Mississauga Musings

Please ask Ms Mahoney on my behalf why, if city staff do not get rid of people without cause, did they feel it necessary to state in a public notice that they could?

Watcher is watching.
Your enthusiasm matches my own in this discovery but don’t get ahead of yourself.

“Donald Barber was ARRESTED by Mississauga Corporate Security that day,” is not correct - it was Peel police who arrested me. In fact you can say that Corporate Security made sure it was the police and not Corporate Security in order to say it was not done by them (Corporate Security), knowing people would see the politics of the situation. So it was very important to be able to state it was a Peel police decision to arrest me - NOT a Corporate Security decision. How the game is played don’t you know. The database record does note Peel police.

Speaking of playing games, my comments (on my web-site), regarding how Corporate Security would use this Data Base would effectively increase the chance of a person getting bans if they are in the system and their record keeping is so one-sided it can be called dangerous to member of the public because it doesn’t note cases like mine where the Courts didn’t believe Corporate Security at all. A person reading the entry about June 7th about me would think Corporate Security were in the right that day - WRONG!

“made me realize that there's a huge unexplored gaping hole in my Freedom of Information (FOI) queries.”, yes - the request for records is sent to Corporate Security and they decide what records to send to the City FOI office, so why should it be a surprise they think less is better? If you had been reading my past FOI request stories about how the City has screwed me over you would know that the City has even denied it had a computerized Data Base that indexed all its files!!!!!!!

On my web-site at "> you can read how the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) made a submission to one of my FOI appeal dealing with the City of Mississauga and referred to City’s claims with the following “We submit that this claim, on the part of the City, lacks credibility.” Also, the City claimed the number of Corporate Security reports created in a year was more like 80,000.

“containing Donald Barber's personal information”- question why is it not noted in their system or was it removed before printing the pages supplied?

Hey Bright Snoop:

You wrote, "Please ask Ms Mahoney on my behalf why, if city staff do not get rid of people without cause, did they feel it necessary to state in a public notice that they could?"

Riiiiigggghhht. Mississauga has a Respectful Workplace Policy that states no one is to say anything to someone that they know would not be appreciated , plus me knowing people can be removed "without cause" --and you ask me to ask Mahoney THAT question?

Your question was the second thing I wanted to point out when Mahoney said, "Ursula, you don't really think that staff gets rid of anyone without cause, do you?""

The first thing I wanted to say was "YES I DO!".

And yeah, Bright Snoop, I also stopped myself asking "If Staff/Corporate Security don't turf people "without cause", why the evil-empire-sign?"

I'd have gone contrary to their silly Respectful Workplace Policy. I say "silly" because you'd think the first pre-requisite for a Respectful Workplace Policy is to be a respectful workplace. Freedom of Information (and ongoing observation/research) suggests that it would difficult to find something with bricks and mortar that could be more contemptuous of Respect.

How they can posture on Respect when they operate on High-Octane Intimidation is beyond me.

I'm telling you, some days it takes all I got just to cloak my contempt/loathing for Big Yellow.

Signed,
The Mississauga Muse

Hospital lobby strikes back!

Hardly anything more open to scrutiny than a hospital; Ombudsman's demand to oversee Ontario's hospitals is an unnecessary duplication.

The Toronto Star
Mon 23 Jun 2008
Page: AA08
Section: Opinion
Byline: Tom Closson

Frank and open debate and talking about new and different ideas is central to improving performance and providing safer, higher-quality care to the patients that our public health-care system exists to serve.

In his annual report, Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin recently levelled a series of incendiary criticisms at hospitals in order to make the case that the ombudsman should have the authority to deal with complaints in the health-care sector.

Debating this important question must be based on facts, evidence and experience, and in this instance it simply isn't fair or accurate for the ombudsman to call Ontario last in Canada in hospital accountability just because hospitals fall outside the jurisdiction of his office. Marin may be surprised to learn that Ontario's hospitals actually operate in one of the most demanding health- care accountability systems in all of Canada.

Virtually every aspect of their performance is regularly subject to external, independent scrutiny.

