance warning sign.
LIKE. WHOA!
We then went around and checked the other door. A second sign!
We scooted down the stairs to check out the escalator sign but the doors there were already in Lock-Down-Mode. POOH... because this all's caused me to wonder if they put that escalator sign up after I got into Council or I simply failed to notice! (If I missed a bright yellow sign, that's not good.)
Anyway, here's what the north entrance inside-the-door sign looks like.
Of course, regular readers here will spot a problem with this sign right off the bat. As you know, "Pelco One" is anything but "AUTOMATED". The sucker's potentially one active Pan-Tilt-Zoom snooper.
FROM THE "***NOW*** THEY TELL US DEPARTMENT":
And of course, there's another problem.
A visitor will have had to pass no fewer than 8 video surveillance cameras (and that's if you're parked close to the elevators on the P1 underground level --more if you're down in P2) before your eyeballs ever reached that escalator video surveillance warning sign.
And get this. People would only be warned about the full cadre of video surveillance cameras only when the Council escalator is accessible say --like-- on Wednesday mornings. The rest of the time that escalator surveillance sign might as well be posted inside any Egyptian pharoah's tomb.
And then there's that item about "Questions Regarding Video Surveillance". Please be aware that if you email Corporate Security with:
"I've been trying to find the City of Mississauga's Corporate Policies and Procedures regarding City's Corporate Security."
you will get this response:
"Corporate Security Policies and Procedures are proprietary."
So may I suggest that if you have Questions, you go the Freedom of Information route or email me. If I don't know the answer, then you've raised an unexplored question and they're the best kind.
Next.
Regarding installations of video surveillance systems, The Information and Privacy Commissioner, "Guidelines for Using Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places" states:
4. Considerations Prior to Using a Video Surveillance System
Before deciding to use video surveillance, it is recommended that institutions consider the following:• Consultations should be conducted with relevant stakeholders as to the necessity of the proposed video surveillance program and its acceptability to the public. Extensive public consultation should take place.
Actually, far as my Freedom of Information results go, there wasn't any consultation. Having sat in on the meetings I can confirm that there wasn't even any discussion back in December 2006 when the Mississauga Video Surveillance Policy was passed by Council. Zip.
So as a member of the public, and almost a year after the fact, I'd like to input this suggestion for a Video Surveillance Signage-sign.
Huh? What?... Oh.
THIS JUST IN. AWARD ANNOUNCEMENT from mississauga.ca
"Mayor McCallion and City Manager Janice Baker Named Canada's Most Powerful Women"
Nov 21, 2007
Today Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion and City Manager and CAO Janice Baker were named 2007 Canada's Most Powerful Women: Top 100 by the Women's Executive Network (WXN) at a ceremony held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre."
Congratulations, ladies.
LAST:
I'll leave readers with this pic of Don Barber at Mississauga Council yesterday.
Finally allowed back 1 year, 4 months and 15 days after being kicked out because...
...well, that's somethin' else I've been researching --Mississauga General Committee/Council agendas/minutes April, May and June 2006.
Signed,
The (Signz Signz Everywhere Signz) Mississauga Muse
PS: To "Anonymous" thanks for the latest on Niagara and Vaughan. I'll transfer them over to today's Blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Systems Service & Preventative Maintenance - Utilizing the City=s (sic) IT network and system=s (sic) diagnostics capability administration staff analyse and coordinate all preventative maintenance and emergency repairs necessary to maintain the equipment and controls needed to ensure the reliability and viability of each and every component in the system. " --City of Mississauga Corporate Security 2003 Strategic Draft Plan
"We must employ every possible tactic to dissuade those who try to silence us with fear" ---The Mississauga News Editorial (2007-03-24)
FOR READERS' COMMENTS --SCROLL TO VERY BOTTOM OF THIS ENTRY.
"MISSISSAUGA --HOWZIT'S GOING" CARTOON ARCHIVE
Links to all previous cartoons in the Mississauga Howzit's Going series.
FELLOW-CITIZEN BLOGGERS
Voices of Ajax (Citizen-Blogger, Karem Allen)
TORONTOIAM (compilation of GTA Blogs)
Woodstock Ontario Independent News (Jim Bender)
FURTHER READING
MISSISSAUGA NEWS Bloggers:
Click here for John Stewart's Blog, RANDOM ACCESS
and Craig MxBride's X MARKS THE SPOT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments (3)
(This news item is from "Anonymous" and originally posted to the November 20th Blog entry, "MISSISSAUGA SIGNZ")
"Ombudsman best bet to probe secret meetings
Niagara Falls Review (ON)
Thu 22 Nov 2007
Page: A4
Section: Editorial & Opinion
Niagara municipalities are getting ready for the new year. That's when a new section of the Municipal Act kicks in, allowing citizens recourse if they feel a local council improperly takes a matter behind closed doors.
It's a good provision, forcing some accountability on local governments, many of which have become too comfortable in an insular closed council chamber.
But left up to municipalities is how to deal with the inevitable complaints from the public. In this, the legislation provides some leeway. The province has offered the services of Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin, but will also allow municipalities to contract their own investigators to look into concerns raised.
Last week, Niagara Falls city decided to go with an investigator vetted by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That is certainly a council's right under the new law. Problem is going this route carries a price tag: Something to the tune of $600 to $1,200 per day. The price of the ombudsman to the municipalities? Zero.
So, why did Niagara Falls opt to go this way, adding unnecessarily to its costs, and why is Fort Erie leaning in the same direction?
Because the ombudsman is an outspoken, controversial figure and not necessarily perceived as a 'friend' to municipalities.
Which, of course is exactly the type of person the public needs on its side. And it's exactly the type of person councils want to avoid.
Said Fort Erie Mayor Doug Martin: "It's like (Marin) is on this crusade against municipalities when I am not even sure if he has any real familiarity or dealings with local government."
Added St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan: "I feel AMO is, quite frankly, beyond reproach in that respect. It has always been a fair voice for the province's municipalities."
McMullan is correct in that AMO has always been a fair voice for cities and towns. But that's the problem.
Any investigator appointed by AMO comes with a perceived bias, justified or not. When a citizen makes a complaint against a municipal council, that person needs the confidence that the investigator will be impartial. What that person doesn't want is an investigator recommended by a body that has seen to be strictly on the side of municipalities.
The outspoken and often controversial Marin has been scathing in his review of certain provincial agencies, such as the Family Responsibility Office, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. and Ontario Lottery and Gaming.
Marin also upheld complaints against the Ministry of Health from St. Catharines cancer-fighter Suzanne Aucoin, who passed away Nov. 11.
Even provincial ministries have been accused of sidestepping Marin's investigations by using outside consultants to review programs or policy.
Marin told The Review this week that Fort Erie's fears are unfounded.
"I can assure the mayor that I am not out to get him or his council," Marin said. "I don't have this burning desire to be at their throat all the time."
St. Catharines council, to its credit, eventually decided he would be the best to handle its complaints: Free and effective. Fort Erie should follow suit.
Marin may have a reputation for a hard edge, but that makes him the perfect candidate to ensure municipal councils are justified in taking matters behind closed doors.
And if they're not justified, they deserve to have their knuckles rapped. Loudly and publicly.
- With files from Osprey News Network:
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | November 22, 2007 12:31 PM
Posted on November 22, 2007 12:31
(This news item is from "Anonymous" and originally posted to the November 20th Blog entry, "MISSISSAUGA SIGNZ")
Another one Muse!
Vaughan's closed meetings under scrutiny
Metroland - York Division
Thu 22 Nov 2007
Page: 01
Section: Vaughan Citizen
Byline: Caroline Grech
Column: 6
Dateline: Article
Citizens in Vaughan will soon be equipped with a tool to question council decisions to go into closed-door meetings, but politicians aren't too keen on the initiative.
Councillors, in a committee meeting, approved a plan for the city to partner with Local Authority Services Ltd., to provide investigation services, but not without some expressing apprehension about the idea.
The final decision on whether or not to go with the plan will come next week when a full council meeting is held. If the city chooses to go with Local Authority Services, a subsidiary of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, they would defer to Amberley Gavel Ltd., a company run by people with extensive municipal experience, providing a pool of investigators to call upon.
The city would have to pay a $300 retainer fee for a two-year term and there is a daily investigation fee of $1,250 along with out-of-pocket expenses.
Local Authority estimates a standard investigation would take two days.
"I'm uneasy about the money we're spending," Councillor Sandra Yeung Racco said of the $20,000 that needs to be drawn from the 2008 budget for the plan.
Despite that, Mrs. Yeung Racco moved to pass the proposal, calling it something the city is required to do.
Vaughan resident Paul De Buono, in a deputation to council suggested the city look at having the provincial ombudsman do the investigation, as opposed to someone hired by the city.
"I would suggest that the citizens of Vaughan would be better served, if the Ontario ombudsman was responsible for conducting the investigation," Mr. De Buono said.
"The Ontario ombudsman has done a heck of a job standing up for citizens' rights. It's that extra measure of independence that we need when looking into closed meetings in Vaughan," Mr. De Buono said.
Councillors TAKE offence
His remarks set off a flurry of comments from councillors who took offence to the idea investigations were needed of closed meetings in Vaughan.
"I think the residents are better served by the City of Vaughan. I take great offence to the idea that the ombudsman has a lock on integrity in this province," Councillor Peter Meffe said.
"I think council states that items shouldn't be in camera more than staff does. I think council has a great record on this." Councillor Alan Shefman called the ombudsman suggestion overkill.
"It's going to cost thousands of dollars to do this. My guess is we're not going to find out much and then nothing happens.
"There's no value in this other than some council will be slapped on the hand and told 'you made a mistake'," Mr. Shefman said.
"I'm really disturbed by this," he added.
Section 239 of the Municipal Act allows any person to request an investigation as to whether a council or local board has complied with regulations related to going into closed meetings.
According to the recommendation from the report written by city manager Michael DeAngelis and solicitor Janice Atwood-Petkovski, a $125 administration fee will be charged to those requesting an investigation, adding the fee is similar to those imposed by the Ontario Municipal Board for appeals.
Councillor Tony Carella doesn't think the fees are steep enough.
"We get 100 of these a year and that's a big chunk of our budget and to what purpose? How long does this go on? I think we should double or quadruple the fee," Mr. Carella said.
Councillor Joyce Frustaglio stressed the need to follow through on the action.
"Unfortunately, times have changed in the political world and there are more and more demands for openness and transparency.
"This is my 17th year on council, Mr. Chair and every item we have discussed (in closed session) has had something to do with personnel or legal advice," Ms Frustaglio said.
"I will never agree that in the past we have held meetings where subject matter has been discussed that shouldn't have been (in closed session)." Under Section 239 of the Ontario Municipal Act, municipal councils can go into closed session when they are discussing litigation or potential litigation, a disposition of land, issues about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, the security of the property of the municipality, labour relations or employee negotiations and advice that is subject to solicitor and client privilege.
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | November 22, 2007 12:33 PM
Posted on November 22, 2007 12:33
Open meetings
Welland Tribune (ON)
Fri 23 Nov 2007
Page: A6
Section: Viewpoint
A few Niagara municipalities, those in the peninsula's southern tier included, are preparing themselves for the new year.
That's when a new section of the Municipal Act kicks in, allowing citizens recourse if they feel a local council improperly took a matter behind closed doors.
We think it's a good provision, forcing some accountability on local governments, many of which have become too comfortable in an insular closed council chamber.
Left up to the municipalities is how to deal with the inevitable complaints from the public.
In this, the legislation provides some leeway. The province has offered the services of Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin free of charge, but will also allow municipalities to contract their own investigators.
Marin has spoken out against the municipally-run investigations several times, arguing they aren't necessarily independent and endanger the credibility of local councils.
This week, the issue was discussed at Niagara Region's corporate services committee meeting, where councillors debated a staff recommendation to appoint a municipal investigator, who will charge the region an annual retainer of $600 and a daily investigation fee of $1,250.
Chair Peter Partington said using the ombudsman's office to carry out the complaint investigation process isn't good for taxpayers, and the task should be left to the municipalities.
"I have difficulty with the statement that the ombudsman is free," said Partington.
It will cost taxpayers in the long run to have the ombudsman's office to perform the task, he said.
Fort Erie Mayor Doug Martin opined that Marin's comments are "insulting" to municipal leaders. "He doesn't have a monopoly on morality," said Martin.
Both have missed the point. It isn't about the money and it isn't about insulting municipalities.
We agree with Marin.
That doesn't mean we think municipalities will deliberately skew investigation results to benefit themselves. However, for an investigation to be independent and therefore credible, it must be carried out by an outside agency which is not beholden to the municipality.
Marin has said his office will never charge a complainant a fee for an investigation and his office, which already deals with 24,000 cases per year, can cope with the workload.
Marin summed up his position nicely, noting most municipal politicians feel they conduct closed-door meetings appropriately.
"If they are confident of that, great," said Marin. "Be confident enough to leave investigations to a completely independent investigator. That's what my office is."
Exactly.
The region should save itself some money and let Marin's office handle any complaints it receives about closed door meetings.
Posted by Anonymous | November 23, 2007 8:58 AM
Posted on November 23, 2007 08:58