HSR procedures are totally apathetic

Ridership is down 2 per cent for the first four months of the year -- a $600,000 hit to the budget if the trend continues all year. It's the first sustained revenue drop the system has seen since 1995.-July 22, Spectator Article

"There's no doubt in my mind that it's connected to the economy,"-transit director Don Hull.

This well may be part and parcel but after a recent problem I had on a bus and the disappointing way it was handled I believe many of the HSR's problems are internal. There was a recent case to back up my assumption involving assault to which drivers have done nothing out of fear of violating HSR policy.

Spectator Article Feb. 28-The Hamilton police services board is calling for a review of the relationship between police and the HSR after a woman was pulled off a bus and beaten...When the driver stopped, the girls dragged the woman off the bus and continued to beat her. Neither the passengers nor the driver intervened.

According to current HSR procedures, drivers are to report any on-board incidents to a superior and are not specifically required to intervene.

I have personally witnessed a similar incident and blogged about which fortunately ended different because of a driver who cared to challenge "HSR procedure"

Excerpt from my post from 5/21/07- I grabbed a bus for home, and the reality of the inner city came crashing down when I witnessed an attempted mugging of a young girl by two teen female "gang bangers" at the stop at Barton and John. Thank god it was broken up by the male bus driver before anyone was hurt.

This leads me to the most recent incident of HSR apathy and disregard for commuter safety. Here is a detailed account of the incident taken from the emails sent to the HSR and several city officials.

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:57 AM
To: HSR Customer Service
Subject: complaint about a driver

Date:Tuesday 12:44AM
Bus Route Info:Barton 2 West Bound
Location:Bell Manor Loop

Incident: At 12:30 I got on the Barton bus, shortly after 4 males, obviously intoxicated, entered the bus greeted the driver in a way that I felt they knew each other in some way. One male carried a 24 of beer,entered first and proceeded to crack the cap and begin to consume it. The driver entered and I assume did his regular check before departing, never said anything to this passenger. This male then proceeded to pass this beer around and then crack a second and due the same. The foursome continued to drink, unattested by the driver until they departed at the centre mall. Several passengers noticed their behaviour a couple, including my self gave strong indication of the circumstance. I mentioned to the last of the foursome before he got off that his actions just got the driver in some problems, to this the driver responded with a "so what". If this driver is not reprimanded or/and removed from this route a copy of this email will be sent to the mayors office and need be it the Hamilton Police pending your reaction. Can I remind the HSR who pays their bills? The people who pay fares to ride your buses and who expect a safe commute.

From: HSR Customer Service
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: complaint about a driver

Hello,

Your complaint has been forwarded to our Operations team for investigation. Their process dictates that they respond within 10 business days at which time we will let you know when the investigation is complete.

Details of the action taken can not be disclosed as per the Federal Privacy Act which states that all communication between an employer and employee is strictly confidential.

To: Sam Merulla(Ward 4 Councillor), forwarded to Diane Piedimonte(Administrative Assistant to Councillor Sam Merulla, Ward 4) Don Hull(HSR Transit director)
Sent: Fri Jul 10 16:39:43 2009
Subject: Fw: complaint about a driver

Mr. Merulla,

I am forwarding a copy of the following email that has been sent to Mayor Fred, considering this HSR trip took place in your riding, the one that I currently reside in.

Automated Response:I will follow up asap.

To: Mayor Fred Eisenberger
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 4:31 PM
Subject: Fw: complaint about a driver

Mr. Eisenberger,

I ask you for a second of your busy schedule too hear me out. The following is a copy of the two emails that I have sent to the HSR concerning a driver I had the unfortunate pleasure of being served by back on June 23. As you read you will realize the HSR: which receives a lions share of mine, and the other thousands of commuters dollars annually to provide a sound transport system; failed me miserably, and now refuses to offer a basic rebuttal their own mandate says I am entitled too.

I have yet to hear from any of the above parties at this time about the outcome. The only ones who have shown any support where other drivers who apparently know in detail of the complaint.

Later,
Kenaz

A few choice words for those holding Hamilton's growth hostage

The words are the same seven words the brilliant mind of the recently lost George Carlin made us laugh nervously at so many years ago and will never be uttered on this blog. That is where the comparison between the mother f*!@er a!#$oles at the Mayors office, City Hall and Liuna Station ends.

Lister Block is dead

This week has been a cornucopia of lies, ineptitude and border line corruption down at Hamilton City Hall. Lets start in reverse order, on Friday it was revealed that on this Monday Hamilton will return a $7-million cheque to the province after failing to reach a deal to save the Lister Block and restore dignity to a joke of a downtown.

