Did the Mayor's Censure Have Anything to Do with HWT?

John Best of The Bay Observer

In a post on The Hamiltonian, former mayor Larry Di Ianni made a suggestion that potentially, a driving factor with respect to The Bay Observer's coverage of the Hamilton Waterfromt Trust issues, is that the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Peggy Chapman, had previously covered the topic in her previous role as a journalist with The Bay Observer. Specifically, Larry said " it has been speculated that because Peggy Chapman of the Mayor’s office worked in the Bay Observer and wrote about this issue prior to her current position, these HWT criticisms are just a continuation of earlier involvement. True or not? Maybe the media and/or the office of the mayor can clarify this. That’s all!”

John Best has responded on The Bay Observer. As the response is anchored to DiIanni's comments on The Hamiltonian, we are posting John's response verbatim below, although we also encourage you to visit his site, The Bay Observer, by clicking here.

Here is John Best's response to DiIanni's comments on The Hamiltonian:

A few weeks ago on the Laircast hosted by Laura Babcock I was asked if the mayor’s office played any role in my articles regarding the Waterfront Trust. The answer then and now is a flat no. Neither the mayor nor anyone in his office has provided me with the information that has been published in the Bay Observer. The fact is I deliberately avoided asking them for information, even though I was entitled to ask, because of the very fact that Peggy Chapman had worked for me in the past. I saw how vicious and bullying this council can be in the wake of the mayors questioning of HWT finances last fall. First they orchestrated a humiliating standing recorded vote even though most of council didn’t have a clue what they were voting on, but knew it was better not to anger the HWT supporters on council. I also believe the censuring this spring of the mayor had more to do with HWT politics than it did about a raise given to his assistant. But the point is, I didn’t ask for their assistance, for the reasons above, because frankly, I didn’t need it; and they didn’t offer any.

Notwithstanding the Laircast interview, Larry Di Ianni writing in the Hamiltonian said, “it has been speculated that because Peggy Chapman of the Mayor’s office worked in the Bay Observer and wrote about this issue prior to her current position, these HWT criticisms are just a continuation of earlier involvement. True or not? Maybe the media and/or the office of the mayor can clarify this. That’s all!”

She did write about it—under my editorial direction—not because she had any axe to grind with the HWT.

So to the other point raised by my friend– what is the Bay Observer’s agenda? Quite simply it is to tell the truth about an organization that is but a symptom of a much bigger problem at City Hall, one that previous mayors have not tackled publicly but are fully aware of;–the control of council and staff by a handful of councillors. Trying to put a stop to this erosion of democracy and good governance is what cost former city manager Doug Lychak his job. He tried to weed out staffers who he felt were “too political.” He made enemies by doing so. We didn’t vote to have our council and civil service run by a small cabal of councillors (one of whom recently pronounced the word as if it were CABLE as in CABLE 14, but I digress). All you have to do is look at who the staunchest supporters of the HWT are and I rest my case. Taken to the worst extreme, certain staff of the city risk becoming part of a taxpayer –supported re-election mechanism for incumbents. That’s what the Bay Observer articles are about. Given the personalities that we the voters have placed on our council we need fewer agencies, boards and commissions with no accountability—not more.

Your thoughts? Is it possible that there is a connection between the censuring of the Mayor and his questioning of HWT finances-  as John  Best believes?