With Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls

Enjoy our chat with Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls. 

 1. Now in your second term as Ward 7 City Councillor, you’ve had the opportunity to collaborate with both veteran councillors and newly elected colleagues. What valuable lessons have you taken from more seasoned members of council? Conversely, what qualities or approaches do you believe distinguish your leadership style and give you a unique advantage in navigating complex issues and delivering results?

What I learned most from the first term was to listen carefully regarding the history of lessons learned from previous councils. What Councillor Tom Jackson has taught me, for example, from his 34 years in council, has been immeasurably valuable.  To know history well helps us make better decisions in the future.

 

I would say my leadership style is one of servitude. Leaders aren’t meant to feel important - they’re meant to make the people they serve feel important. The privilege my ward has granted me as their councillor to represent them is one I try to reciprocate by being accessible, being willing to listen to their concerns and a wide variety of conversations and being willing to meet with people in-person or discuss matters with them by phone, in real-time. 

 

I wear my heart on my sleeve. What you see is what you get. I’m a real hugger too, so watch out if I see you out and about! I still love going door to door to meet and chat with people and get such a charge from talking to residents as we collectively work to find solutions to the things my constituents care about most. These conversations are the basis for motions I present and support in council. They are the distillation of complex issues and help us seek common ground, to find compromises and hopefully solutions that work, even if these aren’t perfect.

 

2. Among the many challenges you’ve faced during your tenure, which ward-specific or citywide issue has proven the most difficult to tackle? How have you approached it, and what outcomes are you hoping to achieve?

 

The homeless encampment issue was very difficult to navigate, not just for me, but for everyone at council. Everyone sitting around the council horseshoe cares deeply about Hamilton’s homeless. But, with 15 councillors and one mayor, there are bound to be very diverse points of view and approaches to resolving this kind of complicated human challenge.  

 

From the start, I opposed encampments – especially in parks. Many Ward 7 residents opposed them too. Once encampments were approved by council (though not by my vote), we just had to see what unfolded and let that experiment run its course.  

 

Now we’re focused on trying to provide a better model of housing – proper, more long-term housing. Yet, we are still

Media Release

City of Hamilton’s Office of the Auditor General completes audit of City Transfer Payments and Grants

HAMILTON, ON – The City of Hamilton’s Office of the Auditor General (OAG) performed an audit of City transfer payments and grants as part of the Council-approved OAG General Work Plan 2023-2026.

The City of Hamilton is accountable for the effective governance, management and administration of transfer payments and grants. It requires the City to establish a process to ensure transfer payments achieve the intended outcome. Therefore, the City must ensure grant programs are administered carefully and value of the investment is realized.

The audit found that the City has been operating without a centralized governance structure and corporate polices. Historically, transfer payment administration and management has been left to the individual program and service areas.

The OAG recommends that the implementation of a unified transfer payment administration, accompanied by further policy and planning to oversee transfer payment and grant programs, will result in increased transparency and accountability to the public.

The OAG made recommendations to management for improvement; all six were agreed upon.
A summary of the recommendations to management:Establish governance structure and policies for managing transfer payments
Publish annual reports on transfer payment performance
Review how transfer payments are recorded in the financial system to improve data extraction and reporting
Conduct a risk assessment for all transfer payment and grants recipients
Monitor and evaluate recipient performance in relation to recipients’ risk profile
Perform regular evaluations of transfer payment and grant programs based on risk

“Our audit found that the City of Hamilton needs stronger governance, oversight and transparency for transfer payments and grants. Through clear, achievable recommendations that we have made to management, the goal is to close policy gaps,” said Charles Brown, Auditor General. “We will closely monitor the City’s progress to ensure these gaps are bridged and taxpayer dollars are properly protected.”

Quick Facts:The audit's objective was to assess whether the City has adequate systems and controls in place to support effective and accountable delivery of its transfer payments and grant programs
This audit supports Priority 3, Responsiveness & Transparency of the Council Strategic Priorities.


