Where would the city have been today had he not stepped into the fray at the last minute to save it? :rolleyes:

What a self-aggrandizing bowlful of drivel.

Which door will McHattie choose?
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Dec 3 2014)

The federal New Democrats want Brian McHattie to run for them in the new Hamilton west-end riding, which covers McHattie's long-standing municipal power base.

"I have made no decisions at this time as I continue to consider various options in my future plans," the former mayoral contender said by email.

But Peter Hutton, president of the Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas NDP, says there is growing support for McHattie to take the plunge.

"There is a groundswell of people I know from within the riding and elsewhere encouraging him."

....

Hutton says he first approached McHattie shortly after the Oct. 28 municipal election.

"Feelers were put out by us because there was support for the idea coming from within his own mayoralty campaign team that he'd do it."

He says McHattie wasn't in a frame of mind of discuss the idea at the time, but the door was left open. "Some stuff has come back to my ears but it's stuff that is in confidence."

According to McHattie, he was also approached to run for the HWAD Liberals after the election. That boat sailed last week when the Liberals nominated Filomena Tassi, a chaplain at Bishop Tonnos Catholic Secondary School in Ancaster.

Read it in full here.

What's the over-under on Scott Duvall taking the orange baton from Chris Charlton?

Yep: https://twitter.com/CHCHNews/status/552202580957593602

The election just happened. Christ, what an asshole.

I'd say thats a slap in the face to the people who voted for him, but I doubt that they even care all that much. Probably been checking the same name for the past 20 years anyway.

Gandalf?

While it may seem like 20 years, Duvall has 'only' been on council for about 8 years, making his tenure shorter than many of his colleagues sitting on council such as Merulla, Collins, Whitehead, and Jackson.

This is typical for those who fly the NDP banner who have shamelessly enter municipal politics just to use it as an opportunistic stepping stone to higher office. The honorable thing that he should have done was to sit out the November election. I guess he will try to sell the idea that Charlton's decision to retire came as a complete surprise to him and he had no ambition to run for higher office until unnamed constituents practically forced him to do so.

No loss to council. One of the least interesting or capable councillors we have IMO.

I agree with you that the right thing to do would have been not to run for re-election municipally. To be fair, entering municipal politics solely or principally to pursue higher office is a practice among members of other parties, too.

I was just looking at some of the 2014 Election Results. I find the map of the mayoral results very interesting.

Looking at the entire city, the west core is blue for McHattie, the inner suburbs and east Hamilton are brown for Eisenberger-led polling stations, and the outer suburbs and rural areas are red for Clark. It’s not quite perfect rings of urban/suburb/far suburb, but it’s pretty close. McHattie won every significant poll in Ward One, and nearly all in Ward Two (and where he came in second, it was narrowly), but only four elsewhere (one poll in Ward Three and three in Dundas). He came in second in almost no polls outside of Wards one to three.

Likewise, Clark won nearly every poll in wards 9 through 11; and 14 and 15, but didn’t even come in second in any poll of a significant size in the old lower city. I knew it was obvious that Clark and McHattie were the more polarizing candidates, and Eisenberger was able to come up the middle, but it struck me to see how urban-suburban the split was. I would honestly have expected both McHattie and Clark to get support in at least some areas of the suburbs and the core, respectively. It surprised me how poorly they both did there.

A little news item from CBC - the only answer for these clowns is term limits.

Two incumbent city councillors raised thousands more than their spending limit and spent the bulk of it on voting day parties and volunteer appreciation, show new expense claims for the October municipal election.

Coun. Tom Jackson, who has represented Ward 6 since 1988, and Coun. Lloyd Ferguson of Ward 13 in Ancaster both raised more than their spending limits and spent thousands rewarding their volunteers.

Jackson’s spending limit was $29,078.80. He fundraised $63,580 and spent $63,130.32. But $24,172.29 of that wasn't spent on getting elected, but rather on an election day “voting day party/appreciation notices.”

Ferguson had a spending limit of $25,802.05 and raised $36,798.50. He spent $36,072.46, and in his case, $12,129.74 of it was spent on “voting day party/appreciation notices.”

By comparison, Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who spent $106,647 of his $318,000 limit, spent $646 on volunteer appreciation.

Source

Jackson spent the most money out of anyone in 2010, around $53,000.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/21...-big-spenders/

The Spec reports that Duvall has locked the NDP nomination:

"Everything's good," said Duvall, who was re-elected as Ward 7 councillor in October. "Of course, I'm ecstatic. There's a lot of stuff going on in my head now. It's going to be a lot of work going forward. This is just the start. It's a stepping stone today and the real meat and potatoes come later."