LIUNA and partner Hi-Rise have decided to cry like babies and take their ball home after the city rightfully accused them of dropping the ball way to many times. LIUNA served official notice to the city yesterday that their compromise in the $25-million negotiations is off the table. LIUNA also advised the city that its other planned developments on King William, including replacing the fallen Balfour building, are on hold. Plus, they said they will fight an attempt to put a heritage designation on the Thomas Building beside the Lister on James Street North.

Why is LIUNA saying they've had enough making compromises?, even though the city has had to walk on egg shells trying to get a working deal together. The Lister deal fell apart this week after both sides couldn't agree on the terms of a $1-million guarantee on the second phase of the project.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger appealed to the province yesterday morning for another extension of the hefty grant, which was intended to make the deal more affordable for the city. He was flatly refused. Rightfully, the province had already extended the deadline twice.

The stymied deal,

Councillors want the additional development to offset the cost of buying the Lister. It will cost taxpayers an extra $1.3 million a year for city offices compared to existing leases.

The developers proposed they would get their guarantee back if they built a commercial building or seniors home of at least 65,000 square feet, or 130,000 square feet of residential space. Either development would generate $550,000 a year in taxes for the city -- just $50,000 less than originally requested by council.

But LIUNA also wanted a sliding scale if they built a smaller development. The union would only lose the entire $1 million if they built less than 40,000 square feet. If they were between 40,000 and 60,000, they would only give back a part of the guarantee.

Think about how that looks to Hamilton taxpayers, to developers with an interest in downtown redevelopment, and to Queen's Park. It looks like our local government is so dysfunctional, so parochial, so short-sighted and outright ineffective, it couldn't find adequate common ground, even for a $7-million grant.

This is unfair to the hardworking people of Hamilton. There is adequate blame to go around all parties in the Lister negotiations. The developers have been inconsistent about project components and their willingness to commit to guarantees. And the childish rhetoric emanating from LIUNA on the subject in recent weeks hasn't been helpful.

In a reasonable world outside the vacuume of council chambers, the parties involved would realize what's at stake and work right through to the Monday deadline to find compromise and salvage the grant money. Sadly, that's probably not going to happen, which raises the unfortunate question: Now what? Try your spin on that one Mayor Fred.

Eisenberger leaked tape scandal(see video at the bottom of the post)

If this story wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark admits to circulating the stolen tape that landed Mayor Fred Eisenberger in hot water for leaking confidential information, but stops short of admitting to stealing the tape himself.

Clark says he gave a digital file and transcript of the tape to a Hamilton Community News reporter and his best buddies councillors Sam Merulla and Scott Duvall out of what he says is "compelling public interest."

"The mayor is the gentleman who admonished city council for breaching codes of conduct for talking about personnel matters ... and then I get this package (showing) that he had clearly done what he had admonished people for doing."

Eisenberger, who has asked for a police investigation of the missing tape and a city review of his apparent code of conduct violation. Meanwhile, Duvall kept his big mouth shut, on the other hand Merulla known famously for his run off at the mouth if you ever catch a city council meeting in person or on the local public access station, pathetically tries to cover his ass arguing, if that was the goal to distribute the tape as a way to "whistleblow", he(Clark) wouldn't have distributed the file and transcripts so selectively.

Merulla believes Clark wanted to politically embarrass the mayor for his own purposes and tried to use him to do it. Right!(sarcasm) Wanna buy some real estate right for development, needs a little fixing up.

Here's where it sounds like another episode of the Sopranos, Clark tells Merulla the story of the mayor's presumed code violation should be told as soon as possible and suggests Merulla should pass the files on to reporters. Clark refuses to say who provided him with the files. But it's clear from his e-mail that he had been in contact with someone who allegedly had access to the mayor(Who's Deepthroat?).

A friend of both councillor's regularly recorded the mayor's interviews Clark said in the e-mail to Merulla but does not want his name mentioned because he is suing the city for wrongful dismissal. The newspaper crack team of investigative reporters(if you want to know where the best place to eat is) learned that Ian Dovey, Eisenberger's former communications adviser who taped some of the mayor's media calls, is suing the city for breach of contract. Eisenberger let Dovey go last summer after five months on the job.(the man in the shadows is revealed! Is this just a ruse!)

