2025 In Review – A Year of Accountability, Scrutiny, and Civic Engagement

In 2025, The Hamiltonian continued to focus on  its role as an independent civic watchdog, Hamilton's Taste-maker and public-interest publisher, focused squarely on transparency, accountability, and the lived experience of Hamiltonians. Over the course of the year, coverage consistently returned to one central question: how effectively are those in power serving the public trust?

This review highlights the major themes, investigations, and editorial moments that defined The Hamiltonian’s work in 2025.

Councillor Kroetsch and his Suspension from the Police Services Board

The Hamiltonian reached out to appropriate authorties arguing that Clr. Kroetsch's suspension was taking too long, effectively restraining his voice on the board. While we cannot claim with certainty that our efforts resulted in the suspension being resolved, there is a strong likelihood that it did just that.

Municipal Accountability and Transparency

Throughout 2025, The Hamiltonian maintained sustained scrutiny of City Hall, particularly around transparency and  decision-making, 

Coverage examined:

• The continued fallout from past transparency failures, including Red Hill Valley Parkway and sewage spill disclosures, and how those precedents shaped current governance culture.

• The use of confidentiality provisions under the Municipal Act, especially in labour relations and post-strike reporting.

• The tension between Freedom of Information requests and the City’s interpretation of exemptions under MFIPPA.

Several articles questioned whether the threshold for secrecy had become too low, arguing that accountability suffers when financial, operational, or performance information remains shielded from public view long after decisions are made.

The Water and Wastewater Labour Disruption

One of the most significant stories of the year was the in-depth coverage of the Hamilton Ontario Water Employees Association (HOWEA) labour disruption and its aftermath. This story appeared to be largely uncovered in other media outlets. 

The Hamiltonian:

• Tracked the financial implications of the strike, including overtime, contracted services, and long-term cost impacts.

• Challenged the lack of detailed public accounting once the strike concluded.

Horse Trading and Mayoral Aspirations?

Every few years, City Hall rediscovers a familiar complaint: power has shifted, and some councillors are unhappy with where it has landed.

In today’s Hamilton Spectator, rookie councillor Rob Cooper characterized Hamilton’s strong mayor framework as “almost like a monarchy,” suggesting councillors are now largely ornamental and that real authority rests solely with the mayor.

That framing, however, is analytically weak.

Strong mayor powers did not eliminate council. They did not remove votes. They did not suspend democracy. What they did was bring an end to a decades-old governance model that many Hamiltonians had grown to distrust: diffuse responsibility, backroom horse-trading, and budget outcomes that ultimately belonged to no one — and therefore to everyone — when things went wrong.

Council still votes. Council can still amend. Council can still override — through a supermajority that reflects consensus rather than convenience. What council can no longer do is retreat behind process while blaming staff, the mayor, or “the system” for outcomes it quietly accepted.

Persistent griping about this shift risks signalling political immaturity rather than principled concern.

Equally noteworthy is Councillor Cooper’s apparent willingness to seed speculation about a possible mayoral run. While he stopped short of an explicit declaration, he did little to dispel the impression, telling The Spectator that his name will be on the ballot — the only question being where that name will appear.

This is where restraint would serve him well.

Hamilton does not elect mayors on frustration alone. It elects mayors on the basis of profile, credibility, coalition-building, and a demonstrated understanding of the city that extends beyond a single ward or a single budget cycle.

Three months on council does not confer that.

There is nothing wrong with ambition. There is, however, something premature about signalling inevitability before earning visibility.

When Councillor Cooper was first elected, The Hamiltonian reached out with an invitation to interview him. At the time, he respectfully declined, citing a desire to become better acquainted with his new role. That was reasonable.

We look forward to having him as a guest in the future, so that Hamiltonians can better understand and assess his perspective. That invitation remains open.

Oops

It has come to our attention that, due to a high volume of incoming messages, the admin@thehamiltonian.info inbox reached capacity and temporarily rejected new emails. This issue has now been resolved. If you previously received a rejection notice, please resend your message. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

How Much Did the HOWEA Strike Cost? Council knows the cost. Taxpayers don’t.

Five months after an eight-week labour disruption involving the Hamilton Ontario Water Employees Association (HOWEA), Hamilton taxpayers still do not know how much the strike cost them.

What is now undisputed is that a detailed cost report exists. City officials confirm it was presented in camera to General Issues Committee on December 3, 2025. What remains unexplained is why even high-level, aggregate cost figures have not been disclosed long after the strike ended.

In correspondence circulated to councillors and media, City Manager Marnie Cluckie stated that the report is confidential under labour-relations provisions of the Municipal Act. She further emphasized that, under Ontario’s Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA), Freedom of Information decisions are handled exclusively by the City Clerk’s Office, not by senior administration.

That explanation is structurally correct. MFIPPA intentionally separates FOI decision-making from political and administrative leadership. But in practice, the result is a familiar problem at City Hall: no one is prepared to explain why the public cannot be told how much an eight-week strike ultimately cost.

For the union, that answer is unacceptable. HOWEA Business Manager Greg Hoath responded sharply, alleging a broken commitment and confirming the matter has been referred to legal counsel. The union has been seeking disclosure of both direct and indirect costs for months.

The dispute raises a broader question that extends beyond Hamilton: what do other Ontario municipalities do once a strike is over?

Across the province, municipalities routinely protect labour-relations strategy through in-camera meetings while negotiations are active. That practice is standard. What happens afterward is where Hamilton increasingly stands apart.

In Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, and Mississauga, municipalities have historically disclosed post-strike financial impacts — including aggregate costs or net savings — through public committee reports, budget documents, or year-end variance reporting. Negotiation strategy remains confidential, but taxpayers are told what the disruption ultimately cost.

Hamilton has chosen a more restrictive path. Because the cost information was discussed in camera under a labour-relations rationale, the City’s position is that no cost information can be disclosed at all — even months after the strike concluded, and even in aggregate form.

That interpretation may ultimately be tested through the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Ontario IPC guidance, however, is clear that labour-relations exemptions are not blanket shields. Records must be assessed individually, and severable information should be disclosed where possible. The issue is not whether bargaining strategy can remain confidential, but whether total silence on financial impact is justified once negotiations are over.

The governance optics are further complicated by institutional deflection. Senior administration points to the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk’s Office applies statutory tests. Council discussed the matter in camera. The public is left without an answer to a basic accountability question: how much did this cost?

This is not about reopening negotiations or exposing labour strategy. The strike is over. Employees are back at work. The issue is public accounting.

Elsewhere in Ontario, post-strike transparency is routine. In Hamilton, it remains elusive.

For now, residents know only this: council has seen the numbers, a report exists, and taxpayers have paid the bill. What they are not allowed to know is how large that bill was.

In the past, when taxpayers were left out of the picture or deceived (remember the Red Hill and the Sewage Spillage messes?), there was a price to pay at the polls with some Councillors not being re-elected. 

Elections are not too far off.....

Hamilton’s Water Crisis has Passed — its clarity crisis has not. The City's Response to Costs of the Water Strike

Update: The Hamiltonian has learned that IUOE Local 772 has contacted Ms. Cluckie and requested the information be released by January 9th, failing which will result in the union filing a law suit. Let's hope it does not come to that and that the aggregate information is released. 

In a prior piece, The Hamiltonian flagged a familiar and tired communications tactic: the planned release of inconvenient information just before a holiday, a long weekend, or another moment when public attention is predictably elsewhere.

It is an approach that is  outdated and ineffective. Worse, it tends to backfire. Rather than defusing scrutiny, it raises suspicion and erodes trust. Most troubling of all, it signals a disregard and a sense of disrespect for the audience—particularly when that audience consists of taxpayers.

That context matters here.

After months of repeated requests by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 and The Hamiltonian seeking basic financial transparency around the City of Hamilton’s handling of the water workers’ strike, City Manager Marnie Cluckie chose to respond on December 23, 2025—on the eve of Christmas.

One can, of course, believe this timing was purely coincidental. But doing so requires ignoring the more plausible explanation: that the response was delivered at a moment calculated to minimize public scrutiny.

The Hamiltonian has never suggested that managing a strike is inexpensive. Labour disruptions are complex, contentious, and often costly. That reality, however, strengthens the case for transparency rather than weakening it. When public funds are expended—particularly over a prolonged dispute—Hamiltonians are entitled to know how much was spent and why.

What remains perplexing is not the existence of costs, but the City’s persistent reluctance to disclose them.

In our correspondence with the City, we asked a straightforward and reasonable question: what is the total cost incurred by the City of Hamilton as a result of the water workers’ strike, including both hard and soft costs?

We sought a comprehensive figure encompassing, but not limited to, expenditures related to external contractors, consultants, security, overtime, and any services required to ensure access to water facilities during the disruption. We made clear that this request had been posed previously without response, and we emphasized that Hamiltonians—as the ultimate stakeholders—are entitled to transparency on the use of their tax dollars.

On December 23, the City Manager advised that a report on the matter had been presented and discussed in camera at the General Issues Committee on December 3, 2025, and that the information contained in that report was confidential under the labour relations exemption of Ontario’s Municipal Act. Accordingly, staff would provide no information  regarding the costs of the labour disruption.

Mr. Hoath of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 has indicated the matter is now being referred to legal counsel.

The Hamiltonian offers the following observations.

The City’s position appears to be weakly defensible at best and vulnerable to challenge.

The City is relying on the closed-meeting labour relations exemption under section 239(2)(d) of the Municipal Act, 2001. It is true that municipalities are permitted to discuss certain labour relations matters in camera. That principle is well established.

Where the response falters is in the leap from “this was discussed in camera” to “no cost information can be released at all.”

Ontario law does not support that absolutist position.

Courts and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario have repeatedly held that aggregate financial information—total expenditures and high-level cost breakdowns related to strikes or labour disruptions—is not automatically protected by labour relations confidentiality. Once a labour disruption has concluded, the justification for secrecy diminishes significantly, provided disclosure does not reveal bargaining strategy, negotiating positions, or identifiable employee information.

Equally important, the mere fact that a report was discussed in camera does not permanently cloak all of its contents in secrecy. Municipalities are expected to sever and disclose non-exempt portions of records. This commonly includes total dollar figures and general categories of spending such as consultants, contractors, overtime, or security costs.

Here, the City has chosen the most extreme option available: a blanket refusal to disclose anything at all.

A more defensible and responsible response would have cited the specific statutory provision relied upon, acknowledged the public interest in transparency, explained which details remain confidential and why, and offered either partial disclosure or a clear commitment to release aggregate figures once finalized.

Instead, the City asserted that Hamiltonians are entitled to nothing.

As framed, that position invites challenge—through access-to-information appeals, possible orders from the IPC compelling partial disclosure, and justified public criticism for treating confidentiality as a shield rather than a limited exception.

At first glance, the response may appear technically defensible. Under scrutiny, it is neither robust nor proportionate, and it is misaligned with Ontario’s transparency standards.

A blanket refusal to disclose strike-related costs is unlikely to withstand serious examination.

The City of Hamilton and its Mayor can form as many task forces as they would like  in the name of being more transparent, but until the city actually practices what it preaches, transparency is reduced to a meaningless slogan.