Hamilton’s Leadership in Focus: Term Limits - ft Councillors Kroetsch and Pauls

Further to our recent article in The Hamiltonian on the topic of term limits in municipal politics (which can be found here), we reached out to each City Councillor and Mayor Horwath to gather their perspectives on the issue. To ensure consistency, we posed the same set of questions to all and set a deadline of August 8, 2025, for the return of their responses.

We have already received two replies: one from Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch and the other from Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls. Given that these two Councillors hold differing views on term limits, their responses provide for an insightful and thought-provoking read.

We would like to express our gratitude to Councillor Kroetsch and Councillor Pauls for their participation. The intent of our approach is not to square councillors off , but to learn from their individual thoughts on this topic.

Below, we present their responses in the order in which they were received, with Councillor Kroetsch’s answers first, followed by Councillor Pauls’.

1 Greater transparency and accountability in municipal government are concepts often advocated for. Do you believe term limits would strengthen those principles in Hamilton? Why or why not?

Clr. Kroetsch:  I believe term limits would increase accountability. I think accountability, for many, looks like electing people from the community who they feel represent them. What I've heard from community members who are seeking to run is that reducing the barrier of incumbency and allowing for more regular open elections would make a huge difference in terms of their willingness to put their names forward.

Clr. Pauls: Term limits do not necessarily strengthen transparency and accountability. The right and privilege of the people’s vote becomes diluted by imposed limitations to their voice, which is how I see term limits for Councillors and the Mayor. Regardless of one’s past history, current term length, or possible future prospects, elected officials of all kinds should be bound by transparency. That said, one could also argue that devoid of the prospect of future opportunities to serve in an elected capacity, one’s “last term” could, in fact, become problematic. It really boils down to the integrity of the person who has been elected, which the voter’s own research should illuminate.

2. Some argue that regular elections are sufficient to hold politicians accountable. Others say entrenched incumbency creates barriers for new voices. Where do you stand on that debate?

Clr. Kroetsch: It's very difficult, especially at the municipal level, for candidates to undertake a campaign. To be successful you often have to dedicate yourself to a municipal campaign full time, especially if you don't have name recognition. Up to now, this has often meant taking leaves from work and putting personal and family commitments aside. For some, it can be a huge financial risk. Many are not willing to take this risk when they know they're facing an incumbent. Incumbency is a major reason why people are reelected. 

This isn't my opinion. It's been studied and the evidence indicates, overwhelmingly, that incumbency plays a huge role in electoral outcomes at the municipal level. If there were more open elections in wards, due to term limits, this would level the playing field and allow more candidates to participate in our democracy without having to fight the incumbent advantage. Regular elections have not been attended by the majority of the voting public in Hamilton for many decades. I don't think they're an accurate measure of the support any one politician has and I think we all have to do better to lower barriers to participation and to encourage all voters to participate in our democracy.

Clr. Pauls: New voices don’t necessarily need to win elections to make themselves heard. For instance, we have a process known as delegations, where residents and business owners frequently schedule time to speak in front of council members at committee meetings and whose presentations become part of the record. What delegates present often plants the seeds of future initiatives.

Dedicated councillors consider all voices and contrasting opinions that exist within their constituency, whether they’re new to the job or seasoned in the representation of their ward. I strive to keep a clear pulse on the often-varying sentiments within my own ward, to achieve a balanced and honest reflection of residents’ collective attitudes and beliefs. This involves regular one-on-one time with residents via phone calls, face to face conversations, and often, house calls.

3. Would you personally support provincial legislation that gives municipalities the option to implement term limits? If so, what structure (e.g., two consecutive terms) would you find appropriate?

Clr. Kroetsch: I would definitely support such Provincial legislation. To be clear, the Province is very aware of this issue and has purposely refused to implement it. Many of those who have been incumbents for decades at the municipal level have influence within Provincial governments and want to hold on to their seats. I have no faith the Provincial government will take on this issue. I would prefer the Province impose a two term limit for every seat, but I would also consider supporting a three term limit if there was a compelling case made for it. To date, I haven't heard one, but I remain open minded to that particular part of the discussion.

Clr. Pauls: I wouldn’t support this kind of legislation, which I find an imposition on the voter. I maintain a strong belief that if only new candidates are being offered, and none of them appeal to the voter, the voter’s voice may become silenced, and their civic engagement restricted. The option to vote for the person they like best in the candidate roster should remain as it is. I don’t see any term limitations as constructive or fair to voters. Further, a seasoned Councillor offers benefits such as first-hand historical knowledge and experience with City process and protocol, relationships with other elected officials at various levels of government and City partners, and has been a part of the evolution of the City to the point at which elections take place.

