Statecraft: Accountability: It Starts at the Top

"Accountability"—a word often invoked in public discourse, yet too often misunderstood, misapplied, or, worse, avoided. It can inspire confidence, but it can also provoke fear. In governance, however, accountability is essential—not as a punitive tool, but as a guiding principle for performance, integrity, and service to the public good.

Recently, The Hamiltonian learned that the City of Hamilton's City Manager—the chief administrative officer who reports directly to City Council and the Mayor—does not have a formal performance contract or agreement in place. This is surprising, and frankly, concerning.

For those unfamiliar, a performance contract/agreement is a structured agreement that outlines clear performance expectations, measurable deliverables, timelines, and responsibilities between the employer and the employee—in this case, between Council and its most senior employee. Such agreements are not just bureaucratic instruments; they are cornerstones of organizational accountability and clarity.

These contracts typically contain tangible goals. For example, one performance target might be a 30% reduction in homelessness over a defined period. Another might be the implementation of customer service standards that residents can see and feel in their day-to-day interactions with City Hall. Importantly, these expectations are neither so vague as to be meaningless, nor so aspirational as to be unattainable. They must be grounded, measurable, and appropriately ambitious.

Why, then, is this not the case in Hamilton? Or, at least, not formally encased in performance contracts/agreements that start at the top and  replicate throughout the organization? 

From our interview with the City Manager, we were told there is no formal performance agreement in place. We were also not provided with a clear answer as to how many city staff currently have up-to-date performance contracts/agreements that are evaluated regularly.

Some may resist this approach out of fear—fear of falling short, fear of internal pushback, fear of consequences. But this fear is often rooted in a misunderstanding of what performance accountability is meant to achieve. It’s not about scapegoating or punishment. Rather, it’s about learning, adjusting, and improving.

Consider a hypothetical: if a Council-set goal to improve a key service area by 40% is only pacing at 5% instead of the projected 20% at mid-point, the response should not be blame. It should be collaboration: what’s working? What’s not? How do we course correct? The goal is organizational excellence, not bureaucratic shame.

True accountability provides a safe space for performance dialogue—where goals are transparent, progress is reviewed regularly, and pride is taken in continual growth and community-focused outcomes.

The fact that such a framework does not appear to be in place (at least, not in a formal and , in our view not in an adequately regimented sense) at the City of Hamilton, —an organization responsible for millions in public funds and services—should give every Hamiltonian pause.

To be clear: we are not claiming the City lacks goals. But when those goals are not sufficiently enshrined in formal, measurable performance agreements, they risk becoming aspirational slogans rather than operational standards.

We respectfully submit the following:

1. That the Mayor and Council negotiate a formal performance contract with the City Manager—one that includes clear, measurable, ambitious targets aligned with the priorities of Hamiltonians.

2. That this approach be replicated across the senior leadership of City administration, creating a culture of transparency and measurable service to the public.

Hamiltonians deserve a municipal government that leads by example—starting at the top. Accountability, properly understood and courageously embraced, is the first step.

The Hamiltonian

Photo by pulkit jain on Unsplash