Bloodless Coup D'Etat In Windsor

Wait a minute. I am totally confused now. It appears that Fiji is not the only place that has had a revolution recently that overthrew the Government. Windsor has had one too that you probably missed because of the holidays. Not surprisingly, it happened right after the election so that the local political forces with 3 newbies could do nothing to prevent it!.

It appears now that Mayor Francis, as a lame-duck Mayor by his own choosing, is a powerless figure-head in the City of Windsor for the next 4 years--- if he stays around that long. If someone supposedly as powerful and intimidating as he can be so easily ignored by his own bureaucracy, how can he be an effective negotiator for the City of Windsor on important matters like the border file with Senior Levels. As Eddie is now someone who commands no respect in Windsor, they can effectively ignore him too! And Windsorites as well.

Did you see the story about the City NOT revealing the information about the rental price at the Canderel building. The City is prepared to make the entire lease available except that "The dollar amounts were severed," from the rest of the leases, said Chuck Scarpelli, the city's Freedom of Information co-ordinator."

Clearly this is Administration running amok again as the CAO did at the secret Council strategy session where he over-ruled the Mayor and chased away reporters. It was reported that "Windsor's chief administrative officer John Skorobohacz said it was his decision to hold Thursday's workshop behind closed doors and he did not consult with city councillors." This time it is a lower level bureaucrat who seems to be making decisions and over-ruling the Mayor.

Chuck must have been away and missed the Star story "End secrecy, Francis says: Mayor urges city to abandon confidentiality clauses." OR, perhaps he does not seem to care what his supposed political boss has to say. Presumably another bureaucrat makes the real decisions as head of the municipality for the purposes of the Act. That person is the City Clerk, Brenda Andreatta, although her name does not appear on the decisions.

The Mayor said in that November 30 story:

• "With regards to moving forward, I think one of the easiest ways to deal with this is to put a provision into the agreements that we will follow the Freedom of Information Act rules and whatever the FOI rules, that will be the test," Francis said during a meeting with The Windsor Star's editorial board...
  
  Francis insisted he would prefer to have such agreements made public. "It's easier for me to have the information out there to prevent speculation and rumours, and that doesn't help us in any way; it doesn't help us when we're trying to attract business."

Frankly the Mayor's position is a ridiculous one: let some other bureaucrat make the decision for the City, this time a Provincial one. But at least from the City's position, he appeared to want openness.

He did NOT say that the City would actively oppose an application. Effectively though that is what Scarpelli is doing. Now the Star must file an appeal because of what Chuck did by keeping the rent secret. His position is not what the Mayor said it was going to be. He is making the Mayor's job harder.

Moreover, the City is taking a strange position on an appeal by ex-candidate Chris Schnurr when in his case they could not even respond within the statutory time-period and there was a "deemed refusal" under the Municipal Freedom of Information Act. You know already about my case as well.

Now the City is having a bad time in MFOIA requests. We know the one the Star won respecting the Keg parking. But a few days before the Keg decision came out, another one came out that the City lost also! It is a 23 page decison, ORDER MO-2115 released on November 7, 2006

In that case, someone asked for "records concerning the disposal and treatment of City sewage sludge." [Check out my BLOG September 08, 2006 How Smelly Sludge Turned Non-odorous for a discussion about this http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/search?q=Non-odorous+ ] What was requested was "Price Quotation, Equipment Amortization Schedule, Unit Pricing Information and site work specifications." The application was opposed by the City. "The City denied access, in part, to records responsive to Parts 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the request, relying on the exemptions set out in sections 10(1) (third party information) and 11 (economic and other interests of an institution) of the Act."

The City should know by now that:

• 1) "Previous orders have found that except in unusual circumstances, agreed upon essential terms of a contract are considered to be the product of a negotiation process and therefore are not considered to be “supplied” [for the purposes of section 10 of the Act]
  
  2) "A bid proposal may be “supplied” by the third party during the tendering process. However, if it is successful and is incorporated into or becomes the contract, it may become “negotiated” information, since its presence in the contract signifies that the other party agreed to it."

Interestingly, in the case the City lost:

• "The entire Memorandum of Understanding has been disclosed to the appellant, except for the unit and invoice amounts, which have been severed. The undisclosed portions of this record are the amounts of the amended unit prices, amending the unit prices set out in Schedule “E”. For the same reasons as in Record 2, I find that undisclosed portions of this record were not supplied for the purposes of section 10(1)"

That should make it easier for the Star and Schnurr to win.

BUT HERE IS THE REAL KICKER. I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE BEING PLAYED. HERE IS KEY PART OF WHAT THE DECISION STATES THAT IMPACTS WHAT THE MAYOR SAID ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH OPENNESS!!!!

• "Furthermore, Schedule “A” to the Operating Agreement, the proposal call document, contains the following statement:
  
  The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) applies to all proposals submitted to the City. The City will consider all proposals confidential, subject to the provisions of the disclosure requirements of the Act. Please identify those portions of your proposals which contain scientific, technical, commercial or financial information which has been supplied in confidence, and which will, in the proponent's opinion, cause harm if disclosed."

IN OTHER WORDS, CITY DOCUMENTS ALREADY SAY WHAT THE MAYOR CLAIMS IS HIS BREAKTHROUGH IN THE NOVEMBER STAR STORY. THERE WAS NOTHING NEW IN WHAT HE SAID ALTHOUGH HE MADE IT APPEAR THAT IT WAS! THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT IN THE MFOIA CASE THAT THE CITY JUST LOST WAS DATED BACK IN 1997!!

Francis talked about the "with regards to moving forward." He did not tell us that his moving forward was the "way back." I guess this is true "Back to the Future" Francis politics. It is just like his "Future starts today" campaign signs that were three years old.

I do NOT like being played. Please explain to me how Eddie is not trying to make a fool of all of us with his so-called "new" approach if that approach seems to have been around for at least a decade already.

What are the real facts? Which Councillor has the guts to stand up in public at Council and demand an answer from the Mayor.

Surely, one person should be Councillor Hatfield. As a hard-hitting journalist, he would not let a story like this go. I can imagine his questions on Percy's Panel. What about the Mayor-in-waiting, Bill Marra? Here is his chance to show that he would never do such a thing. The Councillor with the Blog, Alan Halberstadt, should be doing another of his exposes on Purchasing practices.

As for feeling like foolish, that prize has to go to the Windsor Star and Don McArthur in particular. McArthur wrote back on December 4 that

• "The pledge by Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis to stop using confidentiality clauses when the city inks deals with the private sector is a welcome step."

Some welcome step that may have been City policy for years already. How does he feel today, and the Star Editorial Board, after it seems that Eddie offered them a "new" solution that may be a decade old. Did he make them look like saps as they spread the message that perhaps Eddie had reformed? Were they all suckered like we may have been? If I were in charge at the Star, then I would have Ms Danese do a follow-up to see what the City's purchasing practicers have been in relation to Freedom of Information so the true facts will be made public!

But don't hold your breath!

It is time that Council take control over the Mayor and Administration. If not, it will be a very difficult 4 years for Windsor. Council controlled Hurst in his last year. It would be easy for them to control a lame-duck Eddie!

If the facts as outlined here are true, then Eddie must offer Windsor an apology immediately.