Mississauga Musings

'scuse me, comin' through.

Just sharing this article about Fort Erie Council's decision.

The Mississauga Muse

Ombudsman's services are best choice

http://www.forterietimes.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=809677&catname=Opinion&classif=News

Staff
Opinion - Saturday, December 08, 2007 Updated @ 4:17:02 PM

Fort Erie's municipal politicians have an important decision to make on Monday night, one that will decide how local citizens' complaints into municipal in-camera meetings are dealt with.

On the surface, it seems like a simple choice.

The exceedingly cheap services of the office of Ontario's official ombudsman or the for-profit retainment of Local Authority Services, a private investigative firm.

In fact, it is just that.

An easy choice. As Andre Marin, the provincially-appointed

ombudsman, pointed out in a speech to Fort Erie council on Dec. 3, his office has more than 30 years experience dealing with various complaints about a wide variety of politically-related issues. With an annual budget of $9.7 million funded by Ontario taxpayers, it only makes sense to use the cost-effective service.

Some councillors were worried Marin's office would not have the expertise required to deal with "small" municipal matters. Marin argued otherwise.

Mayor Martin and some councillors told the Times this week they trusted Marin after receiving excellent information during the Monday night session. That sounds like good news to local taxpayers.

While Local Authority Services may be able to offer more specialized services, their retainment would cost the Town $600 over two years, plus $1,200 per day for investigations into closed session meetings.

Depending on the number of complaints lodged by Fort Erie residents, that could add up quickly.

The Ontario ombudsman's office is employing at least one investigator to look specifically into complaints that will come as a result of the changed Municipal Act legislation on Jan. 1, 2008.

Who wouldn't want to take advantage of a free, professional service?

Falls council must reconsider using ombudsman to probe complaints

Niagara Falls Review (ON)
Wed 12 Dec 2007
Page: A4

Section: Editorial & Opinion

Fort Erie town council's decision to have the Ontario ombudman's office handle public complaints about private municipal meetings beginning next year is the best alternative for taxpayers for several reasons, the most important being the cost - it's free.

After a couple of weeks of debate, council voted this week to go with ombudsman rather than hire an investigator, which would cost taxpayers money.

Ombudsman Andre Marin visited Fort Erie council last week to make a case for using his office - and it's a rather compelling one.

He pointed to 32 years of experience, a budget of $9.7 million and 86 employees, including several lawyers, who deal with more than 20,000 complaints a year and doubted adding the potential for a few hundred more complaints a year would be an issue.

The private firm would have cost the town $1,200 a day for investigations and a $600 retainer.

When it comes to spending taxpayers money, it's confounding why local politicians wouldn't consider the free service.

As Fort Erie Doug Martin pointed out, the ombudsman provides an independent voice and although the office is one of the legislature, it's independent of the provincial government.

It's sound reasoning at the right price.

How tax money is spent should always be a concern to municipal councils. That's why the decision by Niagara Falls council to go the private route at cost of $1,250 a day and a $600 retainer is a puzzling one (not to menton the budget deliberations Monday in which council actually added to the spending plan that staff put foward.)

The same is true for the region. Why in the world would it opt not to go for he ombudsman? Are they so flush with cash that they can afford to throw money away? We hardle think so.

The same questions can be asked of our own council.

A bid to have Niagara Falls council reconsider the decision failed when a motion by Coun. Carolynn Iannoni couldn't get a seconder.

Niagara Falls still has the chance - and should - reconsider.

It would lose the retainer, but it would save money in the long run - just one day of investigation could cost the city more than $1,200.

Niagara Falls residents paying for a service that is offered by the ombudsman office for free is clearly redundant. And a plain waste.

Niagara Falls needs to re-think its position on this one.

The opportunity to save taxpayer money is one that it shouldn't miss.

Have your say on today's editorial.

Join the discussion at www.niagarafallsreview.ca.

Good news on Fort Erie.

At least that makes you feel good.

Are you opening another blog for the AMO watchdog?

Let me know when it is ready and I will link and make intro post.

How did the camera thing go? I did not see that yet.

Civic complaint fee a 'farce'; Charges to investigate closed-door meetings criticized by ombudsman
The Windsor Star
Thu 13 Dec 2007
Page: A1 / FRONT
Section: News
Byline: Monica Wolfson
Source: Windsor Star
Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin says cities are making a "farce" of government transparency by forcing residents to pay for investigations into closed-door meetings.

Under legislation that comes into effect Jan. 1, residents can file complaints if they believe elected officials have violated the law by closing a meeting that should be open to the public.

While cities had the option of allowing the ombudsman to investigate the complaints for free, the majority are charging filing fees and have hired Local Authorities Services (LAS), a group with close ties to a municipality lobbying organization. In the Windsor area, six of eight municipalities have hired LAS, while Tecumseh contracted with JGM Consulting and Leamington is using the ombudsman.

"The objectivity and impartiality of the ombudsman's office has been well established," Marin said.

