Clear as sludge

There's a big cloud of confusion over council's sludge incinerator discussion.

Turns out several people at Monday's Public Works meeting - including committee chair Sam Merulla, Jim Harnum, the Spectator, Citizens at City Hall (CATCH), and Liberty Energy - thought council voted to kill the deal with Liberty Energy. This means the city will have to decide whether it wants to build its own sludge incinerator.

However, the clerks department and several council members thought they were voting on a motion from Russ Powers to do more analysis on the costs associated with the project. There's been much back and forth about what actually went on at Monday's meeting.

To me, this situation really highlights the need for a word-by-word record of what's said at council and committee meetings. The city clerks do produce minutes, but they only offer a broad-strokes account of what happened. Media also keep an eye on things, but we just don't have the time to transcribe everything word by word (and I would argue that that's not what we're there for, either). (Luckily, thanks to Don McLean of CATCH, we have a transcript of what was said at Monday's meeting which I've included in the bottom of this post).

Not having a transcript means that any confusion leaves a lot of wiggle room. Remember late last year when Mayor Fred Eisenberger finagled his way out of dealing with area rating this term by introducing the citizens jury process? In that case, there was no record of what exactly was said at the meeting in August 2008 when several councillors believed they had voted to update the area rating system this term and implement it after the next election.

This issue will be coming to council next week, when hopefully a little clarity will be shed on this sludgy mess.

What do you think about the confusion? Should there be a record of what councillors say in meetings?

Transcript of Monday's vote:

Powers: …my motion is that the conflicting assumptions by Black & Vetch and Liberty Energy be referred for independent analysis with a report back to the next appropriate public works committee meeting.

Merulla: Alright. Moved by Powers, seconded by Bratina. All in favour? Sorry, Gerry?

Gerry Davis: Through you Mr Chair and I’ll let Jim jump in as well. What we’ve done is we’ve received – we have our master plan ongoing and we have the proposal. We’ve taken direction to get the peer review done and albeit the scope was scaled back. So we’re at a no go or go. To go back and do additional assumptions, we’ll have to bring a report with respect to now we should get back into a detailed analysis, if that’s what the committee wishes to do.

I’ll let Jim talk to it as well. Thank you.

Jim Harnum: Through you Mr Chair, the original scope of this project, according to the consultants and ourselves, was about $200,000. It was going to take about four months to do that. And at council’s direction, we scaled back that scope to $50,000 and a completion of one month to six weeks. We’re at that point now. The process that we adopted – both Liberty and ourselves – was a go, no go. So we’re at that point. It’s a go, no go, and if we want to keep going then we would expend the additional $150,000 with another three months for us to do that detailed analysis.

Powers: I totally disagree with you. We’ll discuss it at council. All we’re asking for is probably about threeassumptions that have differential on it. Deal with those three assumptions and come back to us. We don’t need to reopen the file until we’re ready to deal with it. We’ll talk about it at council.

Merulla: Councillor Mitchell.

Mitchell: Thanks Mr Chairman, I agree with that. I think we have to have all the councillors here on this. Overall, I’d side with one rather than two myself. It’s just how do we get there. Few concerns that I’m sure will come out at council, and one is this is kind of dependent on us. I’m surprised that there isn’t other buyers that are willing to give their sewage sludge to Liberty already. If that was the case, that would definitely help in our decision here because we wouldn’t be the only ones. I do like the 36 percent ownership because I think that lowers the amount of risk because we’re a player in it and involved with the performance bond. So when you do the triple bottom line, which is what I  need to do a little bit more of myself, if I had to make a decision today I probably could, but I think there’s more triple bottom line information that could come back to us as was pointed out today. And all of council should be at the table to talk about some of those risk factors together, and we may want to be in camera to talk about some of those risk factors, I don’t know. Because there’s a pretty – there’s a trust issue here with things that have gone on in the past, that we’re all aware of. It’s a major decision for Hamilton, so I’d like to have a little more triple bottom line information and not. I agree with councillor Powers. I don’t think we want to spend another $150,000, but we need to talk about the triple bottom line issues some more amongst all our colleagues.

