City Issues Free Pass- The Price of Protecting Failure

The Price of Protecting Failure

By The Hamiltonian Editorial Team

When an employee or a number of employees mistake drains millions of dollars from public coffers, the path forward should be obvious: investigate, establish responsibility, and take decisive corrective action—including termination, if warranted. Anything less is not leadership—it is protectionism.

Failing to remove someone or people,  responsible for such a catastrophic error tells every other employee that standards don’t matter, accountability is negotiable, and the cost of failure will be absorbed by taxpayers rather than borne by those at fault. This breeds a culture where carelessness is tolerated, where policies become window dressing, and where the next disaster is only a matter of time.

In the public sector, the stakes are even higher. Money lost is not “the city’s” loss—it is the public’s loss; it is our loss, it is your loss.  Every dollar squandered could have repaired a road, funded a shelter, or improved emergency services. Choosing to shield individuals instead of safeguarding the public interest erodes confidence in City Hall, damages the city’s credibility with insurers and partners, and leaves ratepayers wondering whose interests are really being served.

Hamilton’s February 2024 cyberattack is a case in point. The city’s failure to fully deploy multi-factor authentication—a basic security requirement—cost taxpayers millions and led its insurer to deny coverage. This was not a harmless oversight; it was a preventable lapse with enormous consequences. Yet to date, no senior staff member appears to have been removed from their role. The message this sends is clear: in Hamilton, you can preside over a multi-million-dollar loss and keep your job. That is not accountability—it is an abdication of duty.

Consider the impacts of the cyber attack.

• How many people were told that they cannot receive the service they would otherwise expect, or were unduly delayed from receiving the service, on account of the damage the cyber attack has done?How many times have you been transferred to a phone extension, only to learn that the cyber attack had knocked that phone extension out, leaving you to reach a dead end.
• How many times have you been passed a city worker’s business card, only to find that the email address on the card fails? 
• How many of our seniors and other vulnerable people have suffered as a result of the degradation in services?
• How long did it take to restore the payroll system? Our sources tell us that some people are still not being paid through a regular system. 
• How many others have impacted in ways that we likely cannot imagine?

Message To Mayor Horwath and Each City Councillor: We recognize that as a City Councillor and as the Mayor, you are  managing competing priorities and sometimes it is difficult discerning what you should focus on, given limited resources and time. All the more reason to sharpen the focus.

If Hamilton wants to graduate to a city that is approaching a centre of excellence, accountability is a cornerstone. It is proven good statecraft.

Respectfully, we issue a challenge to each of you on behalf of Hamiltonians. 

Prioritize and put concerted effort into:

1. Holding people accountable. Particularly when people in position of leadership who are well paid to and expected to deliver, do not. Do it fairly.

 

2. Insist on and see to it  that the City Manager has a formal performance contract that identifies deliverables, measurables against timelines and that leads to fair and prudent performance evaluations.

Prompting this piece, was an email The Hamiltonian sent to Mayor Horwath, City Manager Marnie Cluckie and each City Councillor . See this exchange below: 

To: Mayor Andrea Horwath and/or City Manager Marnie Cluckie

The Hamiltonian is writing to address the City’s actions, both taken and planned, in response to the recent cyberattack.

As you know, this incident dealt a severe and lasting blow to Hamilton’s automated systems and processes. The effects are still being felt across the city. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been lost, and the City’s ability to deliver timely and essential services to Hamiltonians has been significantly compromised.

We acknowledge that terminating employees is a difficult decision in any organization. However, given the magnitude of the losses and the now-confirmed failure to properly defend against the attack, accountability at the personnel level is warranted. The City’s own admission that it did not meet a key term of its cyber insurance policy — full deployment of multi-factor authentication across the enterprise — resulted in the insurer denying the claim. There appear to be no valid grounds for appeal.

Clearly, one or more individuals were responsible for ensuring the City’s IT infrastructure met critical security requirements. Such positions are typically well-compensated, with the expectation that those entrusted with this responsibility will deliver. In this case, the failure was costly — not only financially, but in the erosion of public trust.

To restore that trust, Hamiltonians deserve a direct answer:

* How many individuals will be terminated as a result of this gross failure?

* What positions do they hold?

To be clear, we are not seeking names. We are seeking evidence that the City is serious about accountability.

Respectfully, Hamiltonians are weary of platitudes and assurances without consequence. While improvements for the future are essential, the serious lapses that enabled this attack cannot be left without real and visible repercussions.

Response from Ms. Cluckie, presumably on behalf of Mayor Horwath and each City Councillor:

The City of Hamilton takes the cyber incident, its impacts on our community, and our responsibility to protect public resources extremely seriously.

We understand the community’s concerns around accountability, and our leadership team accepts collective responsibility for addressing the gaps identified. While we cannot comment on personnel matters involving past or current employees due to privacy and confidentiality, we are taking decisive action to strengthen our systems and processes.

This was a highly sophisticated attack on an external, internet-facing server that resulted in unauthorized access to City of Hamilton systems. We are rebuilding our IT infrastructure in a financially responsible way, applying lessons learned to further enhance cybersecurity and improve City services.

We remain committed to operating with integrity, communicating openly, and putting residents at the centre of everything we do - demonstrating that commitment through transparency, accountability, and the consistent delivery of high-quality service to our community.

The Hamiltonian, from time to time, will have an automated dispassionate system analyze replies for the presence of "spin doctoring". In past decades, much was accomplished by using spin doctoring techniques. The technique proved effective in distracting the public from the real issues and deflecting. These techniques do not work at The Hamiltonian, and we respectfully call them out where employed,  We also question the tax dollars spent to produce spin doctored pieces, in place of real answers. The following is a dispassionate analysis of the response provided by Ms. Cluckie on behalf of Mayor Horwath, herself and your city councillor:

OVERALL SPIN SCORE: 8.4 / 10

---

Brief Summary & Assessment:

Marnie Cluckie’s response is a polished example of institutional spin:

• Avoids addressing the core accountability question—Were any individuals disciplined or removed?

• Invokes privacy unnecessarily, when names weren’t requested.

• Shifts blame to the complexity of the attack.

• Focuses on improvements, but avoids responsibility for the specific, known failure (lack of MFA deployment).

• Leverages values language without measurable commitments or transparency.

Verdict:

This is high-level bureaucratic spin: expertly crafted to appear responsive while saying almost nothing concrete. Hamiltonians asked for evidence of accountability. They received an eloquent deflection.

Media Release: Clr. Matt Francis on Rejection of 140 Glen Echo Drive proposal

 

Rejection of 140 Glen Echo Drive proposal

I want to thank the community for standing united as we fought this proposal together. I am pleased with the Ontario Land Tribunal’s decision to reject this.

Eight-storey buildings do not belong in the middle of a single-family neighbourhood and is not responsible planning. Hamilton’s Official Plan designates this area for low-density residential use, and any development outside these guidelines will not be accepted.

Working together, we stopped this proposal, protected the character of our neighbourhood, and set the standard for future growth that is respectful and appropriate.

MATT.FRANCIS@HAMILTON.CA | 905-546-2716 | MATTFRANCISWARD5.CA

With Ward 13 Councillor Alex Wilson- on Term Limits

In our recent article in The Hamiltonian on the topic of term limits in municipal politics (which can be found here), we reached out to each City Councillor and Mayor Horwath to gather their perspectives on the issue. To ensure consistency, we posed the same set of questions to all and set a deadline of August 8, 2025, for the return of their responses.

We  received three replies: one from Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch another from Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls and most recently, from Ward 13 Councillor Alex Wilson. We are particularly pleased to welcome Clr. Wilson, as this is his first appearance on The Hamiltonian. 

The following are Councillor Wilson's views on term limits:

I support term limits in general and when I ran in 2022, I included in my platform a commitment not to seek a third consecutive term meaning if re-elected in 2026 I would not run again in the 2030 municipal elections. I think term limits whether imposed by voters, self-imposed via commitments from candidates, or formally implemented are one tool to encourage a balance between institutional memory and new voices and new ideas around the table. I don’t believe that term limits are a silver bullet at fixing democracy or local engagement, but I do believe that a regular cycle of renewal can promote more collaborative decision making and encourage more transition-oriented policy making. I think having term limits helps focus the work away from focusing on personal achievements or “legacy” and towards a stewardship role.

I am certainly open to a more formal proposal with hard rules at either 2 or 3 terms (8 to 12 years) but I believe that the benefits of term limits are best realized in combination with other policies that make elections easier to run in as a candidate and encourage full participation of voters as well. With only about a third of eligible voters participating in municipal elections city-wide I think it is important any attempts to increase participation focus on the barriers both candidates and voters experience during the election. Reducing the role of private donations and increasing public funding for candidates and/or introducing a tax credit (as occurs with provincial and federal donations) would help to reduce barriers for candidates to run and minimize the potential benefit of an incumbent having established donor list. Having election day as a public holiday would also go a long way to increasing engagement. While I believe in term limits and have committed to a 2 consecutive term limit myself, I don’t think formalizing term limits would be my first request of the province. Ranked ballots in addition to the above suggestions would to me be first priorities over formalizing term limits.

As we all are experiencing the world is moving a lot faster in recent years and there are a variety of new and ongoing challenges facing communities and local governments across the country. Pandemic recovery, infrastructure backlogs, growing populations, the climate crisis, a systemic lack of safe and affordable housing, and increasing cyber security threats are just some of the challenges facing municipalities. Responding to these pressures effectively means breaking away from what we have been doing that hasn’t been working and responding in ways that center those left behind in past responses. Personally, I think the challenge for all municipalities in these coming years will be how to (continue to) manage these major changes I don’t think that’s possible without new voices and new approaches. Term limits are one strategy that helps ensure there is renewal while also recognizing there is a value in institutional memory and the experiences gained from serving as a representative.

Thank-you Councillor Wilson for engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian. You are always welcome here. 

"A" for Accountability-Is the City of Hamilton Truly Owning the Cybersecurity Failure?

In a recent piece by Scott Radley of The Hamilton Spectator (see it here) ), Mr. Radley rightly questions whether the City of Hamilton is truly “owning” its failures related to the February 2024 cybersecurity breach. He asks: what does “owning it” really mean in this context? We agree with his assessment. The City’s response thus far does not reflect true accountability.

On July 30, The Hamiltonian formally requested the following from the City:

A copy of the cyber insurance policy in effect at the time of the attack, along with the specific terms the insurer relied on in denying the claim. We asked: “Why was the claim denied, and what specific terms were not satisfied? How were those terms breached?”

We have since received the City’s response, which is provided in full below. But before presenting it, we offer these observations.

According to the City, the insurance claim was denied because multi-factor authentication (MFA)—a critical security measure—had not been fully deployed across all departments. This was a clear requirement of the insurance policy.

The City admits that this requirement was not met. Therefore, the insurer’s denial appears justified.

Let’s be frank: If a homeowner failed to install smoke detectors—despite it being a condition of their insurance—and their house burned down, the insurance company would rightly deny the claim. The loss would be devastating.

This situation is no different—except the scale of loss is exponentially larger. Millions in taxpayer dollars have been lost due to what can only be described as operational negligence. Where is the accountability?

Has anyone been fired for this critical oversight? If not, what exactly does the City mean when it speaks of “accountability”? Can public employees expose taxpayers to such significant financial consequences without consequence? What message does that send to staff, if they perceive there are no repercussions?

What message does that send to Hamilton residents, and what precedent does it set?

The City cannot undo what has already occurred. But it can show leadership now. Will any staff be removed for failing to implement basic cybersecurity protocols? 

Hamiltonians deserve clear answers—and real accountability. Stay tuned...The Hamiltonian will be following up.


City of Hamilton Response (August 7, 2025):

“This was a highly sophisticated attack on an external, internet-facing server, gaining unauthorized access to the City of Hamilton systems. At the time of the February 2024 cyber attack, multi-factor authentication (MFA) was not fully deployed in every City department. The insurance policy in effect at the time stipulated that MFA had to be fully deployed across the organization.

If you would like a copy of the City’s cyber insurance policy in effect at the time of the cyber incident, a request through the Freedom of Information process would be necessary as this document is a contractual agreement with a third party. For more details related to Freedom of Information requests and to submit a request, please follow the link here.

The City is committed to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability in line with the protocols of the City’s Freedom of Information Office.”


\

Hamilton’s Leadership in Focus: Term Limits - ft Councillors Kroetsch and Pauls

Further to our recent article in The Hamiltonian on the topic of term limits in municipal politics (which can be found here), we reached out to each City Councillor and Mayor Horwath to gather their perspectives on the issue. To ensure consistency, we posed the same set of questions to all and set a deadline of August 8, 2025, for the return of their responses.

We have already received two replies: one from Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch and the other from Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls. Given that these two Councillors hold differing views on term limits, their responses provide for an insightful and thought-provoking read.

We would like to express our gratitude to Councillor Kroetsch and Councillor Pauls for their participation. The intent of our approach is not to square councillors off , but to learn from their individual thoughts on this topic.

Below, we present their responses in the order in which they were received, with Councillor Kroetsch’s answers first, followed by Councillor Pauls’.

1 Greater transparency and accountability in municipal government are concepts often advocated for. Do you believe term limits would strengthen those principles in Hamilton? Why or why not?

Clr. Kroetsch:  I believe term limits would increase accountability. I think accountability, for many, looks like electing people from the community who they feel represent them. What I've heard from community members who are seeking to run is that reducing the barrier of incumbency and allowing for more regular open elections would make a huge difference in terms of their willingness to put their names forward.

Clr. Pauls: Term limits do not necessarily strengthen transparency and accountability. The right and privilege of the people’s vote becomes diluted by imposed limitations to their voice, which is how I see term limits for Councillors and the Mayor. Regardless of one’s past history, current term length, or possible future prospects, elected officials of all kinds should be bound by transparency. That said, one could also argue that devoid of the prospect of future opportunities to serve in an elected capacity, one’s “last term” could, in fact, become problematic. It really boils down to the integrity of the person who has been elected, which the voter’s own research should illuminate.

2. Some argue that regular elections are sufficient to hold politicians accountable. Others say entrenched incumbency creates barriers for new voices. Where do you stand on that debate?

Clr. Kroetsch: It's very difficult, especially at the municipal level, for candidates to undertake a campaign. To be successful you often have to dedicate yourself to a municipal campaign full time, especially if you don't have name recognition. Up to now, this has often meant taking leaves from work and putting personal and family commitments aside. For some, it can be a huge financial risk. Many are not willing to take this risk when they know they're facing an incumbent. Incumbency is a major reason why people are reelected. 

This isn't my opinion. It's been studied and the evidence indicates, overwhelmingly, that incumbency plays a huge role in electoral outcomes at the municipal level. If there were more open elections in wards, due to term limits, this would level the playing field and allow more candidates to participate in our democracy without having to fight the incumbent advantage. Regular elections have not been attended by the majority of the voting public in Hamilton for many decades. I don't think they're an accurate measure of the support any one politician has and I think we all have to do better to lower barriers to participation and to encourage all voters to participate in our democracy.

Clr. Pauls: New voices don’t necessarily need to win elections to make themselves heard. For instance, we have a process known as delegations, where residents and business owners frequently schedule time to speak in front of council members at committee meetings and whose presentations become part of the record. What delegates present often plants the seeds of future initiatives.

Dedicated councillors consider all voices and contrasting opinions that exist within their constituency, whether they’re new to the job or seasoned in the representation of their ward. I strive to keep a clear pulse on the often-varying sentiments within my own ward, to achieve a balanced and honest reflection of residents’ collective attitudes and beliefs. This involves regular one-on-one time with residents via phone calls, face to face conversations, and often, house calls.

3. Would you personally support provincial legislation that gives municipalities the option to implement term limits? If so, what structure (e.g., two consecutive terms) would you find appropriate?