Additional Resources:Transfer Payments and Grants Audit (Report and Presentation)
Office of the Auditor General webpage
Office of the Auditor General Work Plan 2023 to 2026

Spin Score

The Hamiltonian has begun using a dispassionate service to analyse and assess the presence of spin doctoring in responses to questions. We use this service occasionally and particularly when the spin score exceeds 5 out 10.  This service is employed not to disparage answers we receive, but to provide a helpful lens for those who seek clarity. We also hope that those providing answers will be on the same page with us, and strive to provide clarity. We hope that this a learning opportunity for all. 

At any time, the responding organization may provide an update to any of the responses, to help provide further clarity. The Hamiltonian will apply this analysis selectively to responses at an organizational level or to those responding as representatives of an organization. It will not employ this analysis to individuals who are representing their own personal views. 

Here is the analysis from the City Manager's interview:

Here is a spin doctoring assessment for each of the 5 responses. Each is scored out of 10, where:

0 = Completely candid and transparent
10 = Definite, polished spin doctoring, evasive or deflective answers

1. Trust Deficit and Financial Transparency

Score: 8.5 / 10

Analysis:
The question directly addresses public mistrust and a negative financial transparency ranking. However, the response:

Acknowledges concerns without taking real ownership
Cites accolades (AAA credit rating, awards) that deflect from transparency issues
Floods the answer with unrelated improvement initiatives (e.g., accessibility awards, CRM systems)
Avoids discussing the C.D. Howe report or admitting to specific failings

Spin Tactics Used: Deflection, virtue signaling, overuse of PR-style initiatives, lack of hard commitments or accountability

2. Overreliance on Cyberattack as Excuse

Score: 6.5 / 10

Analysis:
The answer is more direct in acknowledging that it’s time to move beyond the cyberattack. However, it:
Still frames the cyberattack as a catalyst for progress
Takes credit for future resilience without assessing current service impacts or mistakes
Promotes positive change without offering specific timelines or benchmarks for service recovery

Spin Tactics Used: Controlled narrative shift (“turning point”), positive reframing, forward-looking promises

3. Performance Appraisals and Accountability

Score: 7.5 / 10

Analysis:
The question asks for percentage data on current employee performance appraisals. Instead, the response:

Offers general HR philosophy and program descriptions
Blames the cyberattack for lack of data
Avoids saying whether they were tracking performance pre-incident
Gives no current percentage or scope of completion

Spin Tactics Used: Data omission, systems blame, answer flooding with irrelevant programs

4. Performance Contract Transparency

Score: 9 / 10

Analysis:
This is a clear case of evasive spin:
The initial answer implies there might be a contract without confirming
The follow-up makes it clear there is no formal performance contract, but this only comes after being pressed
Presents objectives as informal reflections of Council’s goals – not a real contract with measurable accountability

Spin Tactics Used: Evasion, ambiguity, reframing organizational goals as personal performance criteria

5. Customer Service Strategy Delay

Score: 6 / 10

Analysis:
This answer is more informative and acknowledges a delay due to the cyberattack, but:
Avoids explaining why no service standards had been implemented before 2024
Points to a future RFP and strategy but lacks timelines or firm deliverables
Pads the answer with unrelated tech improvements

Spin Tactics Used: Delayed accountability, future-facing promises, partial transparency

OVERALL AVERAGE SCORE: 7.5 / 10

Summary of Spin Doctoring Themes

Common Tactics Across Answers:
Heavy use of positive reframing and buzzwords (“resident-focused,” “transformation,” “modernization”)
Flooding with unrelated initiatives to dilute or distract from the core issue
Minimal hard data, particularly when the question asks for specifics
Avoiding direct ownership of failings or delays unless absolutely necessary

These responses appear crafted for damage control and image management more than meaningful engagement. While they include gestures toward accountability, most answers lack transparency, specificity, and candour — hallmarks of high spin doctoring.

Photo courtesy of Jen Dries- Unsplash

The Spin Score

The Hamiltonian has begun using a dispassionate service to analyse and assess the presence of spin doctoring in responses to questions. We use this service occasionally and particularly when the spin score exceeds 5 out 10.  This service is employed not to disparage answers we receive, but to provide a helpful lens for those who seek clarity. We also hope that those providing answers will be on the same page with us, and strive to provide clarity. We hope that this a learning opportunity for all. 

