Councillor Norm Kelly waxed poetic over wading pools:
“Kelly: I think NPS should be the “people’s place” let the snootiness and hautiness of the other places be that. There’s no threat to the Heritage character of the Square if it’s for the people
I dont’ see why we can’t look for sponsors. that should be an option that staff look at. I wish the committee well. The Scarborough centre has had a wading pool since the 70s. It’s crowded all the time”
I wanted to be sure I remembered it right – so this morning on my way in to visit the Scarborough Community Council, I grabbed a snap of the “wading pool” at the Scarborough Civic Centre.
Since the budget cuts ousted teenage lifeguards, this wading pool is not a wading pool.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. How often does Councillor Kelly even come to visit? It’s been a while since the lifeguard was cut. Ummmm…so, yeah…the matter died at Council, but just in case anyone ever brings this up again.
This is not a wading pool. But I don’t know which one of us is being snooty or hauty.
Hat tip to Matt Elliot for capturing this glorious hypocritical freakout courtesy of Mike Del Grande.
Del Grande: “Madam Chair, yesterday I went for a walk and I ran into Mrs. D. Her and her husband are empty nesters and she told me that three of her boys are coming back home, all three are coming back home to live with her. One of the boys, married, has a wife and three children. They’re coming to move with their supposedly empty nesters. So there’s nine people in this house. I bumped into, also, Mrs. P. Who also has three boys. Commonality, they went to college, they went to university and they’re unemployed. One of the boys was able to find a job, not in his particular field. The other two boys are struggling.
I say this because, we’ve had an economy since 2008, this is not a small blip, we’re in 2013 – the world economy is stagnant. You need to generate growth in order to get people working. You don’t want to be like a Spain where the unemployment is 28%, youth unemployment is very high. I’ve had councillors here send me resumes of people that have been in their office looking for a job.
So, when I look at this particular argument, I’ve listened very carefully when we talk about contracts – let’s talk about contracts here. We changed the contracts for TUGS that didn’t come to an end we extended that for 20 years. We looking at changing the contract with respect to High Park. Proposals that came here, that we agreed to change the contract. Have we forgotten very quickly?
We talk about private individuals. My god! We’ve got we’ve got more condos here that people have enriched themselves and gotten greater benefits through Section 37 where there’s hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in Section 37 where we’ve enriched people. But that doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter that we’ve had since 1933 an airport that’s been there that’s had a buffer. And the City has moved it’s development into that buffer. And now we complain about the buffer. You wanna talk about contracts? There was a contract not long ago that Bob Rae decided to change. He gave a 99 year extension to that contract. So I’m having difficulty understanding the logic to say that it applies here today but it doesn’t apply here tomorrow.
We have an obligation. No just to tax more and give away more. We have an obligation to increase the wealth in this City for all. That’s our obligation because at the end of the day, we are measured by what we do for our young people. And it’s a lousy job being done by all levels of government. Because we have a whole bunch of them that we told in our generation “Go to school and you’ll get a good job.” Well you go to school now and you don’t get a good job, you become a – you article for three months or six months you don’t get paid for it. It’s called internship. Then they rotate people.
That’s not what government should be doing. That’s not what government should be helping. I’m sure people in the audience know people that are out of work and we’re creating a have and have not. If you’re on the government payroll, you’re well looked-after between wages and benefits. You’re ok. If you’re not on the government payroll, you’re not ok. And we are creating two specific types of classes in this City, in this country. The have’s and the have-not’s.
And we get into this situation and you say to yourself, is that any different than someone buying a house by a school and saying, I don’t want to hear the recess bell any more because that interrupts my pleasure of enjoyment of my property. Well don’t buy a house by a school. Don’t do it! Don’t buy a house by an airport. You get those benefits…
[shouts from the crowd of “Shame!”]
Yeah, you can…you know, yeah. It’s ‘Shame’. It’s ‘Shame’!”
Nunziata: “Councillor Del Grande…”
Del Grande: “Because you want to bully people all the time. The bullies come in here into this chamber and they bully the councillors! Look at all the people on the other side. This is how it happens in Scarborough.”
Nunziata: “OK!”
Del Grande: “We’re all polite. But you people that don’t like it you come down here and you criticize and criticize and criticize. You’ve got grandchildren and you’ve got nieces and nephews as well too and you sit there smug because you’ve got it good and other people don’t have it good. I’m sorry…”
Nunziata: “Councillor Del…”
Del Grande: “I can’t live with that kind of attitude.”
