Obviously the recommendation to hire an advisor rather than free service
from a Provincial Ombudsman is aware of the old saying “He who pays the
piper calls the tune”. If this recommendation is passed in Council, there
will be proof that Council are more interested in protecting their own butts
than in providing a free and unbiased opinion to Guelph citizens. Who do
you serve? MB~~~~~~~~~~~
The Municipal Act is important to municipalities and AMO has invested in its evolution for more than a century. During that time, the spirit and intent of the Act evolved from its paternalistic roots into a framework that recognizes, respects and places trust in the municipal order of government.
An explicit expression of this evolution is the provision in the Municipal Act which recognizes the capacity of Ontario’s municipalities to appoint independent investigators to consider complaints about closed municipal meetings.
AMO routinely communicates with its members regarding the Municipal Act and other matters of public policy. On November 2, AMO, in response to numerous calls, provided its membership with a position statement. This followed the publication of a Canadian Press article entitled, Ombudsman irked by level of municipal secrecy and Too many municipal meetings secret:
Ombudsman. This article was published under different headlines in a number of Ontario newspapers on November 1. A sample copy of the news article and our resulting memorandum are attached. This material and your other statements cast doubt on the integrity of municipalities and the legitimacy of having the municipal order of government appoint investigators independently.
Your November 23 letter states that, “AMO’s position statement has been relied upon in a number of cases by municipal officials in recommending to their councils that they retain AMO’s LAS to investigate complaints about closed municipal meetings,” and further that, “AMO clearly has a live business interest in generating revenue from towns and cities, a conflict which is not
made apparent in its position statement.”
Let me assure you that LAS does not intend (nor expect) to generate material net revenue from the LAS Investigator Program. The retainer fee is based on cost-recovery for LAS’s expenditures to establish and administer the program.
Furthermore, the November 2 messages that AMO issued to municipalities made no reference to LAS’s Investigator Program. Therefore it is unreasonable to conclude that AMO’s position statement has swayed municipal officials to take interest in LAS’s Investigator Program. The
suggestion assumes these officials are not influenced by your own public comments.
LAS contracted the investigator service to create an accessible pool of qualified individuals who are trained in investigations and well-informed about the procedural aspects of municipal government and the Municipal Act. As an added benefit, their work will be carried out in a transparent manner that acknowledges the fact that these investigations carry a cost to Ontario’s taxpayers, regardless of who conducts them.
As you stated in Toronto on October 31, 2007, “oversight of government rests on four fundamental principles: independence, impartiality, confidentiality and a credible investigative process.” LAS has been careful to ensure that these principles are met in the program.
We respectfully ask that AMO and Ontario’s municipalities be afforded these basic standards of fairness and due diligence before motives, actions and capabilities are judged.Office of the AMO responding to a letter from the Ombudsman