Hall Marks with Emma Reilly

Chain gang

Those of you who are watching council tonight via live-stream will be able to see that Mayor Bob is sporting a little more bling than usual.

For those of you who can't access the live stream, I snapped this picture on my BlackBerry at the very start of tonight's meeting. (Pardon the poor quality!)

As you can see, Bratina is wearing the chain of office. I chatted with him about this two weeks ago when the chain made its first appearance, and he says he plans to wear it at every council meeting.

I think this is really interesting and gives some insight into Mayor Bob's outlook on his mayoralty. Bratina really seems to relish the ceremonial aspects of his job. He's at his strongest when he's congratulating city staff or thanking someone or reminiscing about Hamilton of yore. In fact, sometimes that's the extent of what he says at council and committee meetings. I think wearing the chain of office really demonstrates how Bratina sees himself as mayor.

Contrast that with Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who didn't embrace the pomp and circumstance of the position like Bratina does. I never once saw Fred Eisenberger wearing the chain of office at a council meeting. It's one of the many differences between the two mens' styles.

What do you think?

 

Questions of Integrity

Remember last week when I wrote about Tom Jackson raising concerns about the Integrity bylaw? My story today takes a deeper look at exactly what he has in mind.

In a nutshell, Jackson wants to deter people from making frivolous complaints against councillors by upping the financial commitment to make a complaint. Right now, it's only $100. He says that fee should be raised, and if a complaint is "vexatious," then the complainant should pay for the whole investigation.

Our integrity commish, Earl Basse, thinks this is a bad idea. He says it will only deter people from making complaints.

I can see where both sides are coming from. On the one hand, being the subject of an integrity investigation -- whether it's a legitimate complaint or otherwise -- has some pretty heavy implications, and I know it was tough for all three councillors who went through it last year. On the other hand, the whole point of the integrity commissioner's office is to have an open and easy avenue for citizens to voice their concerns. Councillors need to be held accountable if they break their code of conduct.

What do you think? Should the bylaw be changed? Are you happy with the way the integrity commissioner's office is operating?

 

Comic relief

This is hilarious. Kudos to the nameless Hamiltonian who came up with it.

.

 

 

 

Bits and bites

I'm at the first general issues committee meeting of the year, and the agenda is packed.  Budget, Pan Am, reports, and delegations are all on deck. I'm actually glad to be back -- this may sound a little nusty, but I have actually missed committee meetings. There's something about the regular rhythm of meetings and being at City Hall that I have really grown to love.

I will be writing something out of this meeting for tomorrow's paper, of course, but here are a few bits and pieces that have surfaced so far.

-The annual report of the Integrity Commissioner is included on today's agenda. It's an interesting summary of Earl Basse's work in 2010 that gives a lot of insight into his investigations. However, Tom Jackson just said a "review or reconsideration" of the integrity commissioner bylaw might be in order after some of "the events of last term." I'm not sure what he means by this, but I plan to ask him to explain after the meeting.

-Speaking of integrity, my colleague Dan Nolan and I had some interesting encounters with Councillor Terry Whitehead last week. As I reported in this story,  Terry Whitehead is doing a city-wide poll to ask residents about the stadium. However, when we first heard about this poll, we had no idea who had commissioned it. Dan called Whitehead Thursday night to ask if he had any information about it.  Whitehead denied knowing anything about it. "It could be anyone," he said.

Well, I did a bit of digging Friday about who was doing the poll, and all signs pointed to Whitehead. When I called him back, he eventually conceded that he was indeed behind it. Whitehead told me that he initially denied doing the poll because Dan's questions caught him by surprise. He said the polling firm he hired was doing some testing and he hadn't even approved the final questions yet. That's why he was confused and denied his involvement in the poll.

Whitehead, who is now sharing the cost of the poll with Councillor Scott Duvall, says he will share the results, cost, and details of the poll when it's completed. I, for one, will be very interested in those results.

-Brad Clark has withdrawn his notice of motion to withdraw from the Pan Am Games. I have a hunch it has something to do with the rumours that he's leading the charge for a smaller stadium at west harbour. (Again, see my story from Friday's paper for more details). However, that's just a hunch. We'll have to wait and see what happens as the rest of the week unfolds.

-A final note: today's meeting is being chaired by birthday boy Chad Collins. He's turning 40 today.