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.

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.