"You can't control our investigation. I think, with some councillors, that doesn't sit well with them. I think they'd rather hire a buddy with taxpayer money."

Coun. Alan Halberstadt said Windsor chose LAS, which is owned by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

LAS has contracts with consultants who have given advice to the City of Windsor, because it was seen as the cheapest option.

AMO is the organization that lobbies for cities.

"Since we made the decision, people have questioned the relationship with AMO," Halberstadt said. "We'll have to see how it goes and review it after a period of time."

LaSalle, which chose LAS but is not yet charging a filing fee, hired the consultants because they offered to train staff and would give free access to decisions made on open meetings, said town clerk Brenda Andreatta.

There was also a concern that the ombudsman wouldn't be able to promptly respond to queries, but Marin said complaints could have been resolved within days.

Cities also might mistrust the government watchdog, said Brian Sweet, director of corporate services for Leamington, which chose to stick with the ombudsman for now and will consider the issue in mid-January.

"In my discussions with other municipalities, some are opting for AMO because of past experiences with the ombudsman, which haven't been positive," Sweet said. "Cities are familiar with AMO. On the other hand, there is a cost."

LAS charges a $600 retainer and $1,250 per day while consultants conduct an investigation.

Marin said the ombudsman's office has an excellent track record in its 32 years of operation.

To complain, residents will have to pay filing fees that range from $200 in Lakeshore and $125 in Amherstburg to $75 in Tecumseh. The town of Essex and the city of Windsor are negotiating fees.

'CREATING BARRIERS'

"It seems kind of perverse that the very measure that is supposed to create this transparency and accountability is creating barriers to access information," municipal affairs critic and NDP MPP Andrea Horwath said. "It seems contrary to what people thought was the purpose of the law."

Marin said he thinks the fees have "dubious legality" and said no fee is reasonable. "I don't know how they could withstand scrutiny," Marin said.

While LaSalle and Kingsville have contracted with LAS, they are waiting to gauge demand to see if a fee is necessary, town officials said.

"It's so new and hasn't been tested before," LaSalle's Andreatta said.

Sweet said some cities might be charging filing fees to discourage frivolous complaints.

"If there is no fee at all, every time a municipality holds a confidential meeting, someone could send a complaint," Sweet said. "We do this with elections. To run for mayor it costs $200."

In a speech in October, Marin said cities that are strapped for cash might be using the filing fee as a revenue stream to help balance budgets.

The ministry of municipal affairs and housing trusts cities to implement the law fairly, said Adam Grachnik, spokesman for Minister Jim Watson.

"Our view is that municipalities are responsible and accountable and capable of charging fees," Grachnik said. "We leave that decision up to them. It's early to prejudge what will happen. We look forward to greater transparency."

FEES CHOSEN BY MUNICIPALITIES

Investigation options and fees chosen by municipalities:

Amherstburg -- Has contract with Local Authorities Services (LAS) and $125 filing fee.

Essex -- Contract with LAS, waiting to get recommendation on filing fee amount.

Kingsville -- Has contract with LAS, no filing fee.

Lakeshore -- Has contract with LAS, $200 filing fee.

LaSalle -- Has contact with LAS, no filing fee.

Leamington -- Will go with ombudsman until council makes a decision in the new year on whether it wants to hire a third-party investigator.

Tecumseh -- Hired JGM Consulting and has a $75 filing fee.

Windsor -- Negotiating contract with LAS with possible filing fee. To go before city council Monday.

Muse makes front page in Fort Erie! Congrats! You makes us proud!

Citizen reporters
Niagara Falls Review (ON)
Thu 13 Dec 2007
Page: A1
Section: Front
Byline: RAY SPITERI

She sat in the last row of seats, her video camera resting on a tripod as town council called its Dec. 10 meeting to order.

Nearby, her husband was primed with a digital camera, snapping photographs of the proceedings.

Ursula and Peter Bennett drove from Mississauga, more than 125 kilometres away, to catch this meeting.

"I'm a ... municipal observer," Bennett told a Review reporter, when asked what she planned to do with her camera. "It's really important to have an alternate voice, as far as citizens are concerned.

"Seeing is believing and so is hearing, otherwise you are limited to what (municipal councils) decide to report in their minutes."

The Bennetts had caught wind of a motion brought forward by Mayor Doug Martin that called for town staff to investigate if or how other municipalities deal with citizens using video or sound recording devices in council chambers.

They're part of a growing number of citizens taking matters into their own hands and using the Internet to hold politicians accountable.

Bennett's interest in municipal affairs caught fire a year ago when the province introduced (and has since passed) Bill 130.

The bill includes amendments to the Municipal Act and introduces a specific law that calls on all 445 municipalities across Ontario to appoint a body to investigate when citizen complaints are received about municipal meetings held improperly behind closed doors by Jan. 1.

A believer in open meetings and public transparency, she was so intrigued by the new legislation she attended the standing committee deliberations at Queen's Park.

Bennett convinced a Mississauga newspaper to allow her space on its website as a blogger. She created the Mississauga Musings, where she posts her own video footage and news about municipal issues, largely from Peel region which includes the communities of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon.

