Was the Skelly pile-on a gender thing?

Councillor says she was “troubled” and “disappointed” by the verbal attacks

Now that the audit of CityHousing Hamilton has been dealt with, the lingering question is was the Donna Skelly pile-on a gender thing? Skelly doesn’t think so. But she admits she was “troubled” and “disappointed” by the verbal attacks she sustained from some of her colleagues when she recently found herself flailing against the prevailing council wind.

“To put it into perspective — and I’ve thought about it — I don’t believe it’s a gender thing. I really don’t. But I think where my gender plays a role is I don’t hang out with the guys.”

In other words, in Skelly’s eyes they didn’t go after her because she’s an aggressive woman; it’s because she doesn’t belong to the Old Boys’ Club, or, to express it more accurately, the backslapping clique of councillors who chat and chum around during and sometimes after council meetings.

Even though she took a mauling for it, Skelly says she doesn’t regret her failed attempt to delay the approval of the $50 million poverty-reduction plan until a critical audit of the city’s social housing agency could be discussed.

Skelly advocated the short pause last week. The audit was finally discussed this Thursday. The upshot is CityHousing will report back in six months on its progress in tackling more than 20 oversight failures and omissions, many of which are already being addressed.

Skelly called for the delay because $20 million from the poverty plan will go to CityHousing projects. Regardless of whether a pause was warranted or not, the nasty tone of the put-downs directed at her surprised even veteran city hall reporters. It seemed personal and vicious, an over-the top mix of political shaming and bullying.

No surprise that a consistent theme was electioneering, a jab at Skelly’s plan to run for the provincial Tories in the riding of Flamborough-Glanbrook, a nomination she was expected to nail down by acclamation Thursday night.

Matthew Green accused her of playing “gotcha” politics and tarnishing the “stewardship” of the poverty reduction file. Chad Collins attributed her suggestion to the election “silly season” in which people who are trying to play catch-up make “outrageous comments.” Sam Merulla said she was looking for headlines, spreading “nonsense” and being “unprofessional.”

Others joined in, some dismissively, some measured. By the way, Skelly didn’t raise the gender issue. I did, after discovering that another journalist also wondered if a man would have been treated as roughly under similar circumstances.

Skelly is one of five women on the 16-member council. But she’s different in the sense that she’s not only a rookie elected in a 2015 byelection, she’s an outspoken conservative on a council which generally tilts left. As a former CHCH reporter, she also has a journalist’s instincts for a good story.

She says when she discovered the audit report had gone public just a few hours before last week’s council meeting, she felt obliged to raise it. She thinks she was attacked so strongly because she was seen as raining on council’s feel-good poverty reduction parade.

“The fact is, I didn’t get the memo that there are certain things that you’re not allowed to discuss at city council and that there are certain things that are off limits. I don’t play by those rules. If something this important falls into my lap just hours before we’re about to sign off on a ($20 Million) increase in funding, I think it’s my obligation to look into it.”

Skelly argues it’s fair game to challenge positions and policies, but the personal attacks were “unprofessional” and completely “out of line.”

She understands friendships and bonds are formed among councillors, especially when they’ve worked together for years.

“But it just got stupid. It was very, very ugly. I was really surprised, as were some other members of council who said they watched it and were disgusted.”

Yeah, well, maybe next time they should speak up. We all know what silence implies.