Eisenberger asleep at the festival switch
May 01, 2009
Andrew Dreschel
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/558165
It's up to city investigators to determine whether the Festival of Friends flap involves a serious case of graft, a moonlighting employee, or perhaps some kind of spectacular misunderstanding.
But in the meantime, Mayor Fred Eisenberger needs to have his feet held to the fire for the way he handled the allegation that a city staffer improperly accepted money.
At the very least, Eisenberger was slow off the mark and lackadaisical.
Perhaps even worse, he now appears to be indulging in whitewashing and blameshifting.
Eisenberger claims that he took two steps last September when festival manager Loren Lieberman suggested during a private meeting that a city staffer had improperly accepted payment for some work.
First, he offered Lieberman the opportunity to take his allegation to the city manager, an offer reportedly declined.
Second, Eisenberger says he pro-actively raised the matter with then acting city manger Joe Rinaldo.
"I shared with him (Rinaldo) what Loren had shared with me," Eisenberger says.
Problem is, the now retired Rinaldo doesn't recall Eisenberger ever bringing the matter to his attention.
He says the only festival issue the mayor mentioned concerned city grants.
"I know there was an issue in terms of the flow of the grants ... but that was the only issue I ever dealt with on that."
Rinaldo says if the allegation had been raised, he would have taken it seriously and immediately launched an investigation.
Yes, that's one person's word against another's.
But the balance of credibility shifts heavily against Eisenberger when he makes the same claim about informing new city manager Chris Murray and gets the same response.
Eisenberger says he told Murray about Lieberman's assertions a couple of weeks back, though he's not sure that Murray "picked up" on what he was saying.
"I'm not so sure he got the full picture at that point in time or understood the full picture," Eisenberger says.
According to Murray, there was no partial or full picture to get.
He neither recalls Eisenberger raising the issue at their April 20 meeting nor is it reflected in his notes.
If it had been raised, Murray says he would have noted it and taken follow-up action by contacting the city's legal and human resources departments.
"It would be one of those things that would be significant enough that I would think I would react to."
Murray says he first heard of the allegation when Lieberman dropped the bomb at Wednesday's committee meeting.
Frankly, it's hard to believe that two city managers can suffer from memory lapse over the same issue. But the mayor stands by his assertion that he told them.
"I'm 100 per cent confident that I did that," Eisenberger says.
For Eisenberger to suggest they were informed but took no action amounts to a broadside against their professionalism.
But it also deflects attention from the mayor's own responsibility.
If you accept his account, where was his follow-up?
He is, after all, the city's chief magistrate. Why did the matter simply fall off his radar for months?
To be fair, Eisenberger says when Lieberman first made the accusation, it was delivered cryptically and without details.
Eisenberger also notes that "folks say lots of things on many occasions" to him.
In other words, unsubstantiated allegations are as loose as small change in this town.
That's true enough. But Eisenberger also acknowledges he was troubled from the get-go and wanted to get to the bottom of it.
So why did nothing happen for eight long months?
That question may dog Eisenberger long after the case itself is put to bed.
Prev
and no body elected the bugger. 
Hybrid Mode