....Duvall said he signed up about 120 supporters, including Liberals and Conservatives. He plans to forgo his council pay during the federal election campaign.

Questioning election finances
(CATCH, Mar 30 2015)

There are numerous questions generated by the dozens of campaign financial statements filed last week by councillors and other candidates in last fall’s municipal election. But answers will have to be pursued by individual voters because no official oversight of the statements is required under provincial law. And in Hamilton you can’t even compare the 2014 campaign spending to earlier elections.

Elections manager Tony Fallis has told CATCH that “the 2010 financial statements have been destroyed as per the Municipal Elections Act”. Section 88 of the Act orders destruction of ballots within 120 days and says the city clerk “may destroy any other documents and materials related to the election” but then says this section “does not apply” to financial statements “which the clerk shall retain until the members of the council …elected at the next regular election have taken office.”

But Hamilton’s interpretation of the legislation isn’t the same as other municipalities such as Toronto where all financial statements from both the 2006 and 2010 elections are still on the city’s website.

The 2014 campaign financial statements raise a number of significant questions. Newbie Stoney Creek councillor Doug Conley failed to provide any sources for his campaign funds; addresses of most donors listed on Brad Clark’s return are not provided despite the legal requirement to do so; some donors are listed as individuals but with corporate addresses; and at least one corporate donor company doesn’t appear to exist at all.

A particularly curious feature of the 2014 statements is the use of very expensive “voting day party / appreciation notices” apparently to avoid the legal requirement to donate fundraising surpluses to the city.

Before the election campaign, candidates are told the maximum amount they are allowed to spend – based on the number of voters in their ward (or the city for mayoralty candidates). If a candidate collects more than that amount, she “must pay the surplus over to the clerk” where “it becomes the property of the municipality” or is used for specific post-election expenses such as a recount or compliance audit.

However, the rules exempt some expenditures from the election spending limits including “expenses related to parties and other expressions of appreciation after the close of voting”. Five long-time councillors and at least one newbie each report spending over $2000 on this item, with Tom Jackson devoting nearly as much to it as he spent getting re-elected.


Read it in full here.

CANDIDATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Fred Eisenberger (Mayor) 2006 / 2010 & 2010 Supplementary / 2014

Aidan Johnson (Ward 1) 2014

Jason Farr (Ward 2) 2010 / 2014

Matthew Green (Ward 3) 2014

Sam Merulla (Ward 4) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Chad Collins (Ward 5) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Tom Jackson (Ward 6) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Scott Duvall (Ward 7) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Terry Whitehead (Ward 8) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Doug Conley (Ward 9) 2014

Maria Pearson (Ward 10) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Brenda Johnson (Ward 11) 2010 / 2014

Lloyd Ferguson (Ward 12) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Arlene VanderBeek (Ward 13) 2014

Robert Pasuta (Ward 14) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Judi Partridge (Ward 15) 2006 / 2010 / 2014

Jackson blew out his campaign budget in 2006 and 2010 as well, padding his spending by $19,731.81 and $24,770.15 respectively during those election campaigns.

Ontario open to big changes in municipal elections
(The Toronto Star, David Rider, Apr 28 2015)

Big changes are on the horizon for how Torontonians and residents of other Ontario municipalities elect their mayors and councils.

Ted McMeekin, Ontario’s municipal affairs and housing minister, told the Star he plans this fall to consult towns and cities and hopes to oversee passage next spring of reforms including allowing them to use ranked ballots in the 2018 civic elections.

“We’re going to make that happen,” Ted McMeekin said of his Liberal government passing legislation allowing municipalities to opt for abandoning the century-old “first-past-the-post” system.

Other reforms on the table including shortening the “ridiculous” marathon 11-month municipal election time frame, McMeekin said in a wide-ranging interview Monday at Queen’s Park.

Under first-past-the-post, whoever gets the most votes wins. In Toronto races with multiple competitive candidates, councillors take office with as little as 17 per cent support. Many are elected with fewer than half the votes.

With ranked ballots, voters select candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes, the one with lowest support is knocked out of the race and their second-place votes redistributed. The runoff continues until there is a winner with majority support.

Proponents argue the system has fostered, in cities including Minneapolis, racially diverse councils and winners with broad-based support, while discouraging negative campaigning that alienates some voters.