Merulla: Okay. Thank you councillor Mitchell. So why don’t we just table this to council, then,  for [off-mic discussion] Well  moved by Powers, seconded by Bratina. All in favour, that we move – or approve what’s before us?

Okay. Carried. Now moving on to the items that we do need to expedite [3:41] in order to accommodate schedules.

Comments

[Tom Robertson]

Our wishy washy councillors have just spent 6 hours debating the issue and now are wasting further staff time on it. At the next meeting council should vote to end all dealings with Liberty who do not have a proven track record without debate and get back to dealing with the other problems we have with the city. Show some leadership here Mayor Fred.

[Brian Henley]

I do not claim to understand all the issues around this sludge incinerator matter but I do know incompetence when it is encountered.
A chair person is responsible for the meeting and it is incumbent on the chair that motions to be voted upon be clear. Secondly, committee members are expected to vote on what motion is on the floor, and if that motion is unclear, a request for clarity is expected, not a blind vote for what is not clear. (Kudos to Councillors Powers and Bratina who it seems actually were alert enough to know what they were voting on!)
This is yet another example of many individuals on council (the majority of the members of the public works committee at least!) who are blatantly unworthy of the positions they hold.
As regards a municipal "Hansard" that might be a good idea, but isn't it the intention to stream, and presumably archive, meetings of the standing committees once the "renovated" City Hall is in use again?

[Burke Austin]

A cloud of confusion is right, I attended the meeting and I thought the doors were left open for the Liberty proposal until it went before the entire Council. And it should. Council has to make a decision on wheather to send our 9 truckloads of sewage sludge per day over to Liberty on Strathearne Ave or build their own incinerator on Woodward Ave, 100 metres from the closest home and upwards of a hundred million taxpayers dollars. I could go on and on about the issue but I won't because I don't have all day but what I would like to say to the point is, the meeting was very long, it started at 9.30am and the incinerator issue didn't get on the table until around 1.30pm. Maybe when the clerks dept. notices that the agenda will be full of numerous presentations they should break it up even if its only one hour for lunch. The committee members have decisions and some are crucial and I'm not talking about a dog leash-free park that took up the whole morning of the meeting, I'm talking about a sludge burning incinerator the City wants to put in my neighbourhood.

[Sarah]

Mr Henley:

Clearly you are as confused as Bratina and Powers. Its in black and white. The only unworthy members are Powers and Bratina who voted on an issue they didn't understand. Perhaps they should wake up and ask a question? Lol. The transcript speaks for itself no ifs ands or buts. Thank God for CATCH!

Sarah

[Brian Henley]

Well I respect Catch and Mr. McLean in particular but the transcript is far from clear cut, and is one person's take on the event.
I am not knowledgeable about the sludge incinerator issue ... except to support the interests of the folks living in the area where one is proposed to be located.
But there seems to have been confusion and that should have been cleared up by the chair before the vote was taken.
I was not at the meeting of course but I would definitely back staff on this one - as I read it, Powers motion seemed to be in order and was not withdrawn and the vote was on his motion.

[Sarah]

Mr Henley:

Please read it carefully. Mr Powers advised that his motion would be dealt with at council. Its pretty clear to me and everyone else including CATCH, The Spec, Staff and the vast majority of people that were apparently present. It's an open and shut case.

Sarah

[Emma]

Brian, Sarah - if I can interject, I think your dialogue really proves how ambiguous the vote was. Obviously, there's a lot of room for interpretation, both among councillors and here on the blog.

Emma

[Kathy Hagan]

I think there is some confusion on what was voted on and I do not like Mitchell's suggesion that they need to go in camera with portions of this. Councillors are supposed to be vigilant and are being well paid for council time. I don't care if they say it was confusing I ask them to do the job they are overpaid to do.