4. Do you believe that one factor contributing to the reluctance of some long-serving municipal politicians to step aside and make space for new representation is a fear of “what comes next” after public office? Put differently, do you think that for some individuals, politics has become so deeply embedded as a source of livelihood and identity that the desire to remain in power outweighs broader considerations of democratic renewal?

Clr. Kroetsch: I do think that plays a role, for sure. Whatever your reason for getting into politics, once you're an elected official, things change pretty drastically. Public life often involves sharing your views in public. Those views may be perceived positively, but also negatively, which can make it difficult to leave public life and transition to private life. I'm sympathetic to this challenge, but this is another reason why I support term limits. If every Councillor knew there was a time limit, they might be forced to plan differently.

 I think it's also important to point out that at the municipal level, in Hamilton anyway, there's no transition program like at other levels of government. Right now, MPPs and MPs who are not reelected are paid a severance and supported to transition back to private life. At the municipal level, you're basically on your own. I think this harsh reality can harden some seasoned politicians. All of this disincentivizes Councillors from moving on and entrenches them in their roles and their identities. With between 35,000 and 40,000 in every ward, there are many other people who could do this work very well. I think it's important for Councillors to help others take on this work, not block them using the incumbent advantage. Everyone would be better off having more voices at the table doing this work. Change can be good, even if it's difficult.

Clr. Pauls: I certainly wouldn’t want to comment on the motivation of other elected officials. Again, residents are empowered to discern for themselves the kind of leadership they prefer. The advantage voters have when scrutinizing any incumbent is the elected official’s tangible track record. The voter’s conscientious analysis of such is vital to the power of one’s own vote and should be sufficient for gauging the calibre of any incumbent.

As we receive more responses, we will publish them. Stay tuned...

The City and The Cybersecurity Update

At The Hamiltonian, we take a measured view of polished media releases—particularly those shaped by strategic messaging and so-called "spin doctoring." While such approaches may have been effective in the past, we believe our readers expect — and deserve — greater transparency, substance, and authenticity.

In a show of candour and post-crisis transparency however, the City of Hamilton has provided the public with a comprehensive breakdown of the February 2024 cyberattack that paralyzed municipal systems and tested the city's digital resilience. At the General Issues Committee meeting on July 30, 2025, four detailed reports laid bare the scale of the breach, the ransom demand — a staggering $18.5 million — and the city’s multi-million-dollar recovery efforts.

The Hamiltonian applauds the city for being forthright. Here is their media release: 

Cybersecurity Update: City of Hamilton provides more incident details, including ransom amount

Hamilton, ON – The City of Hamilton provided an update on the February 25, 2024, cybersecurity incident, including new details on how the sophisticated cybercriminals gained access to City systems and the ransom demand of approximately $18.5 million (CAD).

This information was presented at the July 30, 2025, General Issues Committee Meeting through four reports:

Building Better: Post-Cyber Project Portfolio Update (CM25007)
Cybersecurity Incident Summary (CM25008); including Appendix ‘A’ - Post Cyber Incident Summary by technical advisor CYPFER Canada Inc (CYPFER)
Cybersecurity Costing Update (CM24005(b))
Cybersecurity Resiliency Enhancements (CM25009)

“I understand why Hamiltonians are frustrated - this was a serious and costly breach," said Mayor Andrea

Kroetsch and Questions

It seems that comments recently made by Clr. Kroetsch at a police service board meeting regarding private funding for the new arena, are blowing up. Our friends at The Hamilton Spectator today feature an opinion piece by Scott Radley (see it here), where Mr. Radley argues that Clr. Kroetsch has missed the point concening the value of having a renovated arena in his ward. We are not so sure we agree.

It’s easy to be swept up in the excitement of a $300-million private investment — especially when it promises to revitalize a downtown that has struggled for decades. We recall not so long ago when the renovated Lister Block was supposed to be the missing link to a revitalized core.

Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch's measured approach to the redevelopment of Hamilton's arena shouldn't be misread as a lack of enthusiasm. It is a reflection of his responsibility as a local representative committed to ensuring that the benefits of large-scale development are shared by those most impacted — his constituents.

Kroetsch's concern over community benefit is not obstructionist; it’s principled. Downtown Hamilton is not just a blank canvas waiting for private capital to paint over — it is home to thousands of residents, many of whom live on modest incomes, rely on accessible public space, and have historically borne the externalities of urban "revitalization" projects. To ask how profits will be reinvested in the community, how local infrastructure will bear increased foot traffic, and how policing and public safety costs will be addressed is not to undermine progress — it's to advocate for thoughtful, equitable planning.

Asking “who pays for added policing?” is a fiscal question every councillor should ask when private profits come with public costs. If the city is saving on operations and maintenance of the arena, why shouldn’t part of that savings — or new revenue from the project — be directed toward services that ensure local residents aren’t merely hosting success, but participating in it?

