Time To Move On But Not Forget Re: The Integrity Complaint
The integrity report from Commissioner Basse was accepted Wednesday’s Council meeting bringing closure to a process that has taken an amazing 178 days. The most often asked question is: “Was it worth it?” Notwithstanding the actual cost to the taxpayer the answer is that like most things in the real world this process produced some positive, neutral and negative results.
Some of the negatives were: The process took a ridiculous amount of time (and probably too many dollars)
to reach a conclusion. Also the report fell far short of expectations because it focused primarily on facts that while correct had absolutely nothing to do with the very specific allegations in the complaint. Another negative was that some are questioning how complete the investigation was since while they had firsthand knowledge they were never interviewed by the commissioner.
Two neutral results were: In the words of Councillor Sam Merulla “now having an independent investigation finding Bob guilty is an endorsement of Council's censure”. I include this as a neutral since we didn’t need an investigator to tell us something that was obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the facts. The other neutral is that I get my money back.
Some of the positives were: The complaint process while flawed did work in the end. Also the integrity by-law has now been amended to include timelines. I believe our city needs a formal complaint protocol and while our process is evolving and still not perfect it is better than the one we had six months ago. I believe another positive is the dialogue surrounding this complaint has resulted in some people being more interested and involved in city issues and politics. More citizen interest and engagement is definitely a positive.
If Mayor Bratina seeks re-election “Was it worth it?” will be decided by the voters at the polls in the fall of 2014.
Now it is time to move on but not forget.
Brian Hatch
Ancaster
I've learned that this took way too long, it will cost way too much money, it could have been handled more efficiently, council contributed to the mess, Bratina should have known better to cause the mess, and, of course.....
ReplyDelete...... we're paying for the mess.
Sorce
Worse still, it shows that this council IS NOT a team. They are the 16 wanabe mayors.
DeleteSorce
An issue that I raised with Teresa is worth a topic status on the blog versus a reply statement.“How come council did not wait to get the results from the IC before acting against the mayor?”. In other words regardless of what the Integrity Commissioner was to determine by his investigation council had already sentenced the Mayor. Does this tell us something? Logically to me would have been to wait for the IC’s report. Does council have any trust in the IC’s role or will they continue to dole out sanction on a whim?
ReplyDeleteDid council in handing out censure against the Mayor prior to the culmination of the investigation by the IC actually prejudiced the investigation? Merrula in his statement on the blog he said " he initiated the censure against Bob ( as he says he did) why did he not wait for the conclusion of the investigation by the Integrity Commissioner?” In this instance you could argue that council's reaction was political. Why is it that the IC bylaw does not address this issue of meting out punishment prior to an investigation be finished in order to draw conclusions. If I would have been Bob's "aide de Camps"I would have been making a lot of noise in the media about this.
"How come council did not wait to get the results from the IC before acting against the mayor?”
DeleteBecause it's independent from any outside/moderating entity. Council is charged with its responsibilities, the IC with its. Given the timeline, I have no problem with what unfolded. I proceed with the notion that Council has sufficient wherewithal and is properly informed to make decisions such as the censure one.
"Did council in handing out censure against the Mayor prior to the culmination of the investigation by the IC actually prejudiced the investigation?"
If it did, then we need to reconsider the validity and functionality of the person executing the IC's responsibilities.
"In this instance you could argue that council's reaction was political."
Everything that unfolds at City Hall is 'political'. This statement should come as no surprise to anyone observing the goings-on with an open mind and objectivity as their guiding principle. Given that this is the reality, if you don't like it, if you have another paradigm in mind for governance...let's hear it.
"Why is it that the IC bylaw does not address this issue of meting out punishment prior to an investigation be finished in order to draw conclusion?"
Um...because they're separate entities? I do not want my Council to be hamstrung by an external process, no matter how badly some wish to view this whole interlude.
Hamilton seems to be chock-a-block with ire these days. I would hope that -at the very least- it gets directed at the most appropriate source. From my vantage point, I'd say that the one 'fixable' element in all this is the IC's processes: a) reduce the amount of time spent on an investigation (this is 2012, not 1992, and there's absolutely no reason for any investigation of this simplistic nature to take as long as this one did...save to buttress the 'complicated' aspect of an investigation), and b) actually have a pivotal element of 'what happened' be investigated, ie Laura Babcock and show.
Regardless of any other opinion I might have about Mayor Bratina or Council or the IC...I know we can and must do better than this.
Everything at city hall is political, is a gross over statement. And where it is political, a gifted politician aligns political will with the greater good. Using political instruments to behave like school children is not leadership. The censure was showboating and I am dissapointed that the newbies (Farr, Johnson and Partridge) were unwilling or perhaps incapable of setting a new tone- failure. (I expect bad behaviour from most of the rest) . On we go with the 16 mayors.
DeleteSorce
There's a simple answer to that Yves. Picture a pie chart. Picture a small slice of that pie- let's say 25%, being the part that represents the mistake Bratina made- which needed to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteNow picture 75% of that pie representing the political interests of the rest of his "council". If they felt so strongly that something had to be done sooner, why did they not call for Basse to step in and give some interim guidance? Because it's much more splashy playing it out in public. I expect that behaviour from council but I think it showed how weak Farr, Partridge and Johnson are.
Sorce
What I mean is that they being the newbies, they could have stood up to the B.S. but chose to be followers.
DeleteSorce
Lord, I wish it were possible for you to have a chat with Councillors Farr, Partridge and Johnson under the 'Liar, Liar' rules, Sorce. (Truth must be spoken.) I suspect that what would unfold would not be to his liking, given how you've chosen to frame your accusation.
DeleteI'd respond to that My SC, but I honestly don't know what you are saying. Can you re-phrase?
DeleteSorce
Oh, and if you have some insights and are speaking on behalf of someone else, do declare that.
DeleteSorce
I agree with the above entries.
ReplyDeleteMayor Bratina is not getting good advice from the one person in his office who may have a conflict of interest with the situation.
He needs to listen to people who would look after HIS best interests