With Ward 13 Councillor Alex Wilson- on Term Limits

In 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  received three replies: one from Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch another from Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls and most recently, from Ward 13 Councillor Alex Wilson. We are particularly pleased to welcome Clr. Wilson, as this is his first appearance on The Hamiltonian. 

The following are Councillor Wilson's views on term limits:

I support term limits in general and when I ran in 2022, I included in my platform a commitment not to seek a third consecutive term meaning if re-elected in 2026 I would not run again in the 2030 municipal elections. I think term limits whether imposed by voters, self-imposed via commitments from candidates, or formally implemented are one tool to encourage a balance between institutional memory and new voices and new ideas around the table. I don’t believe that term limits are a silver bullet at fixing democracy or local engagement, but I do believe that a regular cycle of renewal can promote more collaborative decision making and encourage more transition-oriented policy making. I think having term limits helps focus the work away from focusing on personal achievements or “legacy” and towards a stewardship role.

I am certainly open to a more formal proposal with hard rules at either 2 or 3 terms (8 to 12 years) but I believe that the benefits of term limits are best realized in combination with other policies that make elections easier to run in as a candidate and encourage full participation of voters as well. With only about a third of eligible voters participating in municipal elections city-wide I think it is important any attempts to increase participation focus on the barriers both candidates and voters experience during the election. Reducing the role of private donations and increasing public funding for candidates and/or introducing a tax credit (as occurs with provincial and federal donations) would help to reduce barriers for candidates to run and minimize the potential benefit of an incumbent having established donor list. Having election day as a public holiday would also go a long way to increasing engagement. While I believe in term limits and have committed to a 2 consecutive term limit myself, I don’t think formalizing term limits would be my first request of the province. Ranked ballots in addition to the above suggestions would to me be first priorities over formalizing term limits.

As we all are experiencing the world is moving a lot faster in recent years and there are a variety of new and ongoing challenges facing communities and local governments across the country. Pandemic recovery, infrastructure backlogs, growing populations, the climate crisis, a systemic lack of safe and affordable housing, and increasing cyber security threats are just some of the challenges facing municipalities. Responding to these pressures effectively means breaking away from what we have been doing that hasn’t been working and responding in ways that center those left behind in past responses. Personally, I think the challenge for all municipalities in these coming years will be how to (continue to) manage these major changes I don’t think that’s possible without new voices and new approaches. Term limits are one strategy that helps ensure there is renewal while also recognizing there is a value in institutional memory and the experiences gained from serving as a representative.

Thank-you Councillor Wilson for engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian. You are always welcome here. 

"A" for Accountability-Is the City of Hamilton Truly Owning the Cybersecurity Failure?

In a recent piece by Scott Radley of The Hamilton Spectator (see it here) ), Mr. Radley rightly questions whether the City of Hamilton is truly “owning” its failures related to the February 2024 cybersecurity breach. He asks: what does “owning it” really mean in this context? We agree with his assessment. The City’s response thus far does not reflect true accountability.

On July 30, The Hamiltonian formally requested the following from the City:

A copy of the cyber insurance policy in effect at the time of the attack, along with the specific terms the insurer relied on in denying the claim. We asked: “Why was the claim denied, and what specific terms were not satisfied? How were those terms breached?”

We have since received the City’s response, which is provided in full below. But before presenting it, we offer these observations.

According to the City, the insurance claim was denied because multi-factor authentication (MFA)—a critical security measure—had not been fully deployed across all departments. This was a clear requirement of the insurance policy.

The City admits that this requirement was not met. Therefore, the insurer’s denial appears justified.

Let’s be frank: If a homeowner failed to install smoke detectors—despite it being a condition of their insurance—and their house burned down, the insurance company would rightly deny the claim. The loss would be devastating.

This situation is no different—except the scale of loss is exponentially larger. Millions in taxpayer dollars have been lost due to what can only be described as operational negligence. Where is the accountability?

Has anyone been fired for this critical oversight? If not, what exactly does the City mean when it speaks of “accountability”? Can public employees expose taxpayers to such significant financial consequences without consequence? What message does that send to staff, if they perceive there are no repercussions?

What message does that send to Hamilton residents, and what precedent does it set?

The City cannot undo what has already occurred. But it can show leadership now. Will any staff be removed for failing to implement basic cybersecurity protocols? 

Hamiltonians deserve clear answers—and real accountability. Stay tuned...The Hamiltonian will be following up.


City of Hamilton Response (August 7, 2025):

“This was a highly sophisticated attack on an external, internet-facing server, gaining unauthorized access to the City of Hamilton systems. At the time of the February 2024 cyber attack, multi-factor authentication (MFA) was not fully deployed in every City department. The insurance policy in effect at the time stipulated that MFA had to be fully deployed across the organization.

If you would like a copy of the City’s cyber insurance policy in effect at the time of the cyber incident, a request through the Freedom of Information process would be necessary as this document is a contractual agreement with a third party. For more details related to Freedom of Information requests and to submit a request, please follow the link here.

The City is committed to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability in line with the protocols of the City’s Freedom of Information Office.”


\