Being a steward takes courage. Councillor Kroetsch is doing what we should expect from our elected leaders — asking the right questions to ensure that possibility becomes prosperity for the people who call downtown home.

You have to get up bright and early to penetrate the concerns of Hamiltonians. They are a resilient bunch who have seen the promise of a revitalized downtown where everyone benefits, come and go many times. Keep asking those questions Councillor!

The Hamiltonian

Firm Limits: End Lifetime Politics

End Lifetime Politics 
By The Hamiltonian Editorial Team 

Hamilton is no stranger to long-serving municipal politicians. Some have remained in office for decades, gliding through election cycles with little substantive challenge. While institutional knowledge and experience can benefit governance, unchecked tenure risks calcifying power and eroding the democratic vitality that municipal leadership depends on.

Consider Councillor Tom Jackson, who has represented Ward 6 since 1988. While many residents hold his dedication in high regard, more than three decades in public office raises a fair and necessary question: Should any one individual preside over the same elected role for this long?

And Councillor Jackson is not alone. In the most recent municipal election, Hamilton voters witnessed the departure—voluntary or otherwise—of several long-serving councillors. This electoral shift signalled a growing appetite for renewal. Yet the underlying issue remains: without term limits, the system allows—and often encourages—lifetime political tenure.

A common argument against term limits is that elections themselves serve as the ultimate democratic mechanism: if voters desire change, they can simply vote an incumbent out. In theory, this is true. In practice, however, the playing field is far from level. Incumbents enjoy formidable advantages: name recognition, media familiarity, access to resources, and, often, the benefit of a disengaged electorate. Ever notice how potholes are patched, parks are cleaned, and newsletters are mailed with urgency— during election season?

Low voter turnout further compounds the problem. Municipal elections typically suffer from abysmal participation rates, and contests are often won not on bold vision, but on inertia. The longer someone holds office, the harder they become to unseat—not due to merit, but because the system subtly shields them from true competition.

Municipalities across North America have recognized this dynamic. In the United States, nearly all major cities—including New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and San Francisco—impose term limits on mayors and councillors, usually capping service at two or three consecutive terms. Even Mexico, once bound by an inflexible prohibition on re-election, now permits municipal officials to serve up to two terms before stepping aside.

Canada, by contrast, is an outlier. No Canadian municipality, including Hamilton, imposes term limits. Under current legislation, municipal politicians may serve indefinitely. And many do.

This is not an indictment of individual councillors. It is a systemic concern. Long tenure, regardless of intent, can lead to policy stagnation, insular networks, diminished transparency, and weakened public trust. It discourages diverse voices from emerging and reinforces the perception that municipal politics is a closed circle rather than a public trust.

It is also worth noting a troubling correlation. Many of the councillors who declined The Hamiltonian’s invitation to participate in a recent outreach initiative—designed to provide a platform for them to share their goals and perspectives—are multi-term incumbents. Councillor Jackson and his office, despite multiple contact attempts, did not respond at all. Communication barriers cannot be cited, as our requests were sent through multiple channels. Was his silence rooted in complacency? A sense of entitlement? Indifference toward a civic media platform? It is difficult to say when no effort is made to engage.

Term limits are not punitive—they are protective. They safeguard the spirit of democratic service by ensuring that elected office remains a temporary privilege, not a lifelong possession. Term limits foster urgency in leadership, innovation in policy, and fairness at the ballot box.

Democracy does not thrive when power is hoarded. It thrives when it is renewed, shared, and ultimately passed on.

We will end this piece by celebrating those Councillors and Mayor Horwath,  who have take the time to share their thoughts and leadership with The Hamiltonian, to the benefit of Hamiltonians.

Here is our list with links:

Mayor Andrea Horwath
Ward 2 – Cameron Kroetsch
Ward 3 – Nrinder Nann
Ward 4 – Tammy Hwang 

Ward 7 – Esther Pauls
Ward 9 – Brad Clark
Ward 10 – Jeff Beattie
Ward 15 – Ted McMeekin

Photo by Parker Johnson on Unsplash

MEDIA ADVISORY: City of Hamilton to break ground on new fire and police station in Waterdown

For Immediate Release July 28, 2025 HAMILTON, ON— To better service Waterdown’s growing community, the City of Hamilton is breaking ground on a new 43,000-square-foot fire and police station in Waterdown. The facility will improve emergency response times, modernize services and enhance public safety. Located at 20 Parkside Drive, the new station will include a 911 call centre and a collision reporting centre, giving residents easier access to critical services in one central location. The station, which will feature an environmentally sustainable design, is expected to be completed by August 2027. Once operational, the joint facility will include a shared fire and police dispatch centre, enabling faster, more coordinated emergency response and an improved resident experience.