| Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections: Opening comments: More at the end. May 1, 1996, the City of Mississauga lawyer writes a letter saying I have made Libellous (the way the City lawyer spells it), comments to City Clerk. This a great example of how I called the City's lawyer's bluff and publicly shamed them all using the Public Question Period. In a City of Mississauga Council meeting a person was able to address City Council on an item that was not on the agenda and as these meetings were broadcasted on Rogers Cable 10, this meant there was direct Democracy and accountability. However, in the election year, 2006 and the Mayor being 85 years old (who thinks there is a "coup" out to get her), it has become too hard for local politicians to think & talk at the same time, so it has been ended. They of course are trying to claim that it never existed in the first place as lying is what got them their job and that is all they know. Also, in 2006, lots is coming to light about how business was being done at City hall, by its politicians, both on the job and personally. Knowing I would not be afraid to ask the embarrassing questions they never wanted to hear, they were more willing to kill Mississauga's special Democratic traditions, then they were willing to up-hold it, as people tried to hold them accountable. This is an (one of many over the years), example of how I skillfully used Public Question Period to make City staff cough up the facts and put them to shame. It also shows that Councillor for Ward 1, Carmen Corbasson, just does not care to do her job. Most importantly it shows how a community leader was being threatened by City staff regarding a matter they had no serious intent or stomach, to follow through on. This all happened in 1996 and to this date they have done nothing but threaten me - proof I did nothing wrong and they were just big government BULLIES! Proves I was right in the first place - does it not? I called this action "a cheap, unprofessional set up, a sucker punch." and people wonder why I get up-set over the way people & I am treated by government, wouldn't you be after years of this? Sorry that my letters are clearly not written by or checked by a secretary but our little group has very limited resources and City uses taxpayers money for whatever its politicians care to indulge in. Used wrong words and leave key words out, here & there - have gotten better over time. The fact my writing was so bad is one of the main reasons the City thought it could attack me as it did and also shows the City's & its politicians' Prejudice, Bias and Bigotry towards certain people. Think about these things when you VOTE. List of the contained letters; My Apr. 9, 1996, letter to the Councillor Ward 1, Carmen Corbasson, RE: City staff failure to provide service as required. My Dec. 11, 1996, letter to Durragh Meagher. Carmen Corbasson Mr. Donald Barber. RE: City staff failure to provide service as required. Dear C. Corbasson: Apr. 9, 1996 In the Mayors Dec. 4/95 letter, she states the following, "In response to your frustration, you may continue to access information from the City of Mississauga as you have for the past year, however, I have also identified a key contact person in each department whom you may contact for information. I would appreciate your co-operation in addressing correspondence to the appropriate contact person, to ensure that answers are timely and complete.". Joan LeFeuvre in Corporate services/Clerks office is one who is named. This letter is addressed to you, Carmen Corbasson, the Ward 1 Councillor, as I live in your riding and reports of these activities are going directly to residents on how City staff treat reasonable requests by residents and as the residents will ask what YOU did to help cut through the red tape and mind games played by staff. This is your chance to show what you are made of. There are a number of files under the control of Corporate services/Clerks office, which Ms LeFeuvre has not been fore coming with and when asked about only informed me there were only two files and both I had seen months earlier and won't be shown again. NO where in the Mayors letter or the FOI Act does it state a person can only see a file once per-life time! The Mayor has the expression that we all lay down our cards, well I have asked of Corporate services/Clerks office, to make sure we both know just what files there are. Terence Julian responded to my latest effort to get City staff to compile with the Mayor's orders and the FOI Act, as Ms LeFeuvre was not available. In a letter dated Mar. 19/96 he states my request "appears" to be a repeat of an earlier request, "appears"? He doesn't clearly state what action will be taken or offer any other approaches. No effort, but to stone wall by any means possible and requests takeing months longer then the 30 days promised by the FOI time table and the service promised by the Mayor should be at least as good, as it was put forward to help clear up my outstanding FOI requests! Further more staff is playing stupid, I have made countless efforts to inform staff of what I want and they continue to misinterpret my requests in a fashion that co-incidentally they can claim grounds for not granting access. I tell staff what is being requested, under the FOI Act or otherwise. Under the FOI Act talking to the requester to ensure a clear understanding of what is being requested and for all the times I have tried to get staff to call me to understand, they will not! I have to contact them, only to have them disregard my meaning so they can cling to their understanding of my request in order to deny outright access to records. Also in this letter Mr. Julian takes the opportunity to load it (and the record), with falsehoods, like "attend directly at Mrs. Evens' desk", he can find the time to write about falsehoods and his misunderstands but not the time to find ways to find workable solutions. In Terence Julian letter of Mar. 22/96, he simple states he will not respond to a letter submitted to him three times and that I should write a FOI request for him to respond. First of all he knows my use of