Meanwhile, council has directed city staff to hire an outside investigator to review whether Eisenberger broke council's code of conduct by revealing in-camera information in an off-the-record interview with reporter Andrew Dreschel. Any off-the-record conversation is strictly confidential. God! haven't we learned yet from these dumb celebs who get caught doing something they shouldn't have on tape. Get rid of the evidence!

It gets better, Clark brushes off any suggestion he himself may have violated the code of conduct by circulating the Eisenberger interview. The code forbids councillors from disclosing any confidential information to the public. Clark believes he's clean because he merely distributed a transcript of an interview.

Media in this city is becoming more like a gossip column every day. It's no secret they are hurting for revenues so they rely on this type of crap. "Leaked" or down right stolen information that finds it's way into the media hands is rarely divulged for compelling public interest. More than enough it's released to serve a personnel agenda. Both Eisenberger and Clark, who have been banging the integrity drum louder than any other members of council and now both their hands are dirty.

Politics is the dirtiest legal profession their is. Clark was not playing the part of whistleblower he nothing more than a political opportunist, his actions are bound to revive the distrust and suspicion that descended on council in the wake of Councillor Dave Mitchell's code of conduct troubles.

To be squeaky clean and above suspicion, Clark would have served his own and the public interest better if he had openly put the tape before council or the city's legal department rather than indulging in this backroom crap.

Video of Eisenberger's response,

Hamilton needs a new city hall

Oops! They did it again. Like Britney, it seems like Hamilton City Council on a regular basis finds themselves exposing their vulnerabilities for everyone to see. They bickered for more than thirty years over Red Hill Creek; poured millions into changing directions of streets only to make downtown a traffic nightmare; squandered the Maple Leaf Foods deal that cost thousands of jobs; chased every millionaire who even whispered the hint of moving an NHL team without offering a shred of evidence Hamilton can even support a team and lost the bid to host the Commonwealth Games, twice.

Now, the "old guard", old in the sense of out of touch, have voted to put Band-Aids on our deteriorating, outdated and inefficient eyesore that is our City Hall. Hamilton is the only major city in Canada not to have a modern centre in which to conduct business. City Hall should be the jewell of Main Street, with an inviting entrance that beckons the average joe and multi-corporation alike to enter its hallow halls to conduct business and bring much needed revenue to the city coffers.

Instead an ugly box surrounded by a concrete deck devoid of any green is what we offer visitors. Pretty stomach turning if you ask me. So I totally don't understand the decision of councillors like Sam Merulla to not want to build a new city hall but instead renovate a dilapidated building. A decision that will not only be a more costly one in the long haul, but will permanently cast a myopia over Mayor Fred Eisenberger's "new vision" for Hamilton.

The old councillors weren't listening. They were more concerned with how they looked. City councillors are elected to show bold leadership and sometimes make unpopular decisions because they are the right decisions, not worry about their image and Mr. Merulla has the most bloated ego. The councillor needs to start seeing the trees for the forest even if it interferes in anyway with his individual political aspirations.

Later,
Kenaz

Something stinks at city hall

Hamilton is a far cry from Scotland but city hall is sure beginning to resemble the dark underhanded world Shakespeare depicted in his classic Macbeth. To paraphrase "Something Wicked This Way Comes".

I called Mayor Fred Eisenberger "Fast Freddy" back when he was elected because I knew he won strictly on the voters apathy for the former mayor. He ran an election based on convenience. What ever the voter wanted to hear, Eisenberger was quick with the soothing talk that cured the burn left by a previous council that took and took until the coffers where bare.

Promises bound forth with the new mayor and newly elected and refreshed Hamilton council. So much for elevated transparency, morals and principles. Three city managers were fired after an independent investigation into a harassment complaint in the city licensing department. Yet, Council voted in a secret session last week to ignore a report's recommendation that Councillor Bernie Morelli receive sensitivity training as a result of his harassment of a city inspector two years ago.

Discipline, it seems is acceptable for city staff, it seems, but not for council colleagues. Councillors, hide behind a cloak of confidentiality. What happened? Where's the transparency? Where's the openness? Instead, voters are stuck with the dank smell of dare I say it oh so softly "corruption".

Eisenberger isn't cocky enough to pull off such a ruse. Eventually he will reveal the truth, like that of a modern day Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. And Counselor Morelli could be left with bloody hands.

Eisenberger, designated by council to speak on this issue, has already got his signals crossed with Morelli. The mayor gamely said the councillor "has indicated regret that the incident happened," but the councillor was unrepentant. "I regret this discomfort for me personally," he says.

Ominous warnings came after an operational review, "Heads will role" came the echoes. But it wasn't the dirty players it was the three scapegoat managers who where fired after an investigation. Morelli slipped off into the darkness, escaping the wrath of the "ghosts".

Morelli berated a city employee, which he does admit. If Morelli had a problem with how a city employee was doing his job, he should have taken it up with the appropriate supervisor in a professional manner. For a councillor to throw his weight and position around like that is an abuse of authority.

Morelli has convinced colleagues his actions weren't harassment, but he won't convince the public who have backbones and won't stand for this kind of nonsense.

Later,
Kenaz

One ringy dingy, is anybody there at Hamilton City Hall?

Interruptions, childish out bursts, insults short of "your mother!". A local playground? No, a meeting of Hamilton council. The playpen squabble? Extending local calls to the suburbs. The answer so obvious; to borrow a phrase from a popular info-commercial "so easy, even a child could do it!"

And to further my allegory to info-mercials, "for just a penny a day" on your phone bill you can have the "privilege" of phoning to the burbs for free. Since 2001, Hamilton has been "one" city officially, long before that we have all lived with the conundrum that is the "905" area code.

Here's the argument that my councillor and other inner city councillors offer, "it's not fair for the whole city to pay the cost of reducing phone rates for the suburbs when they enjoy the benefits of area rating, in which they don't pay the full costs for services such as transit and recreational facilities."

This is so ridicules it's not even funny even if it was a joke. Benefits? You can't take a bus to Binbrook or most of the sub-burbs from Hamilton and there are few recreational facilities in these areas to begin with. What the hell benefits are these councillors talking about?

To prove my point, Sam Merulla, inner city councillor, delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech that's so far over the top, I wonder if he was smelling burnt toast at the time.

Merulla says the 30 cents a month would impact the most marginalized residents to subsidize the wealthiest in the suburbs. If council does this, then they have to revisit area rating to ensure everyone pays equally for all services, regardless of where they live. He says the proposal is a "catalyst" that underlines the hypocrisy of past support for reducing business taxes.

Merulla is surprised by some of the councillors who support the motion. They are, "voting in favour of the hypocrisy and inconsistency, the unpredictability which basically are the characteristics of a dysfunctional environment."

What thesaurus did Merulla swallow? If he's so concerned about the impoverished in his riding, he'd realize most of his constituents either can't understand him or see through his paper thin mirage of deceit. Two can play his game.

Councillor Jackson tries to talk about removing irritants, Merulla becomes one himself, repeatedly interrupting with audible mumbling, something along the lines of "I could'va been a contender" or something like that.

Mayor Eisenberger called Merulla on it, urging a respectful debate, a few more minutes of childish taunts before the good Mayor hands out the "soothies" in the way of an altimatum for the debate to stop getting silly and demands a vote.

In the end council agreed to add an amendment, asking the CRTC to reconsider the 30 cents a month price structure. Then they all voted to support going forward with the request to make all calls within Hamilton local calls. Well, two meetings down in 2007 and the pampers are already full. I hope a new shipment is on its way or its going to be a long four years.

Later,
Kenaz

Fast Freddy trump over Di Ianni no shock

Am I the only who does not feel Fred Eisenberger's Mayoral win over Di Ianni was a momentous upset? As many news outlets in the city suggest.

Let's face facts. Di Ianni's lies left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouth and fast Freddy took advantage. Eisenberger used his much smaller war chest; devoid of any union or corporate money; frugally and wisely. He took the pulse of the public and created a campaign that promised to rein in sprawl, promote smart growth, create a bus rapid transit system, redevelop the city's brownfields, and promote waterfront development and the arts.

That said I do believe it was more of an anti-Larry vote than a pro-Fred vote and Eisenberger and council will be under huge pressure from the assorted beggars and hangers on that got fat and rich under the pro-big business Di Ianni era to meet status quo.

It's time for Fred to show that his blue collar roots run deep and bring Hamilton back to it's glory. The city built on the backs of the working class.

One side note, Di Ianni's loss had nothing to do with Dundas bookseller, Joanna Chapman blowing the lid off his campaign finance illegalities in 2004 as the Spectator believes. Chapman didn't perpetrate the crime and then try to cover it up, she only woke the city up to what was happening. She wasn't trying to smear anyone's reputation maliciously as the former mayor and several councilors too this day believe.

In the end election 2006 was won and loss at the ballot box and as far as I see it turned out to be a fair and clean election.

Later,
Kenaz