At any time, the responding organization may provide an update to any of the responses, to help provide further clarity. The Hamiltonian will apply this analysis selectively to responses at an organizational level or to those responding as representatives of an organization. It will not employ this analysis to individuals who are representing their own personal views. 

Here is the analysis from the Homelessness in Hamilton: A Tragedy

Each is scored out of 10 — where 10 = definite, heavy spin doctoring, and 0 = direct, transparent, and objective answer.

1. Budget Allocation Between Emergency vs. Permanent Housing

Score: 8/10

• Why: This answer uses polished, optimistic language and refers broadly to strategy documents without directly answering the question on budget proportions. References to forthcoming updates and general values (e.g., "$4 million annually") are vague and deflect from the specific budget ratio asked.

• Spin Alert: Deflection and lack of precise figures on budget split.

2. Sustainable vs. Crisis Funding Focus

Score: 6/10

• Why: More direct than Q1. It outlines projects and dollar amounts (e.g., $8.2M), but the language is still heavily framed in a promotional tone ("helping individuals transition...with stability and dignity") rather than critically evaluating tradeoffs between temporary and permanent investments.

• Spin Alert: Framing success without comparing it to the scale of the need.

3. Data on Homelessness Transitions

Score: 9/10

• Why: The question specifically asks for monthly data on inflow vs. outflow. The response defers entirely to a website and does not answer the question in substance.

• Spin Alert: Evasion of specifics, reliance on external links.

4. Learning from Other Regions

Score: 5/10

• Why: Provides actual examples of collaborations and a planned multijurisdictional scan. Reasonably responsive, although the language is still optimistic and forward-looking without demonstrating past concrete learnings.

• Spin Alert: Future promises used to buffer present gaps.

5. Evidence-Based Solutions

Score: 4/10

• Why: A strong, relatively concrete answer. It names specific programs and targets, which adds credibility. However, the tone remains promotional and doesn’t mention challenges, gaps, or failed pilots.

• Spin Alert: Omission of limitations or evaluation results.

6. Shelter-to-Housing Ratio

Score: 7/10

• Why: Acknowledges the issue but skirts the direct question about the 6:1 ratio and whether the City is keeping pace. Cites federal funding and projected units instead.

• Spin Alert: Avoidance of the key ratio; reframes the discussion with unrelated metrics.

7. Measuring Effectiveness

Score: 3/10

• Why: One of the clearest answers. It lists metrics and describes funding mechanisms. There’s still spin in tone (“ensures resources are directed where they have the greatest impact”) but it's informative.

• Spin Alert: Language is polished but doesn't undermine the transparency.

8. New Partnerships or Innovations

Score: 5/10

• Why: Mentions real partnerships and their impact. Doesn't give many specifics about innovations or how these partnerships tangibly improve outcomes. Reads more like a press release.

• Spin Alert: Feel-good language without performance detail.

9. Criticism of Temporary Solutions

Score: 6/10

• Why: Acknowledges criticism and affirms long-term goals. But the answer is clearly crafted to justify rather than critically engage with the concern. Doesn’t explain how the City prevents “temporary” from becoming de facto permanent.

• Spin Alert: Justificatory framing without critical self-assessment.

10. Additional Information

Score: 4/10

• Why: Introduces a relevant initiative and explains its value. Feels more like additional PR than a response to an open-ended prompt, but adds something substantive.

• Spin Alert: Framing as a positive solution with minimal self-critique.

OVERALL AVERAGE SCORE: 6.1 / 10

Summary:

The responses reflect moderate spin doctoring. There's a clear pattern of:

• Avoiding direct answers to critical or numerical questions,

• Using optimistic, promotional language, and

• Redirecting to documents or webpages instead of providing precise information.

The City's answers show strategic communication, aiming to maintain a positive public image while minimizing exposure to criticism or negative data. While some information is present, much of it is framed, incomplete, or avoids the harder truths.

Photo by Jen Dries on Unsplash

With Keanin Loomis

Enjoy our chat with Keanin Loomis. Keanin, thank you for engaging with Hamiltonians via The Hamiltonian!