Ontario is the only province in Canada to publish an independent report card on hospital performance. Hospital Report is widely acknowledged by experts as the North American "gold standard" in the area of evaluating hospital performance.

Hospitals' internal operations are deeply scrutinized by an arm's-length national body called Accreditation Canada. Virtually every hospital in Ontario undergoes an exhaustive audit of its activities - everything from administrative practices to patient safety and care standards - in order to receive a seal of approval from this independent and demanding health-care assessor. Health-care providers, in turn, are also regulated by independent colleges armed with the authority to investigate patient concerns about the conduct or actions of an individual health-care professional.

Hospitals are accountable to their Local Health Integration Network (LHINs) for meeting legally binding performance requirements via their Service Accountability Agreement. These agreements are public documents and spell out exactly what a hospital is expected to do, including measures of quality of care, in return for the tax dollars provided to operate them.

Hospitals are also required to publicly report on their overall performance in reducing wait times in areas such as cancer, cardiac, hip and knee replacements, MRI/CT scanning and cataract surgery. Public reporting is also being expanded to include pediatrics, general surgery and emergency departments. And beyond public reporting, there are financial consequences for a hospital not meeting its targets. Marin may be interested to know that the Ontario government and its hospitals and physicians were recently singled out by the Canadian Wait Times Alliance for exceptional national performance in this area.

The auditor general of Ontario has possessed the independent authority to conduct value-for-money audits of Ontario's hospitals for several years.

Hospital representatives now appear before the Legislature's Standing Committee on Public Accounts to comment on the auditor's findings and answer questions from elected officials about the results. Giving the ombudsman a role in this area would actually duplicate efforts and result in a waste of the taxpayers' resources.

And ultimately, under the Public Hospitals Act, the government has the authority to appoint an inspector, investigator or supervisor to conduct an independent third-party review, if there is a serious issue related to hospital performance requiring impartial and expert scrutiny.

Marin alleges that elected officials have "refused" to extend the ombudsman's authority to hospitals because they are "trying to contain perhaps an embarrassing situation." Experience demonstrates that the opposite is actually true.

A year ago, for example, Ontario announced that mandatory disclosure to patients of critical adverse events - significant mistakes and errors in hospitals - would be required through regulation. It was the Ontario Hospital Association that proactively and publicly first recommended this major policy change in November 2006.

Over the past year, hospitals and the government have been working to design the most comprehensive patient safety and quality reporting program in Canada. Under the leadership of external expert Dr. Michael Baker, beginning this September, patients will have access to information on C. difficile rates on a hospital-by-hospital basis. This is on top of public reporting of Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratios by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Can Ontario's hospitals do even better in their performance? The answer without question is yes. Even one avoidable injury, illness or death is one too many. The drive to improve efficiency, access, quality and safety is an unstoppable force within Ontario's health-care system.

Will expanding the authority of the ombudsman contribute to improving results?

With all due respect to the ombudsman and his "campaign" to increase his power, the Ontario Hospital Association believes that the facts suggest the contrary. It would duplicate efforts, expand bureaucracy and use vital tax dollars that should be devoted to front-line patient care.

Tom Closson is president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association.

Hey there, Don.

Quite the comment you dropped down.

Let's begin.

You stated that my comment, “Donald Barber was ARRESTED by Mississauga Corporate Security that day,” is not correct.

You wrote:

"it was Peel police who arrested me. In fact you can say that Corporate Security made sure it was the police and not Corporate Security in order to say it was not done by them (Corporate Security), knowing people would see the politics of the situation. So it was very important to be able to state it was a Peel police decision to arrest me - NOT a Corporate Security decision.

Don. When you're up in front of a firing squad, who do you blame? The five guys with the rifles or the evil $#&%'s who condemned you TO that firing squad?

I did Freedom of Information on how Mississauga deals with the Trespass Act. MissCorpSec can only advise you that they've called the police on you. They can't process the actual arrest.