the FOI Act has been cut off and called an abuser of the process, therefore no action will be taken and as the City has called me an abuser of the process then tells me to submit further requests, knowing that the number of requests is a factor in determining abuse, clearly shows that Terence Julian is knowingly instructing a resident of Mississauga to carry out a course of Act [1] that will violate a Provincial Act! Has City staff no shame! Secondly, is our head Clerk stating no response unless under the FOI Act? This is unheard of any resident can write staff to explain staff actions and understand staff reasoning, without having to go through the FOI Act, which the City has stretched out from 30 days to years. I will expect to get the same service as other residents and if staff had done so in the past, it would have taken 1/10 the time and money it has so far. In the letter from Mrs. LeFeuvre dated Dec. 14/95, she states, "it is our opinion that this approach is an abuse of process." in regards to my efforts to work around City staffs efforts to withhold records, which, by law I am entitled and to frustrate a requester enough he will go away. What I am ask for from my Ward Councillor: 1. A meeting with my Councillor to work out methods to ensure my efforts for access to records & service both under the FOI Act and not, will be 2. The people who think I have abuse the process, to go on the record, in detail, stating what they based their decision on, as they have not 3. That the same people in #2, put forward other approaches to ensure I have the access requested AND to find someway to resolve the issue of 4. That staff be informed and understand that it is my request for access and I must be contacted to explain it (as clearly staff has failed to date to do 5. That staff is to make greater efforts to finding ways to grant access, then to deny it. 6. I have the right to private service if I choose, to meet in an office to privately discuss our business. Do I not? 7. My right to view files as needed be up held. Please don't respond with staff has informed you of this or that, that I have been looked after, responded to, etc, etc, as it is what staff is saying and how truthful it is, that is the whole issue. Please don't stall by asking for more information or explain this or that again etc, etc. Set up a meeting for solutions. I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is # (905) ***-***. There is an answering machine in my room so you can leave private messages for me. As long as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone. Sincerely Yours, Mr. Donald Barber. Corporate Services Department May 1, 1996 Mr. Donald Barber Dear Sir: RE: Your Correspondence of April 9, 1996 Your above noted correspondence has been directed to me for response. You make certain allegations in your above noted correspondence which are clearly libellous to the City Clerk. As a consequence of your apparent enmity as against the City's Officials, as evidenced from these comments, I have advised the Councillor not to respond to the above noted correspondence. I am writing to you at this time, to invite you to withdraw your libellous comments. Your failure to do so may result in legal action being taken against you. I look forward to your prompt response. very truly, Darragh Meagher City of Mississauga Mr. Donald Barber. RE: Darragh Meagher's May 1/96 letter. Dear Mayor: June 17, 1996 In Mr. Meagher's letter it is suggested that I mite withdraw libellous comments BUT fails to explain what items he is referring to, am I to guess? It would appear this is another example of the City of Mississauga's "world class staff" failing to do an complete and professional job, after all the letter I sent, was aimed at getting City staff to do their jobs. And as the your Barrister & Solicitor has effectively told a City Councillor not to represent the interests of a resident and put the interests of City staff before a residents, how I am going to explain how you the Mayor champion of residents right stood for this? An reasonable and intelligent person who reads that letter will easily see there is lots Councillor Carmen Corbasson can respond to is she was not hiding behind City staff and that any inappropriate comments on my part are the direct result of the frustration that City staff have created by their disservice. The letter was written in the spirit of trying to understand events, by getting City staff to explain their acts. Most notably the City Clerk before he leaves the City (or is the plan to wait till he has left)? So how about it? Will the world class City staff explain what parts of the letter they want reworded and answer the rest? Will you given Councillor Corbasson permission to do her job? Or do you support non-service to a resident who only wants to be informed and participate in the public process. Oh by the way, is this member of your City legal staff the same brain dead bone head (my opinion), that told Peter Lyons, who told UFMAC and which was later printed in a flyer to the public that the Cawthra easement had to be a field of flowers no trees or shrubs? What a laugh that was! A high school graduate like myself took 5 minutes to see that position was nothing but road apples. But after informing hundreds of residents of the City staffs "understanding" we were able to motivate the City staff, the same City staff, to do it right. By the way, does the City still plan putting a road down the east side of the Cawthra Bush? I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is # (905) ***-***. There is an answering machine in my room so you can leave private messages for me. As long as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone. Sincerely Yours, Mr. Donald Barber. Carmen Corbasson Mr. Donald Barber RE: Your promise of service made in phone conversation June 18/96 & Meagher's May 1/96 letter. Dear C. Corbasson: July 15, 1996 In our June 18/96 phone conservation the matter of Meagher's May 1/96 letter was discussed. It was noted that, I have been told to withdraw "libellous comments", BUT not told what they are. Nor was any other course of action listed to get services back on line at City Hall for this resident. As the elected representative for Ward 1 you volunteered to have Darragh Meagher list out what was "libellous comments" & what could be acted on with out problem so we can start do some meaningful problem solving. But have not heard back from either party on this matter since then, when will I? I would also like to, again request a meeting to work out how to gain my rightful access to records at City Hall. The Apr. 9/96 letter was written in the spirit of hoping to understand events, by getting City staff to explain their actions (there is a sign posted in Clerk's that notes City staff are accountable), and to get the best service possible from the City in general. A very important fact to remember is my track record for informing the public directly, by public meetings, and my heart felt desire to be informed of the facts and participate in the public process. Again I ask you to come to my aid in this matter. I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is # (905) ***-***. There is an answering machine in my room so you can leave private messages for me. As long as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone. Sincerely Yours, Mr. Donald Barber. Corporate Services Department Direct Line (905) 615-3244 September 3 , 1996 Dear Mr. Barber: RE: FOI - Cawtbra Woodlot I am writing further to your correspondence of July 15, 1996. I note that you have not responded to my correspondence to you of May 1, 1996 where I required you to withdraw certain statements [2] you had made with respect to Mr. Julian. Please do so at this time. Yours truly, Darragh Meagher CITY COUNCIL The following is what I had written out to read and as is often the case, it was likely not read as written but does give a general idea of what I wanted to deal with at Public Question Period. 1). I would like to ask council to instruct City legal staff to explain their allegation against me. Back in Apr. I wrote to the City Clerk requesting him to do his job. City legal wrote back informing me they believe my letter contained in proper statements but would not explain what these statements were or why. Posted in Clerk's dept. is a statement of management principles that govern City staff - accountably is one. In an effort to resolve this matter a letter was delivered to the Ward one Councillor, which was forwarded to the same lawyer who made the allegation in the first place. Who only responded again to withdraw unspecified statements. I have been informed this is a cheap, unprofessional set up, a sucker punch. I call upon the Mayor and council to show moral leadership and direct City legal staff to clearly state on what they base their allegations on and why. And as a side note this delay has ensured the person most responsible for responding to my original letter has left the City. 2). FOI staff have continued its obstructive undemocratic, behaviour, here are four positions they have taken that are false. A). That items that I have been granted access to, will have that access denied if any other part of my request is appealed. B). The City should not make direct efforts to resolve an appeal with the requester during the appeal process C). The Co-ordinator will not provide to the IPC records to show what I am requesting exists unless the IPC directly requests it. D). Even if the IPC up holds the FOI Co-ordinator's decision that does not stop the City from providing the requested records. Please instruct FOI staff to contact the IPC to understand their proper legal limits - not ones of convenient for the purpose of withhold City records. Council - page 10 - September 11, 1996 - The City's minutes of the meeting, not a factual account, says what they want them to say. 6. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD (a) Freedom of Information Mr. Donald Barber request that Legal staff be instructed to specify exactly what improper statements they are claiming were contained in his letter sent to the City Clerk April 1996. Mr. Barber has requested that Legal staff clarify, but he has been unable to get a response. Mr. Barber also alleged that freedom of information staff are still be obstructive and undemocratic in response to his requests contrary to the direction of the Freedom of Information Commission. Mr. Barber requested that the City's Freedom of Information Coordinator be instructed to follow up to verify that the channels are open for communication and exchange of information. Mayor McCallion advised that the Freedom of Information Coordinator is following the letter of the law and staff have spent a considerable amount of time in dealing with Mr. Barber and his requests. Mayor McCallion pointed out that the legislation is being reviewed because it is being mis-used and costing the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. Referred to the City Solicitor for a response CA Mississauga News. Mr. Donald Barber RE: Comments in regard to my address to Council Sept. 11/1996. Dear Editor. Sept. 12, 1996 "Friendly advices or a thinly veiled threat?" The Mayors advice to me is to "fade away" or she will inform the public on me! Well old soldiers never die... they just fade away, advice Hazel should take to heart because if she tries to inform the public on me, the public will soon learn, it is our Mayor who is crying witch. At our City Hall, public manipulation and create a crisis, Shobelen style rule the day. The Mayor her self promised the records will not be provided, a promised made in 1994 and carried out by staff, to this day! Withholding records has created a crisis that unnecessary drains staff time and our tax dollars, more responsible institution like the C.V.C.A. and the Ontario government have long since provided the request records and have not made requests to them for well over a year or more. Every legal effort possible has been made to find the fastest and cost effective means to access City records and City staff refuse to cooperate. This has cost the tax payers untold thousands to honour the Mayors promise! She would want me to "fade away" but the City has started legal action against me and threatens more, I can't just "fade way" and if I did everyone in the province would suffer a loss in their democratic right to know, as what is at question is a new method of accessing records. No doubt Hazel thinks, limiting all Ontarians legal rights to access government records is a small price to pay, so she can keep her secrets! Council did agree that legal staff should detail to me what legal staff think was a improper statement in private correspondence in which I asked City staff to do their job. But this delay allowed the person that the letter was addressed to, to leave City Hall, the questions unanswered. When the City legal staff told me to withdraw unspecified statements as they thought they were improper, this is a sucker punch, a set up! Just like the old question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Efforts to get Council to direct Freedom of Information staff to stop being so obstructive by becoming informed of methods open to them to resolve out standing appeals, appear to have failed. Council has no interest in trying to save money and provide records when they can create a crisis and withhold them! 405 words. Sincerely yours, Mr. Donald Barber Corporate Services Department October 7, 1996 Mr. Donald Barber Dear Sir: I continue to await your response to my correspondences of May 1st, and September 3, 1996. It is my understanding, from your correspondence to Councillor Corbasson of July 15, 1996 that you purport not to understand what comments you made in your April 9th, 1996 to Councillor Corbasson which might be considered libellous. You state, at page 2 of the aforementioned correspondence, that "... Terrence Julian is knowingly instructing a resident of Mississauga to carry out a course of Act that will violate a Provincial Act!" This statement is untrue and libellous to Mr. Julian. I trust, as a consequence of my having provided you with this information you are now in a position to withdraw your comment and look forward to hearing from you in this regard. I have also been provided with a copy of correspondence directed, by you, to Mr. Grannum and dated September 26,1996. I will leave it to Mr. Grannum to respond to the particular items that you address in that correspondence. I would note, however, that you indicate that you plan to make certain statements to the public by way of deputation to a Council meeting which, of course, is televised over Rogers Cable 10 television. Factual deputations to Council in respect of issues that cause any resident of Mississauga, concern, are welcomed. - 2 - However, I would caution and advise you that the City will take action against you should you make comments against it, its politicians or staff which are libellous to their reputation. Please govern yourself accordingly. Yours very truly, Darragh Meagher cc: Shelley E. Pohjola **** PRIVACY & CONFIDENCE **** City of Mississauga Mr. Donald Barber RE: Your letter dated Oct. 7, 1996 Dear Sir: Oct. 29, 1996 Now that the Council for the City of Mississauga required you to respond to my request for you to explain your wild interpretation (and not Mr. Julian I mite also add). You are now clearly discredited. You claimed there were statements [3] when you knew there was not and the facts still support my statements, now even more so. The statement you present is taken of context to the letter and even to the sentence in which it appears! Your actions remind me of a kidnapper who takes a legitimate printing like a newspapers and cuts it up to sever a perverted purpose. It is requested that you withdraw your frivolous & vexatious claim and apology. I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is # (905) ***-***. There is an answering machine in my room so you can leave private messages for me. As long as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone. Sincerely Yours, Mr. Donald Barber. p.s. I recall you being in the same room, over seeing events as the Mayor violated not only a City of Mississauga by-law but the FOI Act, [ This letter's text was done in an Old English font, not to easy to read.] Corporate Services Department November 7, 1996 Mr. Donald Barber Dear Sir: RE: FOI - Cawthra Woodlot You state, in your correspondence of October 29, 1996, that I have taken a statement made by you out of the context of your letter of April 9, 1996. You state, in your April 9, 1996 letter: In Terence Julian letter [sic] of Mar. 22/96, he simple [sic] states he will not respond to a letter submitted to I do not see how the context of this statement made by you, that Terence Julian is knowingly instructing you to violate a Provincial Act can, in any way, justify this statement or soften its meaning. I continue my request that you withdraw your statement that Mr. Julian has instructed you to violate a Provincial Act. In respect of your request that I withdraw my "frivolous & vexatious claim and apology", I will withdraw nothing. Yours truly City of Mississauga Mr. Donald Barber RE: Your letters. Dear Sir: Dec. 11, 1996 There is no point in playing letter tag with you, as you clearly harassing me. If you want me to respond further to your letters you must first state some facts. 1). Who directed you to begin writing me. 2). What action does the City plan or is considering taking in regards to my letter. I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is # (905) ***-***. There is an answering machine in my room so you can leave private messages for me. As long as you are talking the machine will record. If someone answers the phone before the machine can come on, please ask them to hang up and let the next call ring through. I would appreciate your co-operation in using the answering machine, rather than leaving messages with anyone else answering the telephone. Sincerely Yours, Mr. Donald Barber. Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top [COMMENTS BY DON B. - 1 - Should read - carry out a course of action. Even though it does not make sense when you read it, the lawyer jumped on it as the City wanted something to stop my digging into their records and exposing Mississauga's politicians. |
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated The • |