Hamilton Council's latest proposal makes me 'gag'

The good: The draft bylaw to establish an city council integrity commissioner will go out for public consultation. It’s expected to be finalized in June. Councillors today allocated $50,000 in the 2008 budget to cover the potential costs of the commissioner for the last six months of the year.

The very bad: Controversial amendments were added to the bylaw last week at the Accountability and Transparency sub-committee, including charging a $100 fee to make a complaint and automatically cancelling investigation if the complainant speaks to the media.

The tragic comedy that is city hall continues it's sickening run at King and James. This weeks 'farce' includes a proposal that would render a complaint to the city's integrity commissioner null and void if the person complaining about a councillor goes public before the investigation is complete.

In other words, if you talk to the media, an investigation would be automatically be scrapped, regardless of how serious the allegation is. What draconian piece of shite is this? When did democracy cease in Hamilton?

That amendment to the draft bylaw was approved last week by the integrity and transparency subcommittee, which is made up of councillors and citizens. Council has transformed a piece of legislation intended to ensure that councillors live up to their ethical obligations into both a blatant attempt to gag free speech and a ruse to shield themselves from being accountable.

And, as citizen committee member Joanna Chapman, who voted against the proposal, rightly notes, "Anything that stands in the way of having a complaint properly investigated ... is a huge mistake."

The council members hiding behind the curtains pulling the strings are no mystery. Their the same ones, time and time again, who wish to waste time and money in order to save their old tired butts.

There's nothing nefarious behind the proposal. It's simply a misguided attempt to discourage "frivolous and vexatious" complaints.

Councillor Terry Whitehead, a member of the committee, argues imposing confidentiality on members of the public will help protect councillors from "bad-faith complaints" intended to politically embarrass them.

"The majority of the committee felt if someone was genuine in their complaint and had no agenda and they respected the independent process of the integrity commissioner then they would allow the commissioner to do the work before going public," Whitehead explains.

Councillor Brian McHattie, another committee member who supports the muzzle, notes the restriction is an extension of the same confidentiality rule that would apply to the integrity officer, if and when one is hired.

"I'm hearing very clearly from my fellow councillors unless they have those kind of protections in place then they won't support the commissioner bylaw," McHattie says.

Nice try, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Like Shakespeare's two courtiers in Hamlet the two councillors bumbled this one. The proposed restriction is not only out of step with an open and free society, it flies in the face of the rules governing investigations by the provincial integrity and environmental watchdogs.

Councillor Brad Clark points out that rather than protecting councillors from trivial and trumped up allegations, the gag would make them more vulnerable. For example, if a complainant goes public with an allegation and the investigation is dropped as a result, a councillor will have no way of clearing his or her name. The shadow of suspicion would linger forever.

Councillors should, within reason, be sheltered from unscrupulous special interest groups and political rivals looking to get at them, but they already have legal and moral ways of doing that. Imposing a muzzle on the public at the expense of what may be a legitimate allegation and serious investigation is way out of bounds for members a democratic political arena to conduct themselves.