Behind closed doors

There's lots of hubbub going around about council's decision to discuss elements of the Pan Am stadium deal behind closed doors last week. The Ontario ombudsman is looking into a complaint about whether council was following the rules when it decided to go in camera.  Interestingly enough, we learned today that it was the Hamilton Community News who filed the complaint to the ombud's office.

At last week's meeting, Councillor Brad Clark said that the only reason council was going in camera was because the details were written on letterhead from the Gowling's law firm. Clark, Bob Bratina and Margaret McCarthy all voted against going in camera that day - and all three of them ultimately voted against the west harbour location for the stadium.

The mayor contends that this opposition is political and some members of council are using the issue as a vehicle to voice their opposition to the games.

What do you think? Are the complaints about going into camera political, or justifiable? What do you think will come out of the ombudsman's investigation?

 

Comments

[craig duvall]

As allways,it will be a waist of time.The water plant issue was found nothing wrong, who would of guessed that being different?.I allways find that whenever the police, coucil, or any one else to do with government,they are never found guilty, so, saying this, quit waisting time of investigations, every one knows its just another waist of time and mony.I have no faith what soever in the justice system,and i am sure there are many others.

[Tom Robertson]

Craig...the only thing we can have is that the voters will turf this whole gang out.

[Rick]

My understanding is that certain issues MUST be dealt with behind closed doors due to privacy and legal issues. That is how major deals that can benefit the city are hatched. This is the way the world works. If Clark, Bratina and McCarthy would stop acting like little cry babies we may be able to move this city forward.

Lead, Follow, or get out of the way!!

[Michelle Hruschka]

At the Hamilton Civic League event on Monday, one of the panelists made a comment that got a loud response from the audience, that they agreed with this persons view of things, so in that light I post this:

A Criminal Mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIjddye2JSA

[craig duvall]

Tom,ur so right.The information i believe i have on one of the councillors will show that one will not get re-elected, thats for sure,if he does,i believe the people of Hamilton deserve what they get.

[Markalanwhittle]

I though in camera meetings were confidential, so isn't Bob Bratina talking about what was discussed a breach of the regulations that govern these closed meetings?

No wonder the Ontario Ombudsman is involved.
--
Councillor Bob Bratina, whose ward contains the site near Bay and Barton streets, said information revealed in the closed session dealt with the cost of site preparation and land assembly, elements the public should know about.

"The key piece of information the public should know from the in-camera session is the site condition is not known."

[Michelle Hruschka]

The one spot down there is behind a fence and one can see a school bus at the top of the pile of what, who knows.

If it was about the public good, why do things like this happen. Common sense would tell you it is not right just to leave piles of waste which who knows, it could be toxic left unattend for years upon years.

Must be the legislation that has allowed for this to go on forever.

[Markalanwhittle]

Further to my earlier comment about confidentiality of in camera meetings here's the Code of Conduct legislation.
--
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

SECTION 5 - CONFIDENTIALITY

5.1 No member of Council shall disclose or release by any means to any member of the public, any confidential information acquired by virtue of their office, in either oral or written form, except when required by law or authorized by Council to do so.

5.2 No member of Council shall use confidential information for financial or other gain, or for the financial or other gain of a family member or any person or corporation. For example, no member of Council should directly or indirectly benefit, or aid others to benefit, from knowledge respecting bidding on the sale of City property or assets.

5.3 No member of Council shall disclose the content of a matter that has been discussed at or the substance of deliberations of an in-camera meeting, except for content that has been authorized by Council or a Committee of Council to be released to the public.

[Tom Robertson]

Mark...Do you think it is coincidence that the Integrity Commissioner they hired doesn't live in the city so he doesn't hear a lot of what goes on? Will the Mayor be making an announcement in the morning that he has been contacted.

[WRCU2]

Fantastic imagery Michelle. Essentially, what all this secret eminent domain stuff means, is that the affected homeowners will be given a non-negotiable offer for their houses. If you are Ronald McDonald, you will receive $13M for a new house, but if you are a Big Brother, a Big Sister or the YWCA, you must split the remaining $2M in "Infrastructure Spending":

http://noapologies.ca/?p=6933

This example is not quite the same thing, but that is how the game is played. Multi-National Billion Dollar Corporations are always the big winners when all is done and said. Have some fake butter and corn syrup with these Hot Cakes we've made:

Authority Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsEwK69LXjQ

Pink Houses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfkpu6749w

Crumblin' Down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PErUiAyVoGc

[LouieM]

The secret's out. This is a secretive bunch from top to bottom!

[Brian Henley]

On one hand, I certainly think the closed door meeting was a wrong approach to take on the issue....property purchases and personnel matters are appropriate for in camera discussions, but to use a blatantly transparent manoevre like a letter to invoke solicitor-client confidentiality is sneaky and unbecoming to all involved.
That said, there certainly appears to be a violation of the Code of Conduct as pointed out by Mark.
Where is the Integrity Commissioner on that?
Does it require and citizen complaint and financial exposure by a ratepayer to get any action on this?

[Markalanwhittle]

I contacted Mr. Basse, Hamiltons "new" Integrity Commissioner, respecting the issue of in-camera meetings and the confidentiality clauses in the code of conduct for local politicians. So far, no reply, he must be busy at one of his other jobs, no word on the investigation of Councillor Terry Whitehead either. That's Hamilton, get used to it or get out and vote, at least one new councillor will be elected this fall, Margaret McCarthy has thrown in the towel.

[Kathy Hagan]

Mr Bratina doesn't do anything that is not political, he is the councilor in my ward and is only interested in soothing the feathers of business friends, he is no help at all to his constituents who seek his help on ward matters.
I do not think that there should have been a in camera meeting regarding the West stadium proposals at this time. I do also agree with the poster who believes that Mr Bratina breached the code of conduct for disclosing the contents of said discussion.

[Kathy Hagan]

Anything Mr Bratina does is politically motivated. In camera meetings are becoming the order of the day with this committee. Bratina is not at all motivated by the spirit of openness. I also agree with the blogger who feels that this councillor breached the confidentiality of the in camera meeting.