Clr. Kroetsch: I would definitely support such Provincial legislation. To be clear, the Province is very aware of this issue and has purposely refused to implement it. Many of those who have been incumbents for decades at the municipal level have influence within Provincial governments and want to hold on to their seats. I have no faith the Provincial government will take on this issue. I would prefer the Province impose a two term limit for every seat, but I would also consider supporting a three term limit if there was a compelling case made for it. To date, I haven't heard one, but I remain open minded to that particular part of the discussion.

Clr. Pauls: I wouldn’t support this kind of legislation, which I find an imposition on the voter. I maintain a strong belief that if only new candidates are being offered, and none of them appeal to the voter, the voter’s voice may become silenced, and their civic engagement restricted. The option to vote for the person they like best in the candidate roster should remain as it is. I don’t see any term limitations as constructive or fair to voters. Further, a seasoned Councillor offers benefits such as first-hand historical knowledge and experience with City process and protocol, relationships with other elected officials at various levels of government and City partners, and has been a part of the evolution of the City to the point at which elections take place.

4. Do you believe that one factor contributing to the reluctance of some long-serving municipal politicians to step aside and make space for new representation is a fear of “what comes next” after public office? Put differently, do you think that for some individuals, politics has become so deeply embedded as a source of livelihood and identity that the desire to remain in power outweighs broader considerations of democratic renewal?

Clr. Kroetsch: I do think that plays a role, for sure. Whatever your reason for getting into politics, once you're an elected official, things change pretty drastically. Public life often involves sharing your views in public. Those views may be perceived positively, but also negatively, which can make it difficult to leave public life and transition to private life. I'm sympathetic to this challenge, but this is another reason why I support term limits. If every Councillor knew there was a time limit, they might be forced to plan differently.

 I think it's also important to point out that at the municipal level, in Hamilton anyway, there's no transition program like at other levels of government. Right now, MPPs and MPs who are not reelected are paid a severance and supported to transition back to private life. At the municipal level, you're basically on your own. I think this harsh reality can harden some seasoned politicians. All of this disincentivizes Councillors from moving on and entrenches them in their roles and their identities. With between 35,000 and 40,000 in every ward, there are many other people who could do this work very well. I think it's important for Councillors to help others take on this work, not block them using the incumbent advantage. Everyone would be better off having more voices at the table doing this work. Change can be good, even if it's difficult.

Clr. Pauls: I certainly wouldn’t want to comment on the motivation of other elected officials. Again, residents are empowered to discern for themselves the kind of leadership they prefer. The advantage voters have when scrutinizing any incumbent is the elected official’s tangible track record. The voter’s conscientious analysis of such is vital to the power of one’s own vote and should be sufficient for gauging the calibre of any incumbent.

As we receive more responses, we will publish them. Stay tuned...

The City and The Cybersecurity Update

At The Hamiltonian, we take a measured view of polished media releases—particularly those shaped by strategic messaging and so-called "spin doctoring." While such approaches may have been effective in the past, we believe our readers expect — and deserve — greater transparency, substance, and authenticity.

In a show of candour and post-crisis transparency however, the City of Hamilton has provided the public with a comprehensive breakdown of the February 2024 cyberattack that paralyzed municipal systems and tested the city's digital resilience. At the General Issues Committee meeting on July 30, 2025, four detailed reports laid bare the scale of the breach, the ransom demand — a staggering $18.5 million — and the city’s multi-million-dollar recovery efforts.

The Hamiltonian applauds the city for being forthright. Here is their media release: 

Cybersecurity Update: City of Hamilton provides more incident details, including ransom amount

Hamilton, ON – The City of Hamilton provided an update on the February 25, 2024, cybersecurity incident, including new details on how the sophisticated cybercriminals gained access to City systems and the ransom demand of approximately $18.5 million (CAD).

This information was presented at the July 30, 2025, General Issues Committee Meeting through four reports:

Building Better: Post-Cyber Project Portfolio Update (CM25007)
Cybersecurity Incident Summary (CM25008); including Appendix ‘A’ - Post Cyber Incident Summary by technical advisor CYPFER Canada Inc (CYPFER)
Cybersecurity Costing Update (CM24005(b))
Cybersecurity Resiliency Enhancements (CM25009)

“I understand why Hamiltonians are frustrated - this was a serious and costly breach," said Mayor Andrea