City council asked the province to allow the change in 2013 and backed it in March. Mayor John Tory backed it in March. However Premier Kathleen Wynne seemed to suggest she needed a new council vote, leading some to question the province’s commitment.

McMeekin, however, signalled full steam ahead as part of a periodic review of the Municipal Elections Act.

“The Jan. 1 filing date is ridiculous,” McMeekin said of the current date in which candidates can file their papers at the start of the election year, kicking off a campaign that doesn’t end until election day in late October.

“Maybe the first of June, or something,” would be a better election start date, the minister said, adding he has spoken about that issue with local politicians including his “good friend” Mayor John Tory.


Read it in full here.


It seems to me that if a June 1 filing date goes ahead as provincially mandated but ranked ballots are opt-in, the province could end up creating a system even more incumbent-friendly.

From the CBC: Don't review ward boundaries, Flamborough group says.

This article was interesting: the group in question, Committee to Free Flamborough, explicitly identifies a downtown-suburban divide, and wants to make sure that the suburbs have more representation.

I find it pretty normal that some residents of Flamborough would believe they should be more than three times as important as a Hamilton mountain resident. What I found strange was this:

“The city is hiring a consultant to map out the boundary review process now. And while most agree it won't just be solely based on population, Flamborough wards have far fewer electors than some urban wards.”

Is that right? What else could it be based on besides population? I’m really curious about this, because I wonder what criteria could be used to determine that one person is less important than another, and deserves less representation in our decision-making processes.

I think it will end up being a blend of population counts and respect for historical communities and geography. There likely won't be a wholesale shakeup of the entire ward system (though that might not be a bad thing) and imbalances will remain though hopefully better addressed. We will probably see one new ward added on Hamilton mountain, and some minor ward boundary adjustments.

I get the feeling that those flying the Free Flamborough flag would only find temporary happiness if their separation should ever come to pass. Within a short time the relative domination of Waterdown would become an issue... and there might be a Free Freelton movement, or Liberate Lynden, or Cut Carlisle Loose, or Release Rockton, etc.

I think that might be down to awkward phrasing. It won't be based solely on present population, but probably on projected population — they don't want to have to redraft ward boundaries with any regularity. And as ScreamingViling says, there will likely be consideration given to historical communities and affinities as well as geographical barriers that encourage certain outcomes. But I imagine numbers will be the most persuasive component.

On that note, Ward 14 was Flamborough East. Ward 15 was Flamborough West. They’re both Flamborough. An area with 8% of the broader City of Hamilton population now holds 13% of council voting power. Reunite Flamborough by merging 14/15 and that arrangement changes to 7% of council voting power. After introducing another mountain ward and accounting for population growth, Flamborough will likely enjoy a proportionate share of population-based representation.


It's interesting that CBC Hamilton entirely sidestepped Sarachman's political history.

In 2006, early in his tenure as chair of the Committee to Free Flamborough, he called for the construction of a downtown casino (though he later spoke against the construction of a downtown casino in 2013).

In 2007, he argued for Flamborough to maintain control of Flamboro Downs' slots revenue in the face of council's move to area-rate those proceeds. As a result of the acidic tone of that debate, Sarachman ended up waging a $700,000 defamation lawsuit against Councillor Whitehead over an email chain, ending the legal action in April 2013 $100,000 in the hole.


FWIW, Flamborough’s us-and-them relations with the City of Hamilton are not new:

The creation of Hamilton-Wentworth in 1974 demonstrated the considerable problems of merging city and countryside. If the new central-city region was relatively strong, outlying areas felt that effective regional government would inevitably serve only that city’s interest.

Dissatisfaction with regional government manifested itself in the form of several committees and reports that focused on how to address the structural deficiencies of the system. In 1978, the Hamilton-Wentworth Review Commission (Hamilton-Wentworth, 1978: 40-41) assessed the state of local government in the region and concluded:

“…the present institutions do not fulfill our criterion of a government that can respond to the needs and desires of its citizens. In our view, there are three basic problems: there are serious conflicts between city and non-city politicians, which interfere with and retard the development of policies to serve the citizens of the Region; the structure blurs accountability and hinders accessibility, with the result that it cannot respond to the citizens easily; and finally, the structure of the system results in resources not being used as efficiently as possible.”

The Commission concluded that a new single-tier City of Wentworth should replace the region and its six lower-tier municipalities.

In 1976, 76% of Hamilton-Wentworth’s population was located in the City of Hamilton and 24% in suburban municipalities. By 2011, 64% of the amalgamated city’s population was located in Wards 1-8 and 36% in Wards 9-15.