Hall Marks with Emma Reilly

Hit the pause button

Folks - just wanted to let you know I'm away from the office for the rest of this week, so Hall Marks will be taking a slight hiatus. Comments will still be posted, but you may have to wait a little longer than usual.

I'll be back on Aug. 31.

See you then!

Emma

Money well spent?

Notice anything unusual about this picture of last week's Pan Am vote?

As you can plainly see, council is in the middle of a "standing recorded vote." They always use this method when it's a major vote so we can clearly see who's on what side.

But here's the thing. Part of the much-touted renovations to city hall included a $600,000 automated voting system where councillors could say 'yay' or 'nay' at the touch of a button. The results are supposed to be displayed on a large screen at the front of the council chambers.

How many times have I seen them use this feature since we moved back into city hall?

Once.

It seems like old habits die hard. The new computers in the council chambers also include an automated speakers list, where councillors can push another button if they'd like to speak. However, councillors haven't been using that feature either. They're still tapping their glasses and catching the eye of the mayor when they want to speak.

And the five-minute microphone cutoff? It's also being largely ignored. The microphones still cut off after five minutes, but councillors have just been turning them back on after they shut down.

I understand why they're resorting back to their low-tech methods. The one and only time council used the automated voting system and speakers list, it didn't really go smoothly. There was a lot of chatter about how to use the computers that really interrupted the flow of the council meeting.

But in my humble opinion, if the city -- and by extension, the taxpayers of Hamilton --  paid for this function, they should use it - even if it takes some getting used to.

Thoughts?

Follow me on Twitter!

Cant get enough of Hall Marks?

Follow me on Twitter!

EmmaatTheSpec.

Whitehead vindicated

While much of the city - including me - has been dedicating all their attention to the stadium issue, there's been a lot going on at City Hall. One issue that would have been a major story that's been somewhat sidelined by the stadium debate is the first report of Earl Basse, our integrity commissioner.

Basse ruled that Terry Whitehead did not bully his former assistant, Taylor Beckett,  as she alleged back in December. While he found that Whitehead may not have supervised his assistant closely enough, he also wrote that Beckett was using "city assets" to run a private business on city time and had hid that from Whitehead. Basse writes that this made him question her reliability. Read the full report here.

There were also two other reports into councillors - one about Tom Jackson for a whole range of issues and one about Lloyd Ferguson for publicly stating he wanted a Tim Horton's in City Hall. They were both deemed frivolous.

So, folks, what are your thoughts about the commissioner's first report? The city made a very big deal about creating the role and choosing the right person for the job, and yet Basse's first report passed with very little fanfare. When the reports came up at council last week, no one spoke a word about them (though that may have been because no one wanted to draw attention to the allegations, though they were all proven false).

There are also some questions circulating about the length of time it took to investigate the allegations. Currently, we don't know how much Basse is being paid or whether he is salaried or paid by the hour. There are no time limits for investigations set out in the Integrity commissioner bylaw. However, Basse has said he wanted to make sure that he didn't rush the process and was as thorough as possible. If you read the reports, you can see they are very detailed, exacting, and precise - and that takes time.

Are you satisfied with the reports? Surprised or nonplussed about the conclusions? Do you feel the role of the Integrity Commissioner is worthwhile? 

PS - As you have probably noticed, we have changed our website which influences the blog. If you're looking to reach Hall Marks via the new home page, you click on the little icon that looks like a 'v' in the green toolbar at the top of the page. That will produce a drop-down menu, where you'll be able to click on the City Hall blog link.

Also, the website upgrade means the links to Spec stories I've put in previous posts are now broken. If you're reading an old post and want to access a link that no longer works, shoot me an email and I'll send you the article. Thanks for your understanding!

Cry Him A River

Yesterday, when all eyes were on city council, one face was missing.

Councillor Brad Clark didn't attend yesterday's vote - which was described as the most important vote of the council term - because he was at the Michael Buble concert.

He sent me this email just after 9 last night:

Emma,

For the record, I just turned 50th and Linda bought me tickets to Micheal Buble. It is a great gift. BTW I would oppose the West harbour without a team.

Gotta go buble is on again... Very cool!

God bless
Brad

He then followed it up with this comment at about 9:15:

Emma,

Here is a quote if you need one

In Toronto tonight, at the ACC they are laughiing at Hamilton. Eveyone HERE agrees the stadium will now go to York University.

This quote is for record
Brad

What do you think?

Stadium Decision Day

Hi folks - just wanted to make sure you checked out our live coverage of today's council meeting. Spec intern Joey Coleman is providing minute-to-minute coverage and handling all of your tweets and comments. You can reach the live coverage via our home page.

I'm one of a whole team of Spec reporters here today covering this meeting, so be sure to check out tomorrow's paper for an in-depth look at what's going down today.

And one more thing - the crazy pace of developments on this Pan Am story has meant that I haven't had as much time to dedicate to Hall Marks in the past week or so. I know there have been plenty of you commenting on our other blogs - Have Your Say and the Scratching Post - and via email. I appreciate your patience with my lack of blogging lately and encourage you to keep checking back in with me here at Hall Marks.

I hope you've all managed to hold onto your hats throughout the twists and turns of the stadium debate!

Healthy debate

We're nearing the end of the great stadium debate, folks. At this time next week, council will have made a decision about the location of the Pan Am stadium. That vote will be ratified next Thursday. The non-stop back and forth that has dominated this summer is thisclose to reaching a head.

The whole stadium discussion has become as much about the debate itself as the battle between the west harbour and east mountain. Everyone - and I mean everyone - has an opinion about the stadium, and usually a strong one.

Our editorial today argues that this is a good thing for Hamilton. This issue has sparked an unprecedented level of community engagement, and people who have never really cared about municipal politics are chiming in. It shows that we Hamiltonians are incredibly passionate folks who care deeply about our city. But you could also argue that the debate has divided the community between those who favour west harbour and those who want the east mountain - and that division may not be quick to heal.

What do you think? Has the stadium debate been good for the city?