MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

Letters to Hazel McCallion: The McCallion Letters, “Request for a Meeting with the Mayor” Factum #1

October 4th, 2013  

City of Mississauga Corporate Security LETTERS TO HAZEL MCCALLION logo

[I REQUEST THAT THIS COMMUNICATION BE INCLUDED AS CORRESPONDENCE IN THE OCTOBER 9, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AND OCTOBER 21, 2013 GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES]

Dear Madam Mayor,

I’m sitting on the floor outside the Security Office as Crime Awareness Day 2013 is happening all around me. I can think of no more fitting way to finally deliver on my February 2010 promise to meet with you to discuss my concerns relating to the City’s governance in general, and your Corporate Security “force” in particular.

Please remember that I requested permission to document our meeting on video and you responded with “anything you want”. I also understand that at best, I might be able to get an hour of your time. I propose that we meet on Monday, October 6, 2014 –just over a year from now. I chose this date for three reasons.

First I’ve attended enough court sessions to know that to make the most efficient use of time, lawyers exchange factums. I propose to do that as well –provide you a series of factums over the course of a year, to be included in Council and Governance Committee minutes. These factums will be Freedom of Information documents, and audio/video evidence (ie: Staff
interviews, meetings, speeches etc).

The Oxford dictionary defines “factum” as:

factum

noun (pluralfactums /-təmz/ or facta /-tə/) Law chiefly Canadiana
statement of the facts of a case.

I’m sure you’ll agree that if I state something supported with Freedom of Information, audio, or video evidence, then the factum will indeed be “facts of a case”. Your Staff can review each and respond where they see I might be in error. Or not.

Second, I propose meeting a year from now because by the time of our meeting I will be 65 and officially a senior.

My third and final reason for waiting a year is that I know that nothing I say or do will actually have any effect on anything, other than setting the record straight and finally answering your question.

What question?

You asked it during the October 16, 2008 Peel Police Homicide Information Session at Peel Regional Council. Frustrated by the spike in homicides that year, you’d asked Chief Metcalfe and Peel Regional Council, “We’re spending a lot of money on programs. What is missing?”

You asked “What is missing?” five years ago. I submit that the answer to your “What is missing?” goes a long way to explain what is missing in the McMurtry/Curling Review of the Roots of Youth Violence report.

The City’s 2013 Crime Awareness day is a rainy, gray affair and I’ve taken enough time sitting on the floor of the Great Hall.

So please slot a time for me for Monday, October 6, 2014 (or later). I look forward to a productive hour of your time.

You have my very best wishes,

Ursula
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

City of Mississauga Corporate Security boss Jamie Hillis' November 27. 2007 email secured through Freedom of Information


 

[Exhibit 1  Freedom of Information confirms ban of 9-10 year old girl Nov 14, 2008. Next page.]

City of Mississauga Corporate Security, Special Occurrence Report, 9/10 year old girl BANNED and punishment more harsh than many adults

 

 

[Exhibit 2   Email to Freedom of Information coordinator Barbara McEwan asking who at City of Mississauga Corporate Security told her the City’s banning database had only two fields. [BOLDED for emphasis. Grayed when less relevant]

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: Barbara McEwan <Barbara.McEwan@mississauga.ca>
Cc: Ken Owen <Ken.Owen@mississauga.ca>; mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 8:19 AM
Subject: Question regarding my February 2007 FOI request

Hi Ms. McEwan,I’ve just finished an email to Ken Owen clarifying what I would like for an update on the list of bans, trespasses and arrests (BTA’s) that I first requested as in FOI back in February 2007. Back then you may recall I told you that I was concerned about MissCorpSec’s banning practices and wanted to analyze their BTA records especially as it related to facility, ethnicity and age.If you were in Council back in December 2006 (yes, that long ago) it was the first time I tried to give a deputation on MissCorpSec practices.McCallion and Bench intmidated me so much that I chickened out and aborted.It’s been that long that I’ve been emailing The Corporation, trying to get McCallion et al to analyze the bans/trepasses/arrests of MissCorpSec especially as it pertained to “at-risk youth”. The Mayor’s subsequent December 2006 email-refusal to investigate and assurance that the city “treated all citizens fairly” led me to Freedom of Information.I came to you and FOI for MissCorpSec banning records.I know that in our talks about what I wanted in that first ban/trespass/arrest printout, I told you that I was worred about how MissCorpSec dealt with Youth and especially visible minority youth.I also informed you that I wished to analyze any trends based on facilities, age and even ethnicity of those banned, arrested etc. I requested records for a decade.You may recall that when you told me that MissCorpSec only began keeping computer records since January 2006. I hope that you can recall that you also said, that the only data MissCorpSec kept were  “two fields”.I’ve posted that FOI list to the Net long ago and allow me to aim you at just as an example. Please take a look.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43172810@N00/448642308/sizes/o/in/set-72157600092315322/