Nunziata: “Councillor. Councillor Del Grande. Ok. Councillor…ok…”
Del Grande: “I can’t live with that. That’s wrong.”
Nunziata: “Councillor Del Grande, please.”
Del Grande: “That’s wrong.”
Nunziata: Councillor Del Grande, please.”
Doug Ford: “The workers right behind you, in the yellow there.”
Del Grande: [mic cut] as soon as somebody’s contrary to that view, you get….
Josh Matlow: “Like I said about one individual I would go for every individual in this room and elsewhere in this City. Would you please ask every member not to impugn any one group, individual or community in our City. Make their arguments based on the merits of what they believe and then sit down.”
Nunziata: “I’d also like to ask the public that if I have disruptions like we had a couple of minutes ago, I’m going to have to ask security to…everybody to vacate the Council Chambers. Councillor Del Grande…just a sec…apologize for your comments.”
Del Grande: “Apologize for what?”
Nunziata: “The comments that you’ve made, specifically…”
Del Grande: “No. I’m not apologizing for anything. I’m stating the facts as been represented. I stand on principle on people here to say one thing one day and change their minds the next day and then pretend it doesn’t happen. No, Madam Chair. I’m going to speak for those people who can’t speak, for those people who don’t have jobs, for those people that we’re putting on welfare because we don’t do enough to help.”
Nunziata: “Ok.”
So, if you’re wondering why this seems like an odd rant from the man – here are some quotes of olden times from our former Budget Chief:
“I don’t support the way that’s funded because if we’re going to do breakfast in schools, to me personally, if you have children you’re responsible for children. The nation is not supposed to be in the bedrooms of the people. But then when you come out of the bedroom and you have children, why is it the state’s responsibility to look after your children? I didn’t tell you to wear a condom or not wear a condom or how many children, you made that decision.”
“We need firm discipline. I get a little concerned when we start making arguments about the widows and orphans. Negligibles add up. We cannot afford to do everything that everybody wants us to do.” He then repeated the phrase “widows and orphans,” several times for effect, and added, “the 2011 budget is cupcakes. We tend to spoil everybody. We need to learn to say ‘no.’”
“When you start bringing in widows and orphans, saying, ‘Give them more time because they’re special and stuff,’ well, as soon as I do that, I’ve got to do that with everybody.”
“Priorities of people are very different. I know a lady that’s on social assistance. She has three kids with two different fathers, getting social assistance . . . The two boys and her have cellphones.
“Now, $50, $50, $50 — that’s $150 a month for cellphones when you should be thinking, ‘Is this my priority? Maybe I need to feed my family or pay my rent instead of three cellphones for $150.’ You’ve made lifestyle choices. Why then do you ask me to subsidize you when you’re not prepared to make those choices?”
“Yes, there are poor people in the world, okay, but poor people will be with us forever, like it’s been from the moment of time. I think sometimes you have to have tough love, not because you hate people but because they need the support. People should get lessons in budgeting, lessons in nutrition – that’s things to help you, lessons in parenting. Kids have children, okay, who don’t know how to parent. Those are the issues.”
Tomorrow’s TPSB meeting will have such delightful and fun items as:
Response by Police to People Experiencing Mental Health Issues. Will include things like MCITs and a little video of some of the training. yay.
Some stuff about the City of Toronto Operating Budget that approved the 2013 $1.019 billion gross TPS budget. That’s gross like gross vs net…not like ew, gross. Whatever. Looks like they’ll be touching on the Chief’s Internal Organizational Review and that is something interesting.
The Toronto Port Authority has been asking for armed special constables at Billy Bishop. Based on previous discussion about this – I’m thinkin the answer’s going to be a whole lotta NO, but who knows, Del Grande might be replaced by a spendthrift alien and this could take a weird turn.
I’m most interested to hear about the revised Search of Persons policy and the Street Check Sub-Comittee’s status report. Implementation of Form 306s, eh? To refresh your memory, in the autumn, the Chief put forward a proposed Form 306 that…well…it was problematic at best:
“Community Engagement” ummmm….this proposed form also doesn’t give any kind of indication as to what personal contact information was collected and will be stored in a police database. We’ll see if they’ve made some changes in the street check report…I hope so. Let’s all nevermind the fact that street checks outside of an investigation are a real grey area anyway. Yes, police officers are allowed to stop anyone at anytime but you’re also within your rights to refuse and walk away if you’re not being detained. The real problem is that people’s rights aren’t being respected by TPS…so you can make a bunch of forms to make it all look nicer on the surface. I guess. It doesn’t change the fact that people are often reporting being intimidated into giving information they didn’t need to.
And also, despite all the rumblings of Ford Nation and ousters and cleaning up gravy and change making and bla bla bla Dr. Alok Mukherjee will remain Board Chair for another 3 years. It was signed into being on April 10th…so, yeah. Congrats to him.
Anyhow, the meeting starts at 1:30 tomorrow, that’s Thursday April 25th in the 2nd floor auditorium of TPS headquarters at 40 College Street. If you want to come along – please do, I’m willing to provide OMGTHISBUILDINGISTERRIFYINGANDSHAPEDLIKEARATMAZEANDDIDIJUSTWALKPASTABLOODPRESSUREMACHINEAREYOUSUREWE’REGOINGINTHERIGHTDIRECTION assistance if that’s what’s keeping you from ever coming to one of these things. It’s okay to drink coffee in the room, no one says anything and that’s really nice. If you want to follow along on twitter – the hashtag is #TPSB, which is pretty simple.
“If you would like to deliver an oral deputation to the Board at its special meeting on April 29, 2013, please contact Karlene Bennett, Acting Board Administrator, at 416-808-7265 or karlene.bennett@tpsb.ca by 9:00 AM on April 29, 2013 to confirm your attendance. If you cannot attend but would like to provide a written submission, it should be sent to Ms. Bennett by email by 9:00 AM on April 29, 2013.“
The Police Services Board is a seven member civilian oversight body. The Board is able to hear general complaints about systemic issues to do with policing services. What does that mean?
They are unable to listen to complaints about individual officers, i.e. “Officer X called me a slur then assaulted me”. Individual officer complaints are outside of their jurisdiction. The OIPRD or Professional Standards (the internal investigation unit) handle those kind of complaints….sort of. At the Board meeting, if you mention a specific officer, they will cut off your mic and tell you you’re done.
You can, however, safely say “My experience was that an officer called me a slur and then assaulted me”. And then make a policy emphasis recommendation. Or tell them their policy sucks or that they’re not enforcing it well or that they have great intentions but it’s not translating to actions by officers in your neighbourhood or whatever it is you are worried about.
The Board can give orders to the Chief of Police but not individual members of the police service. The Board can shape policy that governs the environment in which policing functions occur but they are prevented from interfering in day-to-day police functioning. That is the sole domain of the Chief of Police. I know. It’s confusing. The Board can set policies and expectations for the Chief of Police to have the TPS meet.
The Police Services Act is a provincial piece of legislation which defines the role of the Board and determines how policing is run across the province & in municipalities. Changes to that are long overdue, (last update was in 90s), and it controls things like officers being suspended with pay unless they’re criminally convicted and other things that tend to tick us all off a whole bunch but no one ever seems to change because oh! provincial legislation, out of our hands! http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p15/latest/rso-1990-c-p15.html
These guys are really linear. It helps if you can structure your deputation kind of like:
1) This was my experience/are my thoughts/concerns
2) This is why this is a concern to me
3) This is what I would like to see you do differently.
Practice reading out your deputation beforehand and time yourself! Give yourself a 30 second window for nerves because they WILL cut you off at 5 mins and that ten second warning seems to surprise a lot of deputants. Board members may ask questions of you after you are finished with your deputation, so don’t bolt for the door right away.
If I can be of any help to you with research and any policy familiarity I may have – PLEASE ask me! I will do everything in my power to try and help you be as effective as possible. I’ve had a few instances of “why don’t you do this?” “we do that” “srsly? why do you suck at it so hard?” over the past few years & knowing what they already do can help aim you closer to your target.
Special Toronto Police Services Board Meeting – New Priority on Integrity and Ethics
At its meeting held on March 27, 2013, the Board approved that, as part of the 2014-2016 Business Planning consultation process, it engage the public in discussions about a Toronto Police Service priority related to integrity, ethics, professional standards for its members and enhanced customer service to the public.
The Police Services Act requires the Board to develop a Business Plan once every three years in consultation with the community, and the priorities established in the Business Plan guide the police service in setting measurable goals and objectives.
As a result, the Board will hold a special public meeting to deal with this issue.
The meeting details are as follows:
Date: Monday April 29, 2013 Time: 4pm Location: Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen Street West. Council Chambers.
This meeting will not hear or address any specific concerns about the conduct of individual police officers; there are provisions in the Police Services Act which set out the process for dealing with these matters.
Further details, including an agenda and instructions on how to register to make a deputation, will be posted on the Board’s website at www.tpsb.ca on April 18, 2013.
