First let me clarify exactly what was voted on.The committee was discussing the new agreement for the Integrity Commissioner (IC) which is up for renewal. We voted to send six additional items to the city legal department for comment and recommendation on each item as an amendment to be included in the IC agreement renewal. The report will come back to the next A&T committee for further discussion with each item to be voted on.
One of the items was for the IC complaint application to include a clause, that the complainant agree to not speak to the media for the duration of the IC investigation. All information would be public once the IC had ruled on the investigation. I really don't see a problem with that.
Personally, I like to have all the facts before making decisions on whether or not to include that clause. Just because it could be a political hot potato is no reason to shy away from or disregard it. The role of a councillor is to receive all the facts, use sound judgment in deliberating and own the decision you make, which yes, sometimes requires a very thick skin. You don't go into politics unless you can take the heat. I believe strongly in the role of the IC and that there needs to be a fair, level playing field for both parties. I'll wait to see what the city legal department has to say.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond.
with kind regards,
City Councillor Judi Partridge
Hamilton Ward 15 Flamborough
Thanks to Clr. Partridge for engaging with Hamiltonians on The Hamiltonian
I am all for the fair and equal treatment of council members against frivilous complaints but there are too many loopholes in this rule. For instance what happens if the information is released by a 3rd party to the media? What is to stop the release of a complaint by the councillor in question to the media in order to halt the complaint? Aside from being totally unenforceable, council does not have the right to stop people from talking. If a gag order is desired, then it should be a judicial order, not an order of a bureaucrat.
ReplyDelete"All information would be public once the IC had ruled on the investigation."
ReplyDeleteThis is a big problem when investigations take hundreds of days, with no updates in between.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs this the same legal dept that missed a deadline or two themselves? ...sigh...
ReplyDeleteMy own viewpoint is simple.
The person leveling the complaint can do as they see fit - there should be no secretive status for same. That's free speech. That's what makes us all equal.
And as Judi said - if you can't stand the heat....
And by the way, I also think that the name of that committee should be changed and the title "Transparency" be dropped from same - as what they propose is anything but transparent!
:-(
Jim
Lets face facts the vast majoritiy of councillors are only interested in themselves, period.
ReplyDeleteThat's why things are the way they are in Hamilton and unfortunately I've got a feeling things are not going to change anytime soon.
"All information would be public once the IC had ruled on the investigation. I really don't see a problem with that."
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that she does not see a problem with that. Ever hear of the right to free speech enshrined in C A N A D A?
I cannot agree with Ms. Patridge on this. You can't compromise free speech for the sake of reputations. What's next? Ban negative comments in the press?
ReplyDeleteRethink this one. It really is a non starter in a progressive society.
Respectfully
Severn
With all due respect Councillor Partridge, waiting for a legal opinion on this motion reinforces the very point many of us are making. Free speech is the goal, not 2nd prize if the legal department deems the motion to be unenforceable.
ReplyDeleteWhy ask for a legal opinion at all? Why not see the merits of putting free speech above the potential for discomfort on the part of the elected official that might result (or might not) from the handful of complaints received each year? That's hardly a big risk.
The next thing you know, they'll put forward a motion to outlaw political posters in the window of shops on James North. :)
I just noticed that just before you post comments on The Hamiltonian it,. says "This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for."
ReplyDeleteThat says it all. Many people have fought and gave their lives so that we could have freedom of speech. Don't cheapen that with self interest.
This is not a "political hot patato". It is a fundamental right we have.
ReplyDeleteI think if councilors started looking at the world from an outside/in perspective, instead of an inside/out, they might realize just how wrong they are on this issue.
I believe that every Councillor that votes for this change should be ready to take the heat when the next election comes around. This would be a amazing tool to use against every Councillor when campaigning. They have absolutely no right to remove free speech from the residents of Hamilton.. What will they next do, create a by-law that says we can not run against the Councillors and they are in for life until they decide not to run.
ReplyDeleteNo disrespect, but I think council for the most part are a bunch of average people in a job that needs superior intelligence. I am not surprised when they cling to this degree of nonsense. It says something about what they are truly interested in. That is, being reelected and being career politicians. We do need term limits.
ReplyDeleteWhat is missing from the discussion is"Will council amend the bylaw to actually not make public any investigation by the IC until completed? " In other words no mention at all in regards to publish that a complaint has been made against a certain councilor are to be made. What I recall Ferguson to say that when a complaint was made against him it was front page news and when Ferguson was cleared of wrongdoing it did not make the same newsflash.
ReplyDelete