In a recent article published by Mahesh P. Butani (found here http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hamilton-waterfront-trust-the-missing-years ), Mr. Butani states that during your mayoral term, and specifically in the years 04, 05 and 06, the Hamilton Waterfront Trust failed to provide at least three financial statements that ought to have been submitted and discussed at committee and council. In light of this Mr. Butani wonders if you had made any documented request for these financials during your term. Butani further submits that Mayor Eisenberger received the 2002-2007 financials from the Hamilton Waterfront Trust, nearly two years following your mayoral term.
Butani goes on to write “Hence in all probability mayor DiIanni would never have been even aware of HWT’s finances - in spite of the fact that the largest percentage of HWT total expenses in its eleven years appear to have been incurred during DiIanni's mayoral term. This implies that for the entire duration of DiIanni's mayoral term 2004/05/06, there would have been no mayoral or council oversight/scrutiny of HWT's finances or purchasing / procurement.”
We would suggest that you read Mr. Butani’s article in full, which is found here http://metrohamilton.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hamilton-waterfront-trust-the-missing-years
Our questions are:
1. How do you respond to Mr. Butani’s suggestion that during your mayoral term, there appears to have been insufficient attention to the financials of The Hamilton Waterfront Trust and their failure to report?
2. Did you make any requests for these financials and if so, what was the result of that? If not, why not?
3. Did you find it acceptable that these financials were not submitted during your term. If not, what actions did you take to address this?
Mr. DiIanni responded as follows:
As a general principle let me tell you that I was aware that the Waterfront Trust was flush with cash during my tenure, having received over $5M, I believe, from the Feds. I knew that we had several members of council on the Trust who along with citizen members were entrusted with direct oversight of the body and its programs; and because I visited the waterfront weekly (at least) and talked to the principals I knew the work that was being done at Williams, the trails and the boat. I supported this work and still do. I don't recall any protocol to have the Trust report to Council during Mayor Wade's term or mine. The Conservation Authority with an independent Board doesn't report to Council either and it receives money directly from the city. Perhaps the Trust should have reported, but it didn't and no one brought it up, to my recollection. I do recall that Councillor Ferguson took an interest in the Trust's work and asked some questions of its members and again to my knowledge that's where it stopped.
I would argue that any critic of the operations of the Trust take it up with Council and if they do ask questions, this time, they might stay to listen to the answers. Or, perhaps they might attend the meetings of the Board of the Trust. I am sure they would be welcome to do so.
Keep up the good work Hamiltonian. This is a study in being railroaded. Love this line "Perhaps the Trust should have reported, but it didn't and no one brought it up, to my recollection"
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone knows the meaning of accountability.
According to the Deed Of Trust that established the Waterfront Trust in November of 2000, the reporting obligations are clearly defined.
DeleteSection 8 part(o)states; At the end of each fiscal year of the Trust the Trustees shall prepare and submit to each of the City and the Commissioners an annual report which shall include audited financial statements and any other statements that the City or the Commissioners may require.
Come on Gary. Larry was having coffee on the waterfront weekly, according to him. That makes the deed of trust null and void lol
DeleteMr. Sarc
Larry DiIanni said
ReplyDelete"I would argue that any critic of the operations of the Trust take it up with Council and if they do ask questions, this time, they might stay to listen to the answers. Or, perhaps they might attend the meetings of the Board of the Trust. I am sure they would be welcome to do so."
It is a sad state of affairs when even an ex-mayor is disrespectful of two citizen taxpayers taking four hours out of their working day from very demanding small businesses (while mostly everyone else was present on the taxpayer funded public payroll)to ask questions of their elected officials. As to the answers or non answers by City Council and the Waterfront Trust, they are recorded for posterity on the video record of September 6, to be reviewed over and over again as we have done. This review has resulted in more questions that will likely result in more non answers.
Gary Santucci
I think the video speaks for itself. It was a terrible display of just how morally and leadership bankrupt this council is. For DiIanni to infer that if one stayed to hear the answers (although I, for one watched the whole thing on video- just as good), that somehow all would be well, is ridiculous. This sort of diversion tactic has been used by others on council and is a cheap ploy. Looks like DiIanni is a remnant of the current culture that must be ousted.
DeleteSorce
I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for DiIanni. Thanks for reminding me Larry. Do us all a favour and be content as a one-term mayor and never run again.
ReplyDeleteAt least Bratina had the guts to ask, until he got "censured".
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the vast majority of Hamiltonians not voting, or voting based on obligation rather than good information, is a big problem. What remains is the minority of people who DO pay attention to the issues and are engaged. And people at The Hamiltonian, Raise the Hammer etc. who are providing a good service to those who care to engage.
ReplyDeleteSo those of us who are engaged need to face the fact that we can't get people out to vote- at least, not in the near term and maybe not significantly, ever. That's being realistic.
