Mississauga Musings

Yesterday, I read John Stewart's latest Blog entry "Feelings From the Heart and other jazz regions" about "The Mayor's Valentine Tribute to Oscar" Peterson.

What absolutely stood out in Mr. Stewart's Blog was a comment the emcee had made during that Oscar Peterson Evening.

John Stewart wrote:

"By decree of the mayor of, "this great state of Mississauga" as emcee Ted Woloshyn dubbed it,"

"this great state of Mississauga"

And reading the words "this great state of Mississauga" was like an epiphany. Finally. There they were. Ted Woloshyn gave me the words to describe my chronic state of stress and unease --"great state of Mississauga".

If you're a committed municipal watcher, believe me, it's no fun living in a "state of Mississauga." Lately, my "state of Mississauga" has gotten more acute.

In the span of one week, I received two emails that have caused me increasing concern --as in heightened my already-heightened "state of Mississauga".

The first email received a week ago Friday, came from a municipality in a province out west. It had to do with recording and videotaping council meetings. Here's a cut-and-paste.

"Hi Ursula,

I have read some of your blogs about recording council meetings with interest. There are a few members of the public that record our open council and committee meetings from time to time. Do you know what the law is in this regard? I understand that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the Assembly) that legislative bodies (which include municipal councils when exercising delegated authority from their provincial governments) enjoy "parliamentary privilege" and can lawfully restrict electronic recording of public meetings or debates. That was a 1993 case and I would be interested in what the current state of the law is, or in learning if their are any cases moving through the courts on this topic."

Now I don't know the state of Democracy in that province but I do know Ontario's --Ontario is in a "state of Mississauga".

Ontario --"Dead Last"-- according to the Ontario Ombudsman in oversight of the MUSH (Municipalities, Universities, Schools, Hospitals) sector. (Based on my Freedom of Informations, there's preliminary evidence that it is 30 years of Mississauga's influence that helps keep Ontario "Dead Last".)

"Dead Last" all the while crowing about how Ontario Leads Canada in Accountability. (Fling your Accountability-Turd elsewhere, Province!)

"We welcome public input."
"How do we get The Public more involved?"
"We can't do this without You-The-Public and your involvement!"
"Welcome, Bienvenu, Wilkommen, Huan ying, Bienvenid, Swaagat hai...

And then I showed up in Mississauga Council with a video camera...

Showed up in Peel Council too. And Ajax Council. And Brampton Council. And Caledon Council. And then Fort Erie Council. And then Niagara Council. And I even brought my cameras to Maui County Council (Hawaii).

The "welcome" this citizen-videographer got varied wildly with these Councils. The first time I showed up at Caledon Council, they denied me use of the video portion of my videotape. One Councillor even refused to allow his still image --any photographs of him-- to be used.

At the other end of the spectrum was Maui Council. One Council staff member saw me set up my video camera and smiled. During a break, a senior Maui Council staffer and I spent most of those ten minutes discussing the vital need to protect citizen-access to their elected officials.

As I wrote in a previous Blog, if you want to know the "state" of your City Council, walk in with a video camera --or even two. Set 'em up. See what happens.

Which brings me to that second "Council Videotaping"-email within a week.

"Hello,

Fort Erie council will decide Tuesday about the protocol to be used when the public would like to videotape meetings."

The very sight of the word "protocol" catapulted me to a heightened "state of Mississauga".

Bitterest of bitter pill experiences have taught me that the second a government introduces a new "protocol" or policy, Bet-Your-Boots-Guaranteed, soon as the Mayor's signature dries on the document, there'll be Staff/Officials who will abuse that "protocol".

So I surfed to the Fort Erie website to take a peek at the Tuesday, February 19, 2008 Council-in-Committee Meeting agenda.

Here it is. There's a HUGE problem. Do you see it?

"(g) REPORT NO. CS-10-08 - RECORDING OF COUNCIL/COUNCIL-IN-COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Recommendation:

THAT: A by-law be submitted to Council to further amend Council Rules of Procedure By-law No. 145-06 by including the following:

At the meetings of Council (and Council-in-Committee) the use of cameras, electric lighting equipment, flash bulbs, recording equipment, television cameras and any other device of a mechanical, electronic or similar nature used for recording the proceedings by auditory or visual means by members of the public, including accredited and other representatives of the news media, shall be permitted but may be limited at the discretion of the Chair or Council in the event it creates disruption, is intimidating or interferes with the conduct of the meeting.

