Invisible Transparency

An email exchange obtained by The Hamiltonian shows that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 has now filed a new freedom-of-information request on the advice of legal counsel, after receiving no confirmation or response to an earlier request seeking disclosure of a December 3, 2025 staff report to council on the cost of the labour disruption involving HOWEA.

The request, filed by Local 772 business manager Greg Hoath in his capacity as a taxpayer, seeks the release of a report that was presented to council but has not been made public. According to Hoath, the original request received neither acknowledgement nor a substantive response.

In a February 7 email addressed to City Manager Marnie Cluckie and Mayor Andrea Horwath, Hoath wrote that the union had “once again” received no confirmation of receipt and no response to its formal request.

Two days later, Cluckie replied, stating that if the request was made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it would fall under the authority of the City Clerk’s Office, not the City Manager’s Office. She indicated she would ask the clerk to confirm whether the request had been received and whether a response was pending or already provided.

The reply was courteous and procedural. But the exchange raises broader questions that go beyond one FOI file.

At issue is a council report addressing the financial impact of a labour disruption — information that directly affects taxpayers and was presented to elected officials. The fact that an organized labour group must refile a request, this time with legal advice, to obtain confirmation that its application even exists is likely to fuel concerns about transparency and process inside City Hall.

This is not an isolated incident. As The Hamiltonian has previously reported, the city has faced repeated criticism over delayed disclosures, unclear responsibility for information requests, and a governance culture that often defaults to process explanations rather than outcomes.

FOI legislation exists precisely to prevent this kind of uncertainty. Requests are required to be acknowledged, tracked, and responded to within legislated timelines. When requesters are left unsure whether their submission has been received at all, confidence in the system erodes — particularly when the information sought relates to significant public expenditures.

The city manager’s response also underscores a recurring structural issue at City Hall: fragmentation of responsibility. While technically correct that FOI matters are handled by the clerk, the public — and requesters — reasonably expect senior leadership to ensure the system works, especially when senior officials and the mayor are copied on correspondence.

Transparency is not merely about eventual disclosure. It is about timely acknowledgement, clear communication, and confidence that public institutions are functioning as intended.

For now, the requested report remains unreleased, and a second FOI request is underway. Whether this one proceeds smoothly may say less about legal compliance and more about whether Hamilton’s administration recognizes that accountability is not a clerical exercise — it is a core obligation of public governance.

The Hamiltonian will continue to follow the file.