Clr. Collins Responds

Pursuant to a recent article by The Bay Observer, referenced here, we asked Clr. Collins to respond to 6 questions we posed to him. The Clr's response is posted verbatim. Note: As the responses did not strictly follow the numbered questions, we chose to list the 6 questions, followed by the Clr's response.


Questions we posed:


1. The Bay Observer published an article recently (which can be found here http://bayobserver.ca/2012/06/15/waterfront-trust-bookkeeping-raises-eyebrows/, which presents some disturbing assertions with respect to the manner in which the Hamilton Waterfront Trust is being run financially and otherwise. Our first question to you is a general one, which allows you room to say whatever you believe is pertinent, Upon review of this article, what are your observations/response to it? (please note- this general question is understood not to take the place of replies requested to the balance of the questions below)

2. At any time were you or any members of council (to your knowledge) aware of any situation where a board member may have also been providing services for a fee, thereby creating a conflict of interest situation. Additionally, at any time where you or any members of council (to your knowledge) in violation of the code of conduct inadvertently or otherwise with respect to any matter whatsoever pertaining to the Waterfront Trust ? Can you elaborate in your answer.

3. Why were monies approved for the 1.3 million dollar grant to the Hamilton Waterfront Trust's expansion of its Williams Coffee House headquarters, in light of the fact that the construction had already been underway for months? How do you respond to those that suggest that this is indicative of a privileged relationship that is being afforded?


4. Some may wonder if the censuring of the Mayor, is in any way informed by his request for financials from the Waterfront Trust. In other words, what do you say to those who may suggest that the censuring was “payback” for the Mayor raising the issues of finances of the Trust.

5. Do you believe the Trust’s finances would withstand a forensic audit and given the Bay Observer’s article and reaction to it, would you bring forward a motion to conduct such an audit, in light of angst taxpayers may have?

6. A washroom thats price has been inflated by $400,000.00 to allegedly offset a cost overrun. True or untrue? Please explain.

Clr. Collins' response, verbatim:

Thanks for sending to me, and sorry for the slow response. Unfortunately, the story is filled with a number of inaccuracies and generalizations. Be that as it may, here's my response.

It's been a number of years since we designed and developed these projects, however I'm quite certain that any real or perceived conflicts were declared at the Conservation Authority meetings, and would be part of the public record. I'm quite familiar with the Code of Conduct for Council members, and I'm not aware of any violations pre or post adoption by council many years ago.

Your third question pertains to current matters with the Waterfront Trust, and as I'm not a board member, it would be prudent to have the board address this matter. I know from my time on the board, that the expansion of the restuarant and warm up room, including change rooms/washrooms etc were proposed as a future project.

The fourth question is a real red herring. I don't recall reading Bob Bratina's name in the Bay Observer article. The only reference to him might be the part that states "Hamilton City Council continues to strongly support the HWT". As you are probably well aware, Council unanimously supported the HWT last year when they made presentation to Council, and again last week when the City unanimously approved additional funding for more work on Pier 8.

Everyone in the community is aware that Bob Bratina was censured by council for the following reasons:

Whereas, notwithstanding the Mayor's public apology to H.R. staff in December 2011, he has recently stated that the matter of monetary compensation to a member of his staff, was left to the outcome of a review by H.R.; and

Whereas, the Mayor attempted to direct that an investigation regarding the release of information to the media pertaining to a staff member in his office included on the "Sunshine List" be conducted, including a demand that staff provide signed affidavits, without any consultation with, or authorization by Council; and

Whereas, this Council believes these actions fall below the standards of conduct which are expected of a Member of Council.

Therefore Be It Resolved:

Council formally expresses its censure of Mayor Bratina for his conduct in this matter.

As you know, the events surrounding the $30,000 pay increase to the Mayor's staffer lead to a private citizens complaint filed with the City's Integrity Commissioner. As reported in the Hamilton Spectator on June, 9, 2012, in an article entitled "Bratina reprimanded Again over Peggygate", Hamilton's Integrity Commissioner Earl Basse found that Bob had "contravened a clause in Section 13 of the code of conduct — which prohibits councillors from 'maliciously, falsely, negligently or recklessly' hurting the reputations of city employees — when he blamed his chief of staff Peggy Chapman’s $30,000 raise on the city’s human resources staff." To be clear, any suggestion that the aforementioned actions and subsequent investigations and findings have anything to do with the Waterfront Trust is a stretch.

I have complete faith in the work and the ability of the Waterfront Trust, and believe that they continue to do excellent work on Hamilton's waterfront. The article conveniently omits the fact that the Waterfront Trust adopted the City's purchasing policy as its own purchasing policy many years ago. The organization regularly receives quotes or advertises its tenders for services and/or materials and supplies. It has consistently applied these policies to the near 30 projects it has completed over the years, including but not limited to: the construction of the waterfront trail behind the homes on Beach Boulevard, the expansion of the waterfront trail through Confederation Park, the extension of the waterfront trail along the waters edge between Pier 4 and around Pier 8, the construction and operation of the waterfront trolley, the construction and operation of Williams Fresh Cafe, the purchase and operation of the Hamiltonian and Harbour Queen vessels, the redevelopment of the Lakeland Pool and lighthouse complex, the construction of two public art installations including the Rafaga Unleashed sail on Pier 8, the construction and operation of the NHL sized ice rink on Pier 8, the lease, renovation and reopening of restaurants in the former Discovery Centre, the annual fishing derby on Pier 8, etc....

As mentioned, there are many inaccuracies in the article, especially the information related to the beach trail washroom and Lakeland Pool. If memory serves me right, the washroom, sun shelter and storage building for the beach groomer was constructed for under $200,000. Another shelter was constructed in a City park at another location along the beach for another $70,000. A third structure was to be constructed in the vicinity of Van Wagners and Beach Blvd, however the building came in over budget, and the washrooms and other amenities it was to provide were incorporated into the Lakeland building. Again, to correct another inaccuracy, Kemp Construction did not perform any work on the Lakeland facility as we did not have a signed contract with them, as such they were not "subsequently paid $140,000" for work in or around Lakeland facility.

Sorry for the long response, however the article is "raising eyebrows" for different reasons, and I thought it best to provide as much information from memory as possible.

Hope this helps!

Chad 

Your thoughts? 
Note: As per our moderation policy, only respectful comments will be published. This does not mean your comment cannot be spirited or critical- but it must be respectful. If your post does not appear, please reconsider the way you are delivering your message and resubmit it .