Believe me, if MissCorpSec thought that they could operate independently without Peel Regional Police, they would. They'd even want to be your judge and jury too. (I know this because Freedom of Information confirms that they HAVE been). Definitely this "What happens 'in-house' should stay 'in-house" mentality.

Don, you wrote:

"The database record does note Peel police".

Sure, under "external source". So?

What's more important is that third page showing the ALERT MESSAGE. With "ATTENTION". You can bet that any other poor sap who's been banned has an ALERT MESSAGE on him like that. Makes using a Mississauga library card rather perilous...

Remember when we walked into CorpSec that day to deliver your envelopes. That guard went over to the screen and likely typed in your name from your envelope and BINGO --got all that info on you.

To me that database and especially the ALERT MESSAGE/ATTENTION explains that Malton "without cause" part. See too the section "Verbal Ban"? I've been saying that a long time now too. Mississauga gave all Staff (even temp flower planters) the power to ban people.

Only problem is, I suspect most verbal bans aren't even recorded in that database. (you know, given Freedom of Information's revelations on the diligence of their record-keeping?)

I can test that but I'm still too maxed out on my FOI's.

Don, you wrote:

"regarding how Corporate Security would use this Data Base would effectively increase the chance of a person getting bans if they are in the system and their record keeping is so one-sided it can be called dangerous to member of the public because it doesn’t note cases like mine where the Courts didn’t believe Corporate Security at all."

100% correct. I also believe that this database allows MissCorpSec to exercise their "without cause" provision. And of course, no one has ever monitored the thing for safeguards/oversight.

It isn't just you, Don. I think that Youth get nailed far more in all this. And At-Risk Youth, the worst of all. That hypothesis will be the thrust of next year's investigations.

About my comment that what you discovered “made me realize that there's a huge unexplored gaping hole in my Freedom of Information (FOI) queries.”, you wrote:

"yes - the request for records is sent to Corporate Security and they decide what records to send to the City FOI office, so why should it be a surprise they think less is better?"

Here's the deal, Don. Back in February 22, 2007 I filed a Freedom of Information that asked for "All incidents in all City facilities (reprimands, suspensions, bannings) of patrons/citizens from 1996 through 2006 similar to those provided freely and online at hamilton.ca website. (include banning citizens from cith hall & access to elected officials) Example: Wentworth pool - Youth (shaking hands, kissing, hugging girls) unwelcome aggressive behaviour. Banned 6 months)

And what did they tell me? That only DATE and CAUSE OF BAN were available! Nothing else.

Like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/448642308_46a856f5b4_o.jpg

Readers here know that I've been concerned about certain areas(wards) of the city being nailed proportionally-worse than others. Huge concern for me as a social justice issue.

I was told back then that I couldn't get something like location of incidents and bans. Just those two fields.

Now either this database is ultra-new or-- or I have one more thing to add to my huge list of complaints to the Ontario Freedom of Information and Privacy Commission.

Don, you wrote:

"Also, the City claimed the number of Corporate Security reports created in a year was more like 80,000."

Yes, the FOI I'm looking at right now says "There are approximately 7,000 occurrence reports for each of the years listed" (1999 through 2003).

As we know, there are plenty of informal bans that never make it into the record. Still, I don't believe that it can be 80,000 incidents. 8,000 yes (it'd be really easy for me to accept that a thousand a year go undocumented. I suspect more than that.) but not 73,000. Are you sure you meant that extra 0?

I'd mentioned you posted the three images of MissCorpSec's personal information on you.

You then wrote:

question why is it not noted in their system or was it removed before printing the pages supplied?"

Remember, Don. They gave this to YOU. You'd FOI'd your own personal information. This is what you'd expect to get back.

Now as you know, I've been FOIing June 7, 2006 and am waiting on the results. Now if *I* were to get back those three images with identifiable information, THEN there'd be a problem.

What I'd like to know is how "Mischief" got in there.

But my #1 question is how long does this ban/suspension stuff on citizens STAY in the system. And how many others had charges dropped and it's not reflected in the Mississauga Corporate Security database. Their Violence, Vandalism and Bullying policy is bad enough but gee, this too?

