MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: Citizen-Blogger, “The Mississauga Muse” (MISSISSAUGAWATCH) requests limited standing (YouTube video)
December 15th, 2009
UPDATE: DECEMBER 17, 2009. Because of errors noted in the Judicial Inquiry transcripts (ie: recording “governments” instead of “governance”) I’ve decided to provide my own transcript first, then the Inquiry’s.
Over the next few months, we will be covering the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry through our unique lens —and we do mean “unique”.
We citizen-Bloggers are the only form of media that has been investigating City of Mississauga’s conduct and operations through Freedom of Information.
I testified at yesterday’s opening session in the hopes of getting limited standing. But because I don’t think quickly on my feet, I missed making a vital point in response to the opening statement made by Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas Cunningham who is Commissioner for the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.
Regarding the lines of investigation, Associate Chief Justice Cunningham said:
“We will look at the surrounding circumstances of the agreement. As an example, we will consider the changing energy market and the different regulatory regimes which were in place as the agreement was negotiated.”
Having just completed the Ontario Ombudsman’s “Sharpen Your Teeth III” course for administrative watchdogs, Gareth Jones and SORT (Special Ombudsman’s Response Team) showed us how to recognize a viable investigation.
It’s clear to me from the Get-Go that, yes, absolutely, to unravel that mysterious clause-change slipped past Council back in 2000, this Public Inquiry must look at the “surrounding circumstances of the agreement”, “the changing energy market and the different regulatory regimes which were in place as the agreement was negotiated”. Councillor Nando Iannicca had mentioned those market conditions on several occasions when Council debated Enersource.
But the Ontario Ombudsman’s “Sharpen Your Teeth III” course for administrative watchdogs taught me that other, let’s call them “environmental” factors are just as important to examine.
And that’s what I missed saying yesterday!
Sure that Enersource contract was drafted at a time of a “changing energy market” and “different regulatory regimes” than today. And absolutely, a thorough investigation will view negotiations and decisions made in that turn-of-the-new-millennium environment. How could it not?
But I submit that a municipality guided by a strong conviction that “The Best Interests of our Residents Come First” would not be dealing with the residual stink of this WT-eF Enersource contract in the first place. And that’s where my Freedom of Information documents come in.
This Judicial Inquiry can’t possibly claim to have conducted a thorough investigation, let alone even a relevant one, without examining the City of Mississauga Corporate ethical climate at that time! That ethical climate includes careful examination of the City’s policies and procedures (Freedom of Information confirms violation after violation). The efficacy of its checks-and-balances (hint, purely cursory). The quality of the City’s managerial oversight and monitoring of employees (you’d weep if you knew).
With that intro, here’s video of me, “The Mississauga Muse” failing to get limited standing but SUCCEEDING in getting my testimony into the Judicial Inquiry’s transcripts and an interview with the Judicial Inquiry’s investigators.
I’m happy. I had a Duty to Report and I did.
So as per MISSISSAUGWATCH routine, here’s the video, followed by the court transcript.
Video: “MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: Citizen-Blogger MISSISSAUGAWATCH requests limited standing” (8:09 min)
(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)
MISSISSAUGAWATCH TRANSCRIPT of VIDEO
Why I feel that I have a “direct and substantial interest” in this Judicial Inquiry
First, I have a direct interest in the outcome of this Inquiry because I’ve been told that as a citizen of Mississauga, I have a 1/700,000th share of 90 percent of Enersource. Next, I have a “substantial interest” in the outcome of this Inquiry because I’ve devoted an obscene amount of my free time researching the City of Mississauga in the hopes of getting at the Truth.
Fact is I just need get the Truth about my local government.
To give you some idea of the time I’ve devoted to my research of municipal governance, here’s a list of meetings that I’ve attended.
- Virtually all Mississauga General Committee, Council, Budget and Audit Committee meetings –from September 2006 to current. All but a few are on videotape. The rest, audio.
- For Mississauga General Committee and Council meetings I have the only video records of the post-in camera announcements –unless Rogers has it, I’m not sure.
And I also have all Mississauga Enersource-related public meetings. Again on video.
For all of these meetings I read the minutes and compare them to the videotape.
Though not related to this Inquiry, I also attend Peel Regional Police Services Board meetings, Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network meetings and their steering committee meetings.
Most importantly, I have been researching the City of Mississauga through Freedom of Information since January 2007. I have spent close to $2,400 to obtain documents and Staff emails. And I’ve also spent over $600 in Freedom of Information with the City of Brampton.
Two weeks ago, I attended the Ontario Ombudsman’s “Sharpen Your Teeth III” –a 3-day advanced training course for administrative watchdogs. It cost me $800 and I was the only citizen.
I’m a serious researcher with a driving Need to Know.
I treat my research into Ontario municipal governance as it should be treated –as a science. And, yes, I’m not just researching the City of Mississauga.
What I can offer in fulfilling the mandate set out by Council.
Regarding the contentious May 21, 2008 Council meeting and the change of the minutes: I have video of that meeting–including the post in-camera announcement and adjournment. No one else has that. I may have video of other meetings that you might need.
Now here is what I see as the most important part of the Council mandate. This is a quote.
“NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Mississauga does hereby resolve that:
1. an investigation is hereby conducted –is requested to be conducted pursuant to Section 274 of the Municipal Act, 2001 which authorizes a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice to investigate any supposed breach of trust or other misconduct of a Member of Council, an employee of the municipality or person having a contract with the municipality in relation to the duties or obligation of that person to the municipality and inquire into any matter connected with the good government of the municipality or the conduct of any part of its public business”
Since I began filing Freedom of Information in January 2007 you could say that I’ve been conducting parallel research, that is, investigating the conduct and operations of various aspects of City of Mississauga municipal governance, with special focus on compliance to Corporate policies, procedures, guidelines and to some extent provincial legislation –as well as the ethical infrastructure of this municipal corporation.
It’s in this –it’s in this Inquiry’s mandate to make recommendations. Since my own research also deals with Mississauga systemic issues and accountability infrastructure, I may possibly be of help here. I –I can’t say that I’ve blazed a trail but I’ve certainly trudged it.
And under “General” in the “Rules of Procedure” it states:
“The Commissioner encourages anyone who may have information that may be helpful to the Inquiry, including documents and the names of witnesses”
Well, I “may have information that may be helpful to the Inquiry.
It’s difficult for me to be here. I decided at the very last minute to show up. The reason I did was because of the word [sic], “…who may have information that may be helpful to the Inquiry.”
I realized that if I didn’t come forward, it would be me who decided that my information is of no value. Not showing is a form of censorship that I was not prepared to make.
For someone as committed to a fair and impartial truth-finding process, I have no business staying away.
Whether I have something of value to assist you in your Inquiry is your call, not mine.
So I’m here.
I believe that I can be of considerable help when you are dealing with the mysterious minutes and their alteration. Believe it or not that is one of the things that I’ve been researching.
After all, minutes of meetings are actually the HISTORY of this City and of Mississauga Council.
Minutes of meeting [sic] are a vital part of our city’s cultural heritage. Videotape of those meetings even more so.
Also. Freedom of Information provides me with unique insight –behind the sce –scenes peek-and-probe into the bowels of our “Big Yellow” city hall. I have some documents that I believe may assist.
One of the most important things that I was taught at the Ontario Ombudsman’s “Sharpen Your Teeth” course had to do with interviewing witnesses.
Gareth Jones, Director of SORT the Special Ombudsman’s Response Team, reminded us to put ourselves into the shoe [sic] of the person we are interviewing.
I did that over the weekend, pren –pretending to be in your shoes.
And if I –and if it were my mandate to “investigate any supposed breach of trust or other misconduct of a Member of Council, an employee of the municipality or person having a contract with the municipality in relation to the duties or obligation of that person to the municipality”, I’d want access to my Freedom of Information documents relating to the drafting, approval and implementation of Mississauga’s most important Corporate policies, the degree to which Staff comply–and especially the quality of managerial assessment of Staff performance.
The other thing I’d want if I were in your shoes is an objective, reliable witness. That’s where my videotapes and documents come in.
And I also encourage you for a quick, yet excellent overview just to get a feel for how things are done at the City–view videotapes of Audit Committee meetings and then compare what you saw and heard with what is recorded in the minutes.
One final comment. Again –and at the Ontario Ombudsman’s “Sharpen Your Teeth” course, SORT Director, Gareth Jones, suggested to us that the most important question an investigator must answer is “Why”.
Who, What, Where, When, How are almost givens.
But Why is my big one too for this Inquiry. Why? Why does the City of Mississauga behave the way that it does?
