It was learned that the city was named as co-defendants in the claim, and that the Hamilton Waterfront Trust did not have sufficient liability insurance to handle the claim. It remains unclear if the Hamilton Waterfront Trust had any liability insurance at all.
It also became clear that the costs to the taxpayer of this lawsuit settlement did not only include the settlement amount itself, but also included several years of fees for legal representation from an outside law firm that the city hired to represent them and presumably the Hamilton Waterfront Trust. The legal fee costs have not yet been released, which raises an issue onto itself, as the Hamilton taxpapers footed the bill. As one of our reader's pointed out, the taxpayer should be entitled to know how much was paid.
The other reasonable question that falls out of this, is whether the Hamilton Waterfront Trust has now taken measures to ensure this does not happen again, which, if left unchecked, would result in potential future claims being laid at the feet of taxpayers. With trolley rides, skating rinks and a host of other offerings that drives people to the waterfront, one would think that insurance or measures to handle claims, would be in place.
The Hamiltonian has asked the following question of HWT Executive Director Werner Plessl, and has copied the question to Clrs. Tom Jackson and Jason Farr who are the council board members of the Hamilton Waterfront Trust.
We will post the reply as soon as it is received.
We are writing to you with respect to the Hamilton Waterfront Trust’s insurance coverage. Recently, with reference to a bike accident that resulted in a claim that has since been settled, Roberto Rossini wrote “The Waterfront Trust did not have liability insurance in place for this incident. As a result, the City had to pay the claim as a co-defendant named in the law suit and then recover the funds from the HWT. “
Can you advise as to whether the Hamilton Waterfront Trust has since purchased adequate insurance,and if so, when the insurance protection took effect? Can you also assure Hamiltonians that there are measures in place to ensure that any service operating out of the HWT, is properly insured, whether the Trust provides the service directly, or allows the service to be provided.
Thank-you Mr. Plessel. We look forward to your reply and appreciate your reference that information pertaining to the HWT is readily available and need only be requested.
So, why are we finding out about this settlement in bits and pieces. Why wasn't the complete answer given at GIC? My trust in this council is at an all time low. My trust of the media is even lower.
ReplyDeleteDEFINITIONS:
ReplyDeleteIn this policy, the terms “accountability” and “transparency” shall have the following meanings:
Accountability – The principle that the City will be responsible to its constituents for the decisions it makes and policies it implements, as well as its actions or inactions.
Constituents – The individuals who reside in the City of Hamilton and businesses, institutions, and other entities which have premises in the City of Hamilton.
Transparency – The principle that the City’s decision making process should be open and accessible to the public. Also, that the City ought to actively encourage and foster public access to and participation in its decision making process.
The Hamilton Waterfront Trust only functions because the City of Hamilton allowed it to. Their money is our money. Their decisions obviously impact our pocketbooks. So, they need to start answering questions from their bosses- the Hamilton Taxpayers
ReplyDeleteI don't understands this. The questions that are being asked are not "whonunnit" questions. They aren't even aggressive. They are just common sense questions. You didn't have enough insurance or any at all, and we ended up holding the bag. Do you now have protection so it does not happen again? What part of that is difficult to answer? Unless you totally dropped the ball...
ReplyDeleteSorce
Does the Hamiltonian know the details of the actual biking accident at the waterfront without identifing the indiviual involved?
ReplyDeleteStill no answer to this? Isn't this something you should know off the top of your head?
ReplyDeleteSevern
Looks like the Trust is in a state of "denial"
ReplyDeleteA recent Spectator Article
ReplyDeleteCity gets mixed results in annual audit of FOI response
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/806650--city-gets-mixed-results-in-annual-audit-of-foi-response
I guess you'd have to say that the standards are pretty low indeed!
This silence on the part of HWT further supports the need for a forensic audit. It also supports Mr. Santucci and Mr. Bonham's delegation intentions. HWT cannot be on its own little island and our council and city staff cannot make like Hamiltonians do not matter. We are the ones that you serve. We are entitled to answers to questions so basic as to whether you have secured insurance so that we are not again paying through our teeth for blunders. I no longer subsribe to "acredited media", because I question their lack of focus on the real issues.
ReplyDeleteSorce
As the public questioning of Hamilton Waterfront Trust (HWT) unfolds, it is important to realize that certain City staff are as much a victim as the tax payers are, at the hands of some Councillors.
ReplyDeleteWhile all those Councillors and Retd. Mayors who are clearly responsible for the present/past state of affairs at the HWT do need to have their feet held to fire for their actions or lack thereof, and their ensuing silence --- it is important to recognize that it was a senior City Staff that was publicly compromised by the coordinated actions of the four Councillors at the Sept 6th GIC meeting.
If these Councillors were truly good at doing their jobs, they would have had the courage to answers the questions posed by Mr. Santucci themselves, and would not have had the need to have a senior staff present for that meeting - specifically to validate what they had already chosen to shamelessly conclude much before the meeting.
As more details emerge, it is crucial from here on, that all the questions regarding HWT are very sharply focused on the councillors, the current and past HWT staff/Board members, the two ex-mayors -- including the present Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath -- as they are the ones who overlooked/created or indulged in the conditions for the systemic rot at the HWT to occur in the first place.
Some City Staff are in danger of becoming the convenient scapegoats in the aftermath of this questioning, and it is for all Hamiltonians to recognize that and prevent it from happening.
The HWT staff is not our City staff - they are an independent arms-length organization who have already publicly proclaimed that: "the City of Hamilton has no influence, control, or jurisdiction over HWT"
This public questioning needs to focus sharply on those that empowered the HWT to believe that the above statement was true, and the HWT staff and Board members who acted on such a dubious belief.
Mahesh P. Butani