Example. A kid who's been banned --even just verbally for a half day, and it's made it into this system. What happens when that kid applies for a summer temp job four or five years later? I'm certain they'd scan for him in that database. Afterall, there hasn't been a policy that I've FOI'd that hasn't been violated by those charged with implementing it.

You pointed out so often before, Don. That Mississauga Corporate Security ain't runnin' long on human rights issues. (OK, ain't even stepped inside the gate, yet. OK, ain't even on the radar. I'm trying to mangle my metaphors here.).

Anyway.

Time to drop down an FOI on this Mississauga Corporate Security database. Put down a mid-July date on the form and I should be ok.

What's totally most-bizarre about it is, I FOI'd whether Mississauga Corporate Security had ever bothered to analyze bannings/arrests to determine fairness/efficacy towards citizens as claimed by McCallion in an email to me. FOI came back "No."

Now that we've --you've discovered the existence of tihs database, it looks like the No was because of them not caring rather than inability. Could'a easily analyzed any trends under the field "Facility Name"...

the field "Facility Name" which was withheld from me back in March 2007.

nice...

Hmmm... something else. I bet that THIS is the computer database inside their RESPONSE UNITS and TRANSIT ENFORCEMENT vehicles. I know what'll happen if I FOI that "Access denied. Access to this information will reveal the security practices/operations of the City and therefore compromise..."

HAHHAAHHAHAhahahahaha...

Signed,
The (I'd complain about this but --you know... ) Mississauga Muse

Thanks Anonymous for that posting, "Hospital lobby strikes back!" written by the (no surprise) Ontario Hospital Association.

I suspect that Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) is to Ontario Hospitals what the Association of Ontario Municipalities is to Ontario Municipalities (AMO) --just their powerful lobby group.

Again, if the OHA is like AMO, their task is to scan any provincial legislation that might turn-negative towards their members and lobby their best to hobble it.

As you know, it was the powerful lobbying of AMO that got the Province to make a total farce out of Bill 130 by letting municipalties choose their own investigator instead of allowing citizens access to a legitimate investigation by the Ontario Ombudsman.

Interesting that the Ontario Hospital Association would mention the Auditor-General.

If you check the Auditor-General's role you'll see that it does not apply to citizen complaints about hospitials. Nor does the Auditor-General's role apply to municipalities. If you researched why, you'd see the tentacles of AMO behind that one too. And likely the OHA.

Like AMO posturing that their susidiary corporation Local Authority Services is arm's length and independent, we now read the Ontario Hospital Association saying the same thing about "an arm's-length national body called Accreditation Canada."

Ah! Accreditation Canada. The Toronto Star should investigate that company/agency's links to other corporations/agencies. It's reached such a dismal point to me that the words "arm's length and independent" send alarm bells clanging and sirens sirening.

After all, AMO called Local Authority Services "arm's length and independent".

There's every reason to suspect that government and quasi-government agencies set up subsidiary corporations to create the illusion of accountablity. Ontario is a global leader in Puffery and Illusion.

Claims by Ontario Hospital Association.

"Virtually every hospital in Ontario undergoes an exhaustive audit."

Sure. Because saying makes it do. You'd be surprised what I've been assured of regarding accountability and safeguards with Mississauga.

"Hospitals are accountable to their Local Health Integration Network (LHINs) for meeting legally binding performance."

Sure. And it'd be easy for the public to document the validity of those reports. (LIke we're allowed to wander inside hospitals or long-term facilities with video recorders documenting what goes on?)

"The auditor general of Ontario has possessed the independent authority to conduct value-for-money audits of Ontario's hospitals for several years."

As Andre Marin pointed out and Closson conveniently fails to mention is that the Auditor General deals ONLY WITH MONEY ISSUES, NOT PATIENT COMPLAINTS!

"Giving the ombudsman a role in this area would actually duplicate efforts and result in a waste of the taxpayers' resources."

Repeat. What "duplicate efforts"? Closson conveniently fails to mention that the Auditor General DOES NOT DEAL WITH PATIENT COMPLAINTS.