She doesn't consider herself a reporter - rather, a citizen-videographer, a citizen-blogger and a public watchdog.

"Municipal government is flying under the radar," said Bennett.

"I'd be happy to continue with my life instead of, as my husband says, bobbing for turds at the municipal level. But the lack of coverage in my area is just insufficient."

Bennett said traditional media in larger municipalities focus more on provincial and federal matters, rather than issues of importance at the local - and, she says, most important level of government.

That's a void she tries to fill.

In Fort Erie, there are at least two people who, like Bennett, have taken their interest in municipal affairs to the online world.

John Gilmour has posted clips of town council on YouTube from the twice- monthly council-in-committee meetings that are not televised.

In November, Gilmour captured footage of Coun. Ann-Marie Noyes accusing Coun. Sandy Annunziata of plagiarizing a code of conduct he submitted for information purposes as part of a staff report to re-establish operations of the Bridgeburg Station and Ridgeway business improvement areas.

The debate was posted to YouTube and, thanks to Gilmour, available to a worldwide audience.

Sharon Bowers, also a local resident, created her own online newsroom in 2002: The Crystal Beach Strand, which covers municipal issues and allows the public to comment on local matters via a discussion board.

The site really took shape after downtown businessmen Costa Koutroulakis and Mike Hebbourn, long-serving members of the Bridgeburg Station BIA, were controversially dismissed after a closed-door meeting of council in June.

Bowers wasn't happy with how the situation was dealt with by council, and began updating her blog daily - following not just the BIA ordeal, but other municipal issues too.

"It's very important in this day and age that the public engage themselves in government, especially municipal government, which is the level that hits closest to home," said Bowers, who is originally from Buffalo and who says she has been a political activist for more than 40 years.

"The Internet opens up all the doors - it lets everyone see what truly goes on inside those chambers. And if they're happy with what they get, then great. But if they're not, they can step up to the plate and voice their feelings."

Individuals, however, shouldn't use the loose title of citizen watchdog as a means to attack members politicians, Bennett said.

"Citizens have a moral obligation to report as objectively and use whatever recording they have in its entirety, instead of editing it to fit an agenda," she said. "Often, you'll find that municipalities' minutes tend to fit their own agenda and they tend to write their own histories.

"And what I do, I'd like to think, is say 'No, no, here is history and it's done in video.'"

Jim Curran, a Niagara Falls realtor and Liberal party activist, started his own political online blog - "The What Do I Know Grit" - at the tail end of 2005. He said since the forum was created, close to 41,000 readers have taken a peek.

"I think online blogging serves as a support group for the mainstream media, " said Curran, adding blogging shaped part of the public opinion about the federal Liberal leadership race a year ago.

He said at the leadership convention in Montreal, there was a room dedicated solely to bloggers, complete with media passes, where they could file up-to-the minute updates to their online sites.

"It's just a sign of the times. It's now a staple and something that comes along with getting involved in public life."

David Siegel, dean of Brock University's faculty of social sciences and a professor of political science, said with voter turnout at the election polls seemingly dwindling every election, the increase in online political blogs and community groups could be seen a good sign.

"Politics has certainly made its mark on the web," said Siegel. "Whether it's YouTube, Facebook, or virtually any search engine, you're bound to find citizen blogs or community groups about hot button political matters at every level of government."

Siegel said while citizen journalism isn't a new phenomenon, with the advances in technology today the public is given a "wide open forum that is viewable the world over."

He warned, however, that web surfers should be cognizant of what they find online.

He said the source of the news differs when it comes to traditional media, where a news company is obligated to check facts before they go to air or print.

"To sue someone for what they put on the web, you first have to find out who they are and secondly, there might not be any value in going after that person."

At town council's meeting this week, Martin clarified his motion regarding recording of council meetings by the public.

"I never asked for a ban of any sort of digital or tape recordings," he said. "My point was, since we are in a new electronic age should we have a policy that would reflect the use of these devices in the chambers?

"It never was a ban ... and we'll never consider a ban."

Martin said he asked staff for a potential policy about recording public meetings, as it relates to those not involved with "accredited media," who have a designated area in the council chamber.

"I'm talking a policy to ensure that every individual who comes into municipal chambers has the right to see, hear and view the proceedings unobstructed by anyone. It's not like I'm saying this person can record, but that person can't.

"I just want to ensure we have some sort of semblance during the meeting and we don't end up with untaped wires on the ground, which can cause a safety concern that we, as the town, are liable for or anything like that."

As Fort Erie council came to a close Monday night, Bennett gave her own assessment.

Disgruntled that Mississauga city council, "in just 16 seconds," hired Local Authority Services to investigate public complaints (rather than the free service offered by the Ontario Ombudsman's office), she gave Fort Erie politicians a pat on the back for choosing the ombudsman.

"It's official," Bennett said to a table of reporters, moments after council's decision.

"This place is not an evil empire."

rspiteri@nfreview.com