Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Pic of the Moment
Tim Simmons, Chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (left), and Terry Cooke, President of the Hamilton Community Foundation (middle), look on as Mayor Bob Bratina compliments the metamorphosis of "Hamilton Partners in Nutrition" into "Hamilton Tastebuds". For more about some of the people behind this remarkable program that provides a daily nutritious breakfast to 23,000 children in Hamilton schools, see this weekend's Food for Thought column.
Too Many Men on the Ice?
It seems that Clr. Terry Whitehead's temporary suspension from the Police Services Board pending an investigation into his conduct as a board member, may have greater impacts than initially thought. The Spec is reporting that the province has deemed that an attempt to temporarily replace Clr. Whitehead's presence with Clr. Ferguson, is unlawful.
The board's Chair, Nancy DiGregorio stated that the province deemed the temporary appointment unlawful, as it adds a person to a board whose maximum membership is not to exceed seven. Opponents argue that as Whitehead is suspended for the moment, he is in effect, a non participant.
Given that Clr. Morelli, also a board member, is on sick leave, council representation on the Police Services Board is weakened. The Mayor observed that there are many times where the board has been short of a full compliment and caused no concern.
See the Spec's write up here, or purchase today's print copy.
The board's Chair, Nancy DiGregorio stated that the province deemed the temporary appointment unlawful, as it adds a person to a board whose maximum membership is not to exceed seven. Opponents argue that as Whitehead is suspended for the moment, he is in effect, a non participant.
Given that Clr. Morelli, also a board member, is on sick leave, council representation on the Police Services Board is weakened. The Mayor observed that there are many times where the board has been short of a full compliment and caused no concern.
See the Spec's write up here, or purchase today's print copy.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Merit vs. Block Mentality
In a recent write up (see it here) by Spectator Columnist Andrew Dreschel, in making the argument that council and Chief DeCaire ought to find a way to mend their differences, Dreschel also describes what appears to be an odd rationale where commentary of the make-up of the Police Services Board is concerned.
Clr. Sam Merulla has been an advocate of petitioning the province to allow council to have control over the police budget by removing it from the Police Services Board and assigning it to council. Clr. Clark argued that council has control of the budget by virtue of having a 4-3 presence on the Police Services Board.
Dreschel points out however that during the budget discussions for example, Mayor Bratina who represented one of those four council votes, routinely voted with the Chief, thereby not securing council control.
In his article, Andrew writes "Throughout the debate, Bratina, a member of the police board, routinely sided with De Caire and the civilian members. Unfortunately, no councillor saw fit to pull that thorn during Wednesday's debate. It's important because it's a crucial counter to the argument made by Clark and Robert Pasuta that council already enjoys a controlling voice on the police board."
Clark said ""We still have control — 4-3,"
In our view, perhaps the fly in the anointment is that the Police Services Board's structure does not require any member to vote a certain way on any particular issue. They are assumed to be free thinkers. Creating an expectation, or buying into an expectation that any member would vote, or be required/expected to vote in a certain way , would serve to undermine the efficacy of the one free vote per person system.
Clr. Sam Merulla has been an advocate of petitioning the province to allow council to have control over the police budget by removing it from the Police Services Board and assigning it to council. Clr. Clark argued that council has control of the budget by virtue of having a 4-3 presence on the Police Services Board.
Dreschel points out however that during the budget discussions for example, Mayor Bratina who represented one of those four council votes, routinely voted with the Chief, thereby not securing council control.
In his article, Andrew writes "Throughout the debate, Bratina, a member of the police board, routinely sided with De Caire and the civilian members. Unfortunately, no councillor saw fit to pull that thorn during Wednesday's debate. It's important because it's a crucial counter to the argument made by Clark and Robert Pasuta that council already enjoys a controlling voice on the police board."
Clark said ""We still have control — 4-3,"
In our view, perhaps the fly in the anointment is that the Police Services Board's structure does not require any member to vote a certain way on any particular issue. They are assumed to be free thinkers. Creating an expectation, or buying into an expectation that any member would vote, or be required/expected to vote in a certain way , would serve to undermine the efficacy of the one free vote per person system.
Mayor Bratina appears to have voted with what he thought to be right and, in the case of the police budget, his view happened to be outside of what some on council would have obviously expected. In the context of the Mayor casting his vote based on meritorious arguments from the Chief that satisfied him, some might call that leadership. The result was a democratic one.
The push toward block vote mentality, is one more reason why governance of the police budget should be left exactly as it is.
The Hamiltonian
Mayor Bratina- Cashing In
Mayor Bratina landed a part in the documentary “My Father and the Man In Black,”, which is the story of Saul Holiff, who worked closely with Johnny Cash and had a rather volatile relationship with him. The Mayor landed a part as a news anchor. For more information about the documentary its trailer and the mayor's role, see his blog by clicking here.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
A Striking Exhibit
This striking picture is but one of many that our very own photographer at large and music reviewer, Angelo Noto Campanella will have on display as his collection of lightning shots that he has taken over the course of 15 years, are featured this Friday during Artcrawl at Homegrown Hamilton on KingWilliam street. The exhibit is entitled "Lightening Strikes the Hammer" If you are around, stop in and say hello to Ange.
Keeping Safe Redux
In light of this recent direction (click here), we thought we would republish our opinion, which can be seen by clicking here.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Hamilton City Council Unplugged
Our readers may recall that Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin took city council to task concerning the number of closed door, in camera meetings Hamilton City Council was holding. On the heels of Mr. Marin's observations, the idea of recording all in camera meetings was brought forward.
Such an idea would see to it that any closed door meetings are recorded so that they may be reviewed in the future if need be.
But, as reported today in The Spec (see story here or purchase today's print version), members of the Governance Committee quashed the idea. At the heart of the matter seems to be Clr. Jackson's assertion that city councillors do not have immunity like Members of Parliament and Members of Provincial Parliament. If Clr. Jackson is correct, it may mean that anything said in closed door meetings, if accessible, can form the basis of a lawsuit. Jackson further expressed that he can be quite forceful in closed door meetings and shudders at the thought of a Freedom of Information request revealing what was said.
The elephant in the room seems to be that council is bound by its Code of Conduct, which presumably would ensure that behavior by councillors meets a certain standard behind closed doors or otherwise. There are also exceptions to Freedom of Information access requests, designed to ensure that a body does not unduly reveal information that would be deemed inappropriate, under various exception heads defined under freedom of information legislation.
Do you agree that closed door meetings should not be recorded and do you buy Clr. Jackson's rationale, or do you think this is a step backwards in the spirit of transparency and accountability?
Such an idea would see to it that any closed door meetings are recorded so that they may be reviewed in the future if need be.
But, as reported today in The Spec (see story here or purchase today's print version), members of the Governance Committee quashed the idea. At the heart of the matter seems to be Clr. Jackson's assertion that city councillors do not have immunity like Members of Parliament and Members of Provincial Parliament. If Clr. Jackson is correct, it may mean that anything said in closed door meetings, if accessible, can form the basis of a lawsuit. Jackson further expressed that he can be quite forceful in closed door meetings and shudders at the thought of a Freedom of Information request revealing what was said.
The elephant in the room seems to be that council is bound by its Code of Conduct, which presumably would ensure that behavior by councillors meets a certain standard behind closed doors or otherwise. There are also exceptions to Freedom of Information access requests, designed to ensure that a body does not unduly reveal information that would be deemed inappropriate, under various exception heads defined under freedom of information legislation.
Do you agree that closed door meetings should not be recorded and do you buy Clr. Jackson's rationale, or do you think this is a step backwards in the spirit of transparency and accountability?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Media Release- Locke Street Farmers Market Opening June 15
Please click here to see this media release.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


