There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By Tammany (anonymous) | Posted September 21, 2009 at 13:24:32
Dave, you're absolutely right. How hard can we expect a senior bureaucrat like McCabe to think about a decision when he has absolutely no personal stake in the consequences?
I'd wager that if you were to look at the City's salary disclosure list, not a single one of those bureaucrats earning $100k (or above) lives in the lower city. They have no stake in the place they're supposed to be managing. You just can't expect top performance under such circumstances.
I don't think it would be unreasonable at all to demand that top-level bureaucrats live within the city boundaries. Indeed, one shouldn't even have to demand it. The problem is that the people who work for the city have no sense of their job as a public service. The vast majority are in it only for the security of tenure and comfortable pay scale. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone on Hamilton staff who has any real passion for the city.
As for the City Solicitor's advice to council, I still don't understand why singling out the Connaught Proposal for further consideration would lead to liability issues. Courts have made it quite clear that elected bodies do not owe a defined standard of care or review to private interests in their deliberations and decisions. The only thing that matters - and rightly so - is the public interest.
As for the decision to go in camera, I still think it was suspect, despite Mr. Bratina's explanation. The fact that litigation is attached (or potentially attached) to a particular aspect of an issue under deliberation does not justify the closing of all discussions on that issue. Even if it were to be justified on a literal application of the law, I still think it incumbent on council to ensure that any interruption to public access to debates be absolutely minimized. I truly think that council has been playing fast and loose with the in camera provisions of the Municipal Act and that we should be holding them to account to the furthest extent the law allows so as to break the culture of secrecy at City Hall.
Permalink | Context