With Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Head of New College, York University, Dr. Zachary Spicer.

Enjoy our chat with Friend of The Hamiltonian and Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Head of New College, York University, Dr. Zachary Spicer. 

Do strategic plans, scorecards, and performance frameworks meaningfully improve municipal outcomes, or do they risk becoming symbolic? Has Hamilton seen demonstrable results?

Strategic plans and performance frameworks can improve municipal outcomes, but only under fairly demanding conditions. They matter when they are tied to clear ownership, measurable outcomes, regular public reporting, and real consequences for decision-making, particularly through the budget and senior management performance discussions. Without those elements, they often become symbolic documents that signal intent rather than shape behavior.

In Hamilton’s case, the City has adopted multiple iterations of strategic plans and council priorities over time. Where progress is most defensible is in areas with sustained measurement and reporting across multiple years. Where targets are less clearly operationalized, or where reporting is irregular, it becomes much harder to demonstrate that the frameworks themselves produced improved outcomes rather than simply documenting aspirations. The lesson is not that planning tools are ineffective, but that their impact depends on how tightly they are integrated into governance, budgeting, and accountability processes.

Should Hamilton’s persistently low voter turnout be understood as apathy or as a rational response to municipal governance and engagement?

From an academic perspective, low municipal turnout is better understood as a rational response to institutional design and political context than as simple voter apathy. Municipal elections lack many of the cues that mobilize participation, such as party labels, sustained media coverage, and clear policy differentiation, and voters often perceive limited influence over major outcomes.

In Hamilton, turnout in the mid-30 percent range is consistent with trends in many large Canadian cities. In fact, turnout in Hamilton during the last provincial election was slightly higher than the provincial average. This suggests not disengaged citizens, but a system that imposes high information costs relative to perceived stakes. If municipalities want higher participation, the solution lies less in exhorting voters and more in improving how municipal governments communicate priorities, demonstrate impact, and engage residents between elections rather than only during them.

How accountable are city managers to the public, and should Hamilton’s City Manager operate under a formal performance contract?

City managers are primarily accountable to council, not directly to the public, which makes transparency around their objectives and evaluation especially important. In that sense, accountability is indirect: residents hold council accountable, and council in turn oversees senior administration.

I support the idea of a formal performance agreement for Hamilton’s City Manager, provided it is thoughtfully designed. Such an agreement should focus on a small number of clearly defined deliverables tied to council priorities, be accompanied by public reporting on progress, and recognize that not all important outcomes are easily reduced to metrics. The goal should be clarity and trust, not rigid managerialism. Done well, a performance contract can strengthen accountability without politicizing the role. 

How important is organizational culture within city hall, and how does it affect a municipality’s ability to achieve its goals? 

Organizational culture is critical because it determines how strategy is actually executed. Culture shapes whether staff feel empowered to surface problems, collaborate across departments, experiment with new approaches, and report honestly on setbacks. 

A city hall with a risk-averse or siloed culture can struggle to implement even the best-designed strategies. Conversely, a culture that values learning, transparency, and problem-solving can adapt quickly when plans encounter real-world constraints. In practice, culture often matters more than formal strategy because it governs day-to-day decision-making when political direction is ambiguous or contested.

Is there sufficient rigorous scrutiny of municipal governance across Hamilton’s local media landscape?

Municipal governance is generally under-scrutinized relative to its impact on residents’ daily lives. This is less a question of journalistic intent than of capacity. Municipal governments produce a high volume of complex decisions, while local newsrooms, both mainstream and independent, operate with limited resources.

 Independent outlets often add valuable depth and persistence, while mainstream media provide reach and legitimacy, but neither can comprehensively track implementation, performance, and follow-through across all major files. The real gap is sustained accountability journalism: not just reporting decisions when they are announced, but revisiting them months or years later to assess delivery, cost, and outcomes. This can be hard to do. 

What structural reforms could realistically improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence without provincial legislative change? 

First, Hamilton could strengthen its public performance reporting by maintaining a stable, accessible dashboard tied directly to council priorities, with clear ownership and regular updates. This would allow residents to see what is on track, what is delayed, and why. 

Second, the City could move toward proactive disclosure as the default, routinely publishing decision rationales, procurement summaries, and briefing materials wherever legally possible. This reduces friction between residents and government and builds trust through openness. 

Third, Hamilton could institutionalize continuous public engagement, such as standing resident panels or participatory budgeting pilots, so that participation is not limited to elections or one-off consultations. When residents can see how their input connects to real decisions, confidence in municipal governance tends to improve.

The Hamiltonian thanks Dr. Spicer for sharing his insights and engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian!