LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

Accountability and Transparency Committee Misses the Mark

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted May 27, 2009)

I had forgotten that this committee even existed. It hasn’t accomplished much other than delaying inordinately the hiring of an integrity commissioner. In fact, no one was hired. They have a lawyer on retainer who is used by many communities across Ontario. With that workload, he is truly able to focus on Hamilton issues! But I digress.

According to the newspaper’s Eric McGuinness, who for some strange reason seems to be back covering city stories again, the committee has just met. Did it contemplate items of gravity and importance for the city? Did it advance the cause of transparency for our community? Well, not really; it dealt with some minor sideshows. It apparently only ‘reviewed’ the existing city’s rules for gifts and Council discounts. I did not attend the committee meeting but the reporting suggests few tangible outcomes, one sadly hilarious comment by the Mayor, as well as at least one bizarre position taken by one of its members.

The only paltry outcome was that staff is asked to define ‘gift and benefit’ before reporting back to the committee. Apparently, a dictionary wasn’t handy. Or, common sense wasn’t available. Nor was there a fifth grader in the room, because I’m sure she would have been able to define both terms. At least this gives everyone something to do until next month!

As for the Mayor’s assertion that he receives many invitations to fancy dinner-fundraisers, sometimes several a night, but those aren’t a ‘gift for me’, he is ‘representing the city’. How silly! Surely, he eats and drinks and has fun at these events, so acknowledge the obvious: they are gifts for him in his position as Mayor but should be accepted as part of the job.

And the bizarre? This moment was brought to us by none other than Joanna Chapman whose own membership on the committee was, I am told, via a patronage appointment from the Mayor’s office. What item did this fine specimen of a Hamilton patriot bring to the table? Was it the Mayor’s role in the Lieberman affair? You know where Fred was told of alleged city hall graft and sat on the information for eight months, only to compound the issue when he was confronted by his inactivity. Mayor Fred decided to blame not one but two top city bureaucrats whom he alleges he told of the graft accusations. Both city managers denied being told. Now, if this isn’t an integrity issue, I’m not sure what is. The Mayor refusing to take action on a graft allegation and, according to the Spectator, potentially lying about it would have been something for the committee to get to the bottom of. However, Ms. Chapman and the committee closed both eyes on this obvious issue. Rather, Joanna brought to the table a visit two Councillors made to a box at Ivor Wynne Stadium. Eric McGuiness, who has close ties to friends of Ms. Chapman, gave this story some prominence without even giving the offended party, Mr. Ecklund the benefit of a comment on his role. And what was the favour given the Councillors? The great sin seems to be giving access to a philanthropist who is donating his own money to city events. Say again? Yes, apparently, at least one of the Councillors has his own season’s tickets to the Ti Cat games and dropped by the box and was talked to about branding the city of Hamilton as a Waterfall Capital. Was the city asked for any money? No. Was Council asked to take a role in the effort? No. Is the philanthropic Chris Ecklund still going ahead, spending his own money on his pet project? Apparently, yes. So, the facts don’t cause any alarms, but of course, Joanna isn’t about facts. She is about perception. As her friend Brian McHattie stated, “It’s about the optics of this.” (More on Brian’s own integrity issues in a later column.) And so, the attempted besmirching of reputations based on optics persists.

The coupe de grace on this silly affair was actually given by Joanna Chapman when she decried that “Chris Ecklund lobbies for Chris Ecklund. What better way to run for mayor.” So, now, our taxpayer-funded committee set up to provide transparency on ethical issues has taken on a new role. It is actually a committee to root out potential mayoralty candidates; or a committee established to re-elect current ones. In either case, the group missed the mark. It didn’t pass the smell test. Perhaps at the next meeting the committee should examine itself and its mandate or ask doddering members to make room for those who don’t have an axe to grind and truly want to serve the public good.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME