Is City Council Out to Lunch?

In Hamilton, a debate over something as ordinary as lunch has turned into a pointed discussion about priorities, optics, and accountability at city hall.

The issue centres on whether councillors and senior staff should continue to be provided with meals during long council meetings. What was once a quiet, administrative practice has now become a public question, raised during budget deliberations and amplified by growing sensitivity around costs, taxes, and trust in local government.

Supporters of ending the practice argue the case is straightforward. Councillors are paid professionals, like most Hamiltonians who bring their own lunches to work or manage without special accommodations. At a time when residents are being asked to absorb higher costs and scrutinize every line of the city budget, free meals at council meetings strike many as a perk that is out of step with public expectations. To them, it is not about the dollar value of the food, but about demonstrating restraint and respect for taxpayers.

Those opposed take a more practical view. Council meetings in Hamilton often run for many hours, sometimes stretching through lunch and into the afternoon or evening. Providing food on site allows meetings to continue without interruption, keeps staff and councillors available, and avoids delays in agendas, delegations, and decision-making.

Yet this debate does not have to be framed as a binary choice between efficiency and optics. There is a reasonable middle ground that addresses both concerns.

First, council could tighten meeting management. Better agenda discipline, clearer time allocations, and firmer chairing would reduce unnecessary overruns and make it entirely reasonable to schedule a proper lunch break. Long meetings are not inevitable; they are often a product of process.

Second, councillors could be expected to handle lunch the same way most working residents do: by bringing their own meals or stepping away during a scheduled break. Allowing a full, clearly defined lunch hour — rather than eating at the dais — would reinforce the notion that council business is important, but not exempt from normal workplace expectations.

Third, concerns about opportunistic lobbying during a lunch break should not be overstated. Councillors are elected to exercise judgment and integrity. The expectation should be that they can step out for lunch without being unduly influenced, just as they are expected to navigate countless other interactions in public and private settings throughout their term.

The controversy has resonated with residents because it taps into a larger concern: whether city council truly understands how its decisions look to the people footing the bill. For many Hamiltonians juggling rising housing costs, transit fares, and utility bills, the symbolism of council-funded lunches carries more weight than the actual expense.

This is not a question of legality or misconduct. The practice has been permitted, and no one is suggesting wrongdoing. Instead, it is a test of judgment. In an era where confidence in institutions is fragile, small decisions can carry outsized meaning.

As Hamilton council continues to debate budgets and governance, the lunch issue has become a proxy for a broader conversation about leadership and example-setting. With modest changes to how meetings are run, council can preserve efficiency, respect taxpayers, and demonstrate that it is willing to hold itself to the same standards it asks of the public.