The Spec’s encounter with a familiar lack of transparency

The public should have access to public information

If you ask me, I’d say Spectator reporter Natalie Paddon got the runaround from city officials in her ongoing quest to investigate the Hamilton Waterfront Trust.