Such recording of meetings shall be limited to the public area and such equipment shall be located and set-up in a manner that ensures public safety, and further

THAT: Staff take steps to broadcast Council-in-Committee meetings on COGECO and both meetings on the internet as soon as possible, and further

THAT: Real time Council/Council-in-Committee meeting internet broadcast capabilities be investigated for future budget deliberations."

Seriously. Do you see The Problem with this Videotaping Protocol?

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of reasonableness in this. Videotaping "may be limited" "in the event it creates disruption" "or interferes with the conduct of the meeting". The equipment "shall be limited to the public area" and set up in a way "that ensures public safety". All of it makes sense.

The Problem is the provision "is intimidating".

"is intimidating"

What a loosey-goosey catch-all open invitation to abuse. "is intimidating"... I'm reminded of the "future misbehaviour" provision that the Crown/City of Mississauga tried to drop into a Donald Barber Peace Bond.

Crown/City of Mississauga wanted Judge Blacklock to grant, via this Peace Bond, The City of Mississauga (and its security guards) unrestricted Playpen-Access to how they'd define "misbehaviour". (I mean, can you see it?)

The Judge saw the danger. Justice Blacklock believed that granting The City of Mississauga full-frolick to the word "misbehaviour" could "run afoul the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

Back to Fort Erie's "is intimidating" limit on videotaping. Fort Erie will have to forgive my suspicions but as I said before, I live in a chronic "state of Mississauga". I would not want The Corporation of the City of Mississauga total-discretionary Power over the word "intimidating" any more than the word "misbehaviour".

Readers know how I feel about Fort Erie and the leadership they showed in bringing a legitimate "closed meeting" Ombudsman-led investigation to their citizens.

The problem with one town or city passing a by-law or protocol is that another municipality may leap on it. At times that's a good thing. An "is intimidating" provision as a reason to limit videotaping is not. Guaranteed, other municipalities (especially "evil empires") will pick up on "is intimidating" and Heads-Down-Straight-Arm run with it.

I know that if I were a Fort Erie Councillor committed to giving The Public a Voice, I wouldn't want some future Fort Erie Council calling the shots on what "is intimidating".

There's no guarantee that a future Fort Erie Council will be as open and responsive as the current one is. The current Fort Erie Council needs to ask the ugly question, "What if Fort Erie Council 15 years from now is an evil empire?"

Sure a future municipal evil empire can add their own "is intimidating" and "misbehaviour" protocols.

But GEEEEZ Fort Erie, Please! Don't you people (of all people) be the ones to grease their skids!

To the "evil empire" municipal council, just the very act of a citizen showing up with a video camera "is intimidating". To the "evil empire" council an Out-of-House video camera means The Corporate-Manicured-Broadcast-Message is threatened.

A citizen's video camera has the power to hold municipal councils accountable in a way that the local TV station broadcast can't. (Don't believe? Check out the broadcast agreement between Rogers and City of Mississauga that I just got via Freedom of Information.)

(Click here for a larger version of this broadcast agreement. Notice the "hole". I'll be appealing that to the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner.)

"is intimidating"

The Fort Erie "intimidating" provision is redundant as well as dangerous to Alternate Citizens' Voices. And did I mention "redundant"?

Let's not forget that the Fort Erie protocol already states that the Council may limit videotaping "in the event it creates disruption". If the behaviour of some person --any behaviour-- is discombobulating Council enough that they can't concentrate, that's a "disruption".

Fort Erie, please, all of you, I challenge you to think of a municipal politician/bureaucrat that you wouldn't trust with anything that had moving parts. Now --think about giving that individual "is intimidating" for his Corporate Protocol-Toolkit.

Get it?

Please DROP the words "is intimidating" from Item (g).

Signed,
The (I guess I'll have to head out to Fort Erie Council...) Mississauga Muse

[UPDATE: Monday, February 18, 2008.

Only one last thing to say. On behalf of your citizens, Thanks, Fort Erie.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is a downright embarrassing situation for Ontario. All is not well in the MUSH sector, yet Ontario is dead last of all provinces in providing independent oversight of these institutions. Millions of Ontarians are at the mercy of a special kind of Big Brother" - Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin (Ontario Court Judge October 4, 2001 report)

"Pity the poor sap whose Big Brother has most of the characteristics of a psychopath. ---The Mississauga Muse (Blog August 21, 2007)

Want (or worse, need) to learn more? Link to MISSISSAUGAWATCH.CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------