I’m requesting limited standing allow [sic] –asking to be allowed to participate as a witness by sub –submitting video, audio or documents –that I think you might need. And to make written submissions at the conclusion of the evidence.
That’s it. Thanks.
JUDICIAL INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT
NOTE: errors in transcript. I did not say “governments” but rather “governance”
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 MS. URSULA BENNETT: Hi. 7 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM: Good 8 morning. 9 10 SUBMISSIONS BY MS. URSULA BENNETT: 11 MS. URSULA BENNETT: Good morning. First 12 of all, why I feel I have a direct and substantial 13 interest in this Judicial Inquiry: First, I have a 14 direct interest in the outcome of this Inquiry because I 15 have been told that as a citizen of Mississauga, I have 16 one seven hundred thousandth (1/700,000) share of 90 17 percent of Enersource. 18 Next, I have a substantial interest in the 19 outcome of this Inquiry because I've devoted an obscene 20 amount of time, my free time and money, researching the 21 City of Mississauga in the hopes of getting at the truth. 22 Fact is, I just need to get the truth about my local 23 government. 24 To give you some idea of the time I've 25 devoted to my research of municipal governments, [error: that should read "governance"] here is
2 1 a list of meetings that I've attended: Virtually all 2 Mississauga general committee council, budget, and audit 3 committee meetings from September 2006 to current. All 4 but a few are on videotape, the rest audio. 5 For Mississauga General Committee and 6 Council meetings, I have the only video records of the 7 post-in-camera announcements, unless Rogers has it. I -- 8 I'm not sure. And I also have all Mississauga/Enersource 9 related public meetings, again on video. For all these 10 meetings I read the minutes and compared them to the 11 videotape. 12 Though not related to this Inquiry, I also 13 attend the Peel Police -- Peel Regional Police Services 14 Board meetings, Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network 15 meetings, and their Steering Committee meetings. 16 Most importantly, I've been researching 17 the City of Mississauga through Freedom of Information 18 since January 2007. I spent close to two thousand four 19 hundred dollars ($2,400) to obtain documents and staff 20 emails. And I've also spent over six hundred (600) in 21 Freedom of Information with the City of Brampton. 22 Two (2) weeks ago I attended the Ontario 23 Ombudsman's Sharpen Your Teeth Three, a three (3) day 24 advanced training course for administrative watchdogs. 25 It cost me eight hundred dollars ($800), and I was the
3 1 only citizen. 2 I'm a serious researcher with a driving 3 need to know. I treat my research into Ontario municipal 4 governments [error: that should read "governance"] as it should be treated, as a science. And, 5 yes, I'm not just researching the City of Mississauga. 6 What I can offer in fulfilling the mandate set out by 7 Council regarding the contentious May 21st, 2008 council 8 meeting, and the change of the minutes, I have video of 9 that meeting including the post-in-camera announcement 10 and adjournment. 11 No one else has that. I may have video of 12 other meetings that you might need. Now here's what I 13 see the most important part of the Council mandate, this 14 is a quote: 15 "Now, therefore, the Council of the 16 City of Mississauga does hereby resolve 17 that 1) an investigation is hereby 18 conducted -- is requested to be 19 conducted pursuant to section 274 of 20 the Municipal Act 2001, which 21 authorizes a judge of the Superior 22 Court of Justice to investigate any 23 supposed breach of trust or other 24 misconduct of a member of Council, an 25 employee of the Municipality, or a
4 1 person having a contract with the 2 Municipality in relation to the duties 3 or obligation of that person to the 4 Municipality, and inquire into any 5 matter connected with good government 6 of the Municipality or the conduct of 7 any part of its public business." 8 Since I began filing Freedom of 9 Information in January 2007, you could say that I have 10 been conducting parallel research, that is, investigating 11 the conduct and operations of various aspects of City of 12 Mississauga municipal governments [error: that should read "governance"], with special focus on 13 compliance to corporate policies, procedures, guidelines, 14 and, to some extent, provincial legislation, as well as 15 the -- as examining the ethical infrastructure of this 16 municipal corporation. 17 It's in this in -- it's in this Inquiry's 18 mandate to make recommendations. Since my own research 19 also deals with Mississauga's systemic issues, and 20 accountability infrastructure, I may be of possible help 21 here. I -- I can't say that I've blazed a trail, but 22 I've certainly trudged it. 23 And under "general" in the Rules of 24 Procedure, it states: 25 "The Commissioner encourages anyone who
5 1 may have information that may be 2 helpful to the Inquiry, including 3 documents and names of witnesses." 4 Well, I may have information that may be 5 helpful to the Inquiry. It's difficult for me to be 6 here. I decided at the very last minute to show up. The 7 reason I did was because of the words, 8 "who may have information that may be 9 helpful to the Inquiry." 10 I realize that, if I didn't come forward, 11 it would be me who decided that my information is of no 12 value. Not showing is a form of censorship that I was 13 not prepared to make. For someone as committed to a fair 14 and impartial truth finding process, I have no business 15 staying away. Whether I have something of value to 16 assist you in your Inquiry is your call, not mine, so I'm 17 here. 18 I believe that I can be of considerable 19 help when you are dealing with the mysterious minutes and 20 their alteration. Believe it or not, that is one (1) of 21 the things that I've been researching. After all, 22 minutes of meetings are actually the history of this City 23 and of Mississauga Council. 24 Minutes of meeting are a vital part of our 25 City's cultural heritage, videotape of these meetings,
6 1 even more so. Also, freedom of information provides me 2 with unique insight, behind the sce -- scenes peek and 3 probe into the bowels of our big yellow City Hall. I 4 have some documents that I believe may assist. 5 One (1) of the most important things I was 6 taught, at the Ontario Ombudsman's Sharpen Your Teeth 7 course, had to do with interviewing witnesses. Gareth 8 Jones, Director of SORT, the Special Ombudsman's Response 9 Team, reminded us to put ourselves in the shoe of the 10 person we are interviewing. 11 I did that over the weekend to pren -- 12 pretending to be in your shoes. And if I -- and if it 13 were my mandate to investigate any supposed breach of 14 trust or other misconduct of a member of Council, and 15 employee of the municipality, or person having a contract 16 with the municipality in relation to the duties or 17 obligations of that person to the municipality, I'd want 18 access to my Freedom of Information documents relating to 19 the drafting, approval, and implementation of 20 Mississauga's most important corporate policies, the 21 degree -- the degree to which staff comply, and 22 especially, the quality of managerial assessment of staff 23 performance. 24 The other thing I'd want if I were in your 25 shoes is an -- an objective reliable witness, and that's
7 1 where my videotapes and documents come in. And I also 2 encourage you for a quick, yet excellent overview, just 3 to get a feel for how things are done at the City, view 4 videotapes of audit committee meetings, and the compare 5 what you saw and heard with what is recorded in the 6 minutes. 7 One (1) final comment again -- again, at 8 the Ontario Ombudsman Sharpen Your Teeth Course, SORT 9 director, Gareth Jones suggested to us that the most 10 important question an investigator must answer is why. 11 Who, what, where, when, how are almost 12 givens, but why is my big one too for this Inquiry? Why? 13 Why does the City of Mississauga behave the way that it 14 does? I'm requesting limited standing allow -- asking to 15 allow to participate as a witness by sub -- submitting 16 video, audio, or documents that you -- that I think you 17 might need, and to make written submissions at the 18 conclusion of the evidence. 19 That's it. Thanks. 20 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM: Thank 21 you very much, Ms. Bennett.Signed,
The Mississauga Muse MISSISSAUGAWATCH
Follow MISSISSAUGAWATCH on Twitter.
MISSISSAUGAWATCH at www.mississaugawatch.ca
MISSISSAUGAWATCH at MISSISSAUGAWATCH Facebook
MISSISSAUGAWATCH at MISSISSAUGAWATCH YouTube
MISSISSAUGAWATCH photos (and documents secured through Freedom of Information) at Flickr The Mississauga Muse
RELATED LINKS
The Ontario Ombudsman Facebook
Post Linx
Permalink |
|
Print This Article
Comments
One Response to “MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: Citizen-Blogger, “The Mississauga Muse” (MISSISSAUGAWATCH) requests limited standing (YouTube video)”
Leave a Reply
You do not have to leave your real name, email address, or website to comment. Thanks to despicable spammers, however, comments must be reviewed before publication.
If you prefer, you can send a private comment to the Mississauga Muse.
http://www.topix.net/forum/ca/halton-hills-on-georgetown/TNK6MCLJT8NVINVI6
Residents urged to cheer on torch bearers
a part of the full story: Orangeville Banner
The Olympic Torch Relay will be coming through town Saturday morning and everyone is encouraged to come out and cheer the torch runners along the route.