So, instead, the people who are engaged need to step up and act for the people who are not. The key to getting our city back on a good road, is to get rid of the rot and toxic environment that has contaminated city politics. Just watch the aforementioned video and you will understand the need to replace the current council with a brand new one. You have time to get the word out and encourage the engaged to take action and vote out this council. Just watch the tape and the degree of disrespect to the taxpayer. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Term Limits Now
These constant references to the fact that Mr. Santucci did not stay to listen to Werner "I'm an engineer, not an accountant" Plessl's presentation are ridiculous. Councillors made it clear--particularly Councillors Merulla and Farr--that Mr. Santucci had received ALL the answers before Mr. Plessl even opened his mouth! Mr. Santucci's questions were "off the table," according to Merulla, and Farr, acting as schoolyard bully, tried to intimidate Mr. Santucci by suggesting that (1) he was alleging fraud, a very serious charge, and (2) he can't think for himself--and neither can anyone who reads The Bay Observer or The Hamiltonian and thinks that there just might be something regarding the financial management of the trust that taxpayers need to know. Mr. Plessl's presentation was irrelevant because a member of City staff was on hand (and apparently on board) to sddress the financial issues raised by Mr. Santucci regarding this "arms' length" body; for whatever reason, these councillors were not about to have Mr. Plessl, executive director of the trust, answer these questions himself. The GIC made it clear that, as far as they were concerned, everything was done and dusted. Mr. Plessl's lovely PowerPoint presentation had nothing to do with the financial issues being raised--just as the popularity of the waterfront development with councillors' constituents has nothing to do with them either. Listening to Mr. Plessl's tortured responses to councillors' questions would have been a waste of anyone's time. On September 6, all councillors succeeded in doing was raising more questions as to what is going on with the waterfront trust. And may the questions continue.
ReplyDeleteTo: Retd Mayor Larry DiIanni,
ReplyDeleteThank you for confirming this:
"I don't recall any protocol to have the Trust report to Council during Mayor Wade's term or mine.
"The Conservation Authority with an independent Board doesn't report to Council either and it receives money directly from the city. Perhaps the Trust should have reported, but it didn't and no one brought it up, to my recollection."
Your above response does confirm that approx. $10.71 Million which was spent by HWT between 2001 and 2006 (per the five expense items listed in spreadsheet attached to article) -- was indeed spent with no mayoral/councillor oversight.
It is also now very clear that you did not make any efforts to request for HWT's financials during your term.
However, what is not clear from your response is whether you find such mayoral/council lapse - acceptable, or not? Further clarification from you on this would be greatly appreciated.
We also look forward to a response from Retd. Mayor Eisenberger to understand as to what made him concerned enough to ask HWT for its financials in 2008.
Thank You
Mahesh P. Butani
Who the heck cares what DiIanni has to say.
ReplyDeleteAs usual Larry tells it like it is while the whiners don't like it and never will. Tough! Run Larry. You are still the best the city ever produced!
ReplyDeleteYeah run Larry.Better still use the scooter. Run as fast as you can away from Hamilton. Your answer tells me that you will never change. Another non answer.
DeleteRemember the movie "the Best Little Whore House in Texas?"There was a scene where the politician was asked a direct question where upon he burst into a song and dance about" doing a little side step." Sometimes you have to wonder if politicians model themselves after this wonderful role model. Mr. DiIanni answer of maybe? not sure? makes me wonder if his office was run this way - maybe we should be thankful that ship has sailed.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I noticed that was straight forward in this interview was that the questions Mr. DiIanni was being asked were hitting a direct nerve.
Larry DiIanni said:
ReplyDelete"I would argue that any critic of the operations of the Trust take it up with Council and if they do ask questions, this time, they might stay to listen to the answers. Or, perhaps they might attend the meetings of the Board of the Trust. I am sure they would be welcome to do so."
Assuming the term "any critic" is referring to myself and Mr. Santucci, the two members of the delegation under discussion, I'm a little distressed. I'm distressed that Mr. DiIanni should elect to overlook the many empty chairs of councillors who vacated the room during Mr. Plessl's presentation and that he should choose to focus on our empty seats up in the public gallery. As to waiting for further answers. I felt we'd been pretty well told off by councillors whom, I felt, were given considerable leeway by the chair of that committee to deliver what approximated a peremptory dressing down. I was ready at any moment for Gary and me to be lashed over cannons and have the shirts torn from our backs.
My impression was that in accordance with due procedure, we had been given explicit, enumerated answers by committee, or at least such answers as the city could cobble together. I understand it would have been a lot of pressure for the city, considering a wait of five years to get the information you need for your answers. At a time like that there's nothing more valuable to a respondent than friendly accounting and legal professionals, preferably flexible, adaptable individuals who are comfortable moving unscathed, to date, through excruciatingly slim ethical gaps.
On the brighter side, the accounting record, or such of it as is not in someone's forgotten memory of a conversation, would suggest that if the Waterfront Trust wanted members of the public like myself and Mr. Santucci to be accountable to them and present at their presentations they could simply offer to put us on the payroll. Apparently there would be no need for city approval for 5 years and then who'd care. But then, as some councillors demonstrated, they weren't paid enough to sit through the Waterfront presentation. And that, as noted, has been a point of selective silence for the self-anointed attendance monitors.
Watching the real-time streaming video of Mr. Plessl's presentation, (welcome to the digital age Mr. DiIanni) I was amazed at the single line item of 1.9 millions of dollars, no detail, no description. The thud of silence after a question on this item was so dramatic. Couldn't we at least have had a Mohawk College work placement summer student work up a breaking-out of two sub-items "materials and labour". Maybe just to save City of Hamilton face at the A.M.O. But no. Nothing. One line.
It's a great lesson for city staff and councillors. If you have a source of qualified information upon which accounting and human resources decisions are intended to be based, maybe you should attend the class. The lesson's not over yet. Turn now to page...