1. In the 2022 election, Andrea Horwath garnered 41.68% of the votes while you came in a very close second with 40.51%. The vote spread was 1.17%. While we are certain that coming that close and not winning the bid would have been frustrating, , what, if anything would you have done differently in your campaign bid for the Mayor’s chair?

The closeness of the race on Election Night definitely made it harder to take, but there’s no doubt I would have rather lost by a little than a lot. I’ve certainly wondered what we could have done differently. I’m still honoured and humbled by the enthusiasm and commitment from all the volunteers that stepped up to be a part of a campaign rooted in integrity, positivity and change; it’s hard to imagine knocking on more doors or attending more events than we did. But I think most of the lessons learned come from running for political office for the first time – you just don’t know until you’ve done it. In the end, we simply ran out of time. If you look at the trajectory of our approval and support, one more week may have just been enough.

2. Had you succeeded in becoming Hamilton’s Mayor, what would Hamiltonians have experienced in terms of changes or new directions you would have sought to take the city in?

Our campaign reflected the spirit of a change election, but while Council’s composition shifted, many

Media Release: Mayor Andrea Horwath in Hospital

MEDIA RELEASE

For Immediate Release

April 29, 2025

Mayor Andrea Horwath Receiving Treatment Following Injury

Hamilton, ON - Mayor Andrea Horwath is currently in hospital receiving care after sustaining an injury in an accident. She is awaiting surgery and further assessment to determine the full extent of treatment required.

Depending on medical advice, Mayor Horwath may take a short medical leave to focus on rest and recovery. During this time, the Office of the Mayor will ensure continuity of leadership and ongoing support for City Council and City operations.

Mayor Horwath remains in good spirits and is in regular communication with her team. We thank Hamiltonians for their continued support, understanding, and well wishes.

The Hamiltonian. Wishes the Mayor a speedy and complete recovery!

With Professor Marvin Ryder

The world is very complicated at the moment; particularity where tariffs and the U.S.A.‘s relationship with Canada and other nations is concerned. Who best to consult with than friend of The Hamiltonian, Professor Marvin Ryder of the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University. Enjoy our chat with the Professor:

1. The volatility in U.S. politics—ranging from tariffs imposed by the President on Canada to threats of annexation—has created an unstable economic climate. The stock market has responded sensitively, and the manufacturing sector, including steel production, is already feeling the strain.

Given Hamilton’s economic landscape, where steelmaking remains a significant industry, what strategic advice would you offer to both the city and Canada at large to navigate these challenges? Are there specific actions Canadians should take to mitigate the impact of these measures? Additionally, what practical guidance would you offer to the average Canadian consumer in this climate?

I describe these days as an “economic pandemic”. Five years ago, we found ourselves in a medical pandemic. We were facing a new disease – COVID-19. Medical authorities were still learning about the disease, how it was being shared, steps that could be taken to reduce the risk of catching the disease, and how we should live our lives. There was no vaccine on the horizon. So, where once we could plan our lives weeks, months, or years in advance, we had to move to day-to-day thinking. It was terribly uncomfortable for society to do but it was what we had to do.

We are in that mode again given the “economic pandemic” caused by President Trump. We really don’t know what actions he is going to do and, when he takes some actions, they change a few days later. As a result, my best advice to businesses and people is to default back to day-to-day thinking. Our collective mission is to survive to fight another day. I have heard people predict President Trump’s executive orders will only live a few months while others suggest they are a permanent part of the landscape – at least for the next 45 months.

I am not selling my investments. If I believe in those investments and I am invested for the long term, I am leaving that money where it is. For businesses, if they can, diversify their client base. There are no tariffs with Mexico or Europe or most of the rest of the world. It has been quite easy doing business in the United States but if that relationship has changed significantly, it is a signal to open the door to other markets and the purchasers in those markets.

2. In reference to President Trump’s previous administration, tariffs were deployed on Canada, before being withdrawn. In retrospect, what do you believe was the net effect of those tariffs? Did they achieve their intended economic goals? How did Canada respond at the time, and what lessons can we apply from that experience to better position ourselves against similar challenges today?

There have been very few lingering effects from the brief period where tariffs were imposed on Canada. The credit for this goes to the new USMCA (CUSMA in Canada) Free Trade Agreement that was signed