[Markalanwhittle]

No matter which way you cut it, Liberty Energy survives to fight another day.
All those Lobbyists they hired, according to CATCH, must be doing something right for their clients.
From my reading of the transcript, Harnum tried to put the "knife" in, now he's leaving town.
Like Mitchell says, building Liberty Energy first in a public/private partnership captures the best value for taxpayers.
Just my free advice, as I'm not a Lobbyist for Liberty Energy, just a local taxpayer, footing the bill either way.

[Brian Henley]

I would agree that there is confusion.
I was not at that meeting.
Key point - was Councillor Powers motion withdrawn?
From what I read the answer is no and that is what the staff from the Clerk's Department is saying.
Whatever...
But I remain firm that given the nature of what seemed to be going on, it was more than incumbent for the chair to do his job properly and make what was before the committee to vote on clear.
In my opinion, he did not function as a competent chair.
I would also say that staff in the City Clerk's Department do their work with the highest degree of competence and I would support that work in this case.

[Michelle Hruschka]

Toxic Sludge is good for you:

People need to understand the public relations industry, that works very hard to make something that is very bad, seem very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaMh8KGfkTM&feature=PlayList&p=7DB94B9E3023D548&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=16

[Burke Austin]

The vote was to receive the Peer Review recommendation and if they received it somehow they would accept the peer review recomendation and move forward to the construction of our own made-in hamilton sludge incinerator. Liberty Energy challanged the peer review siting falsification in their evaluation. What do the decision makers do when they do not have a clear understanding of the facts. Councillor Powers, Bratina and Mitchell asked the questions and I commend them for that. This is a big issue and you would have had to been there to grasp everything that happened until the vote that we still aren't quite clear on, simply asking what the peer's opinion was by the Chairman of the committee was inmature to say the least, they were hired by the City, lets put two and two together.

[Tom Robertson]

It's hard to have transparency when council is in a fog at their meetings.

[Burke Austin]

Mark, you are so right, but what degree do we foot the bill on, no matter what our hydro bills are on the rise to the point that some people resort to buying generators and risking their lives only to survive. It is a sorry state of affairs and Jim Harnum, the senior PW guy leaves town to seek his own agenda and leaves Hamiltonions with a disaster in the mist waiting to happen. I know that might sound severe, but we are the people who live in this town and I expect accountability.

[Sarah]

Mr Henley:

The record show in print that Powers withdrew his motion and the Chair acknowledged Powers stated he would deal with at council. Regardless of that fact! Why in the world would Powers and Bratina sell out to privatizatiion at the expense of you and me! They should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to give a blank check to an American whose primary objective is to dump crap on this city from all over Ontario. It is truly a sad affair in the city and the fact you are apologizing for Powers and Bratina in the guise of a citizen is alarming to me and my children! Why must we always be a dumping ground!!!!

Sarah

[grandmamoses]

Liberty is a shell company with great risk and no potential customer other than Hamilton. Councillors are being duped into supporting this risky venture to Hamilton's detriment...again!

[Brian Henley]

Sarah
I am not in support of Councillor Powers on this matter.
On general terms, I am rarely in support of Councillor Bratina on any matter, and certainly not in this instance.
I am just saying that they were smart enough to know what was going on in the meeting and acted accordingly.
And again, I look to the city clerk staff present as a trusted source of what went down.
Do you have some source, other than what Ms. Reilly has provided here in Hall Marks, for your claim that the Powers motion was withdrawn? If so, what is it?
A moot point anyway.
My issue is that it appears the chair handled the meeting in a truly inept manner. If the situation was so confusing, bizarre and out of control, he could have called a five minute recess and then held the vote. He should have verbally reviewed what motion was on the floor and called for a vote on it.
Finally, while I do not claim to understand everything involved in this matter, I do definitely oppose anything that would make life difficult for residents in the area of the proposed sludge incinerator(s).