**SIIIIIIIGH** I'm not going to deal with the rest of Closson's wordswordswordswords.

The Auditor General DOES NOT DEAL WITH PUBLIC COMPLAINTS ABOUT ONTARIO HOSPITALS.

Our Ontario Ombudsman has read the public's horror stories. These people have no recourse at all.

Read over Closson's apologist-tome. See the word "complaints from the public" anywhere?

Citizens need the Ontario Ombudsman (someone on THEIR side) into Hospitals to deal with public concerns/complaints to beat back the spin of such powerful Employee-lobby-groups as AMO and the OHA.

END OF FRIKKIN' STORY!

Signed,
The (You can tell there's no Accountability when like "Transparency" and "Public Space" it's become a buzzword.) Mississauga Muse

I still can't make the connection why Tim Peterson’s Special Assistant, Todd Shaver, became ill and quit right after my reissuing September 8 1998 Municipal Freedom Of Information requests, in lack of answers to our regional HRDC Vital statistics, that were looped back to MP Paul Szabo’s office prior to when more of these “without cause “ clauses came to surface.

Brampton’s Ontario Works in Peel privatization broker, Armor Personnel, was making money hand over fist on Mulroney’s 1989, $235,000 exchanges for Streetsville’s Fathom Oceanology Canadian Defense Systems through Bear Head and Thyssen Industries before the melt down of our McDonnell Douglas DC-9s sold out Air Canada for Made in France A-320 Airbuses http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080620.wmcguinty0620/BNStory/National/home

You could write a whole set of encyclopedias (volume 9) on the Freedom of Information Act because the Employment Services Group that initially installed the 1992 downloading while the region was “trumping up charges“ were cultured into the silos of Brampton Multi-Faith Council and haven’t been accessible to the public since Black Thursday, February 3, 1994.

http://www.region.peel.on.ca/inside_peel/vol_19/belief.htm

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=hansard&mee=14&parl=35&ses=1&language=E#847

http://www.region.peel.on.ca/heritage/museum/avro-arrow.htm

So under this "respectful workplace policy" no one is allowed to question obvious mistakes or worse, outright fallacies, because to do so would make the, ummm, "person in error" uncomfortable.

This is a perfect policy for eliminating dissent or any meaningful review of whatever mythinformation a Corporation employee spews forth. After all, exposing liars or incompetents would certainly make them squirm.

I have encountered this syndrome before. It seems to be a child of the "self-esteem" theories so popular in education systems in recent years. No matter how wrong or dishonest someone appears to be, you must not point this out because it would not be respectful of the other person's feelings.

How about this? Ms Mahoney expected you to swallow that little brown nugget whole. Respectful? I think not.

Hey Bright Snoop,

About the Respectful Workplace Policy you wrote:

"This is a perfect policy for eliminating dissent or any meaningful review of whatever mythinformation a Corporation employee spews forth. After all, exposing liars or incompetents would certainly make them squirm."

At yesterday's Transit Body Shop Open House, the Accessibility people had a booth. All the Accessibility stuff on display. The Accessibility Coordinator ("who knows everything about policy") was there.

Noticed in their Accessibility Brochure they talked about how Mississauga checks all policies through an "accessibility lens". There's even mention of how the Accessibility Committee checked over the Respectful Workplace Policy as well.

So I asked that Coordinator, if she or the Accessibility committee know about the Mississauga Violence and Vandalism policy or the new Violence, Vandalism and Bullying Policy.

All she said was "No." Not, "No, why do you ask?" "No" as in either "No, I don't give a %$&*" or "No, it's not my monkey".

The reality is, Mississauga doesn't need to apply their Respectful Workplace Policy or their Violence, Vandalism and Bullying policy. Not when the Idiot-Province gives municipalities with no accountability mechanisms in place the power to remove citizens "without cause".

Irony exactly one week from today is CANADA DAY.

Ain't MY idea of "Canada".

Signed,
The (I'm sick of the Misstapo) Mississauga Muse