As you can see Freedom of Information provided me with just two fields. “Date of Issue” and “Cause of Ban”.

You may recall that I was incredulous. I asked you how Mayor McCallion could assure me in email that Mississauga treated citizens fairly if MissCorpSec only kept those two fields and that therefore it was impossible to analyze and back up such an assurance.

You may recall the massive effort I expended to secure the original “tags” in order to snare more details like facility name, age etc even if it were just the arrests. You know that I even headed out to Burnamthorpe Court House for those tags. I even emailed McCallion again asking for an estimate of how much it would cost to find the “shadows” (the people banned, trespass, arrested) and tags.

Yet Brampton Corporate Security gave me the info (date, ban/tresp/arrest, cause, facility, age, ethnicity –even security guard name) right away (first time asking) –including a vast list of other security-related queries for $420. A true bargain (especially a Time bargain).

My prupose for writing. Question.

Who at MissCorpSec back in early 2007 (when I made that first printout request) told you that MissCorpSec only kep records of those two fields and that that would all I would ever be able to get?

Thanks.

 

 

[Exhibit 3    Email to Director Ken Owen asking in her December 2006 email, what data/stats did Madam Mayor use to make the assertion, “In any event, please be advised that the City treats all its residents fairly regardless of language or ethnicity.”  

Mr. Owen’s original email included for context.]

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: Ken Owen <Ken.Owen@mississauga.ca>
Cc: mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: MISSCORPSEC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (personal info) arrived today

 

Hi,

Me again. I’ve just did a quick check and have a new question.

You say that “the incident in question did not show up because it was related to a ban from all facilities while the search criteria that were driven by the FOI request was specific to Burnhamthorpe.”

To be clear, the incident in question was an “all community centres” ban originating from  Burnhamthorpe Archery Group.

I’ve just checked the Malton CC MissCorp/sec database printouts. They’re from the same FOI batch as the Burnhamthorpe one –stats from for all major community centres up to September 20, 2008.

So I’d assume that there’d be a  Burnhamthorpe-specific search, a McKechnie-specific search, a Malton-specific search, a RiverGrove one etc etc.

I’ve confirmed that so far three “all community centres” and “all facilities” bans show up DO for the Malton-specific FOI search..

So why not Burnhamthorpe?

So who at MissCorpSec confirmed your suspicions that the reason the Youth didn’t show was because the printout was for a facility-specific search. Because that’s simply wrong.

Or, I ask that he explain why “all community centres” “all City facilities” bans do show up in the Malton-specific searches arriving in the same batch as the Burnhamthorpe one.

The question that I have sir is this. Way back in December 2006 I alerted Hazel McCallion about concerns that I had re: treatment of at-risk youth and visible minorities at the nds of MissCorpSec.

Here’s what she wrote back.

“In any event, please be advised that the City treats all its residents fairly regardless of language or ethnicity.”

What data/stats did Madam Mayor use to make that assertion? Serious question.

Thanks



From:
Ken Owen <Ken.Owen@mississauga.ca>
To: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
Cc: Peter Meyler <peter.meyler@mississauga.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:35:35 AM
Subject: RE: MISSCORPSEC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (personal info) arrived today

Ursula

I’ve confirmed my suspicion that the incident in question did not show up because it was related to a ban from all facilities while the search criteria that were driven by the FOI request was specific to Burnhamthorpe.  The list provided to you with the decision letter is complete relative to the requested search criteria.

Ken Owen
Director, Facilities and Property Management
Corporate Services Department
City of Mississauga

905 615 3200 ext. 4206

 

 

 

Comments

Comments are closed.


Bear