[Michelle Hruschka]

The Wires That Control The Public Mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUY9ahSCMG0

[Sarah]

I just paged Sam Merulla and he actually responded in approx 30 seconds. Wow I've never had someone return my call so quickly. The interesting thing he told me is that the only issue on the floor was the staff report. The motion presented would have had to follow to approval or denial of the staff report. Also he acknowledged the meeting was moving quickly after six hours due to members of committee leaving the meeting and he warned all that ironically Councillor Powers needed to leave which would lead to a loss of quorum. He actually defended those not in attendance and Powers saying simply he was attempting to accommodate busy schedules. I was taken back by how polite of an individual he is. I think the real problem are councillors who leave meetings early or not show up at all.

Anyhow I'm glad he is not supporting the crap dump operators in Hamilton.

Sarah

[Ray Fullerton]

I have studied the staff report Business Review - Liberty Proposed Incinerator (PW07047c) - (City Wide) and attended the Public Works Committee meeting on April 19, 2010 and listened to the presentations of Liberty Energy and the independent peer review consultant Black and Veatch.

Based on the above information, please ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do you want the City of Hamilton to be known as a Regional Biosolids Centre for the province Ontario as proposed by the Liberty Energy proposal?

2.Do you want an additional 20,000 trucks annually entering the City of Hamilton due to transporting biosolids to the Liberty Energy incinerator located at 675 Strathearne Avenue from other regions of Ontario?

3. Do you want a LARGE CAPACITY incinerator to be built at 675 Strathearne Avenue by Liberty Energy? (Note: the proposed Liberty Energy incinerator is SEVEN times larger than the incinerator proposed by the city at the Woodward WWTP location).

4, Do you want the City of Hamilton to assume the large financial risk associated with a Liberty Energy partnership as outlined in staff report Business Review - Liberty Proposed Incinerator (PW07047c) - (City Wide) and by the presentation of the independent peer review consultant Black and Veatch?

If you answer NO to any of the above questions then you should inform your councillor to accept the recommendation of the staff report Business Review - Liberty Proposed Incinerator (PW07047c) - (City Wide) which states: " (a)That the City receive the findings of the independent peer review undertaken by Black and Veatch of the Biosolids Thermal Reduction - Unsolicited Proposal from Liberty Energy Inc. dated November 2009;
(b) That the item "Biosolids Management Plan" be identified as completed and removed from the Public Works Committee Outstanding Business List. "

I am a citizen who recently retired from ArcelorMittal Dofasco who is familiar with the industrial area of Hamilton and who is concerned for the FUTURE IMAGE, ECONOMICS, AND ENVIRONMENT of the City of Hamilton!
,

[Tom Robertson]

Emma...Could you please post the voting record of each Councillor on this issue at the April 28th Council meeting. It should have been reported in your article to assist taxpayers where they want to cast their vote in the upcoming election.

[Emma]

Tom: Here's how they voted:

In favour of a second independent report:
Bratina
Clark
Duvall
Ferguson
Jackson
McCarthy
Mitchell
Pasuta
Pearson
Powers
Whitehead

Against a second independent report:
Collins
McHattie
Merulla
Mayor Eisenberger.

[Triple Bottom Line]

Energy has become one of the most significant concerns in the 21st century. The need for energy has continued to increase and it has become difficult to meet this demand. Coal is poised to be one of the most important sources of energy but it is facing the challenge of environmental impact. To ensure that coal becomes an important source of energy in the world, it is important to put in place a framework for sustainable coal mining. The government should play bigger roles in regulation of coal mining and ensure environmental impact assessment is carried out first. The government should shut down mines if they continuously ignore the law. Fines are not sufficient deterrents for coal mines to supply with safety standards and protect the people and the planet.

For more information visit http://www.triplebottomlineapproach.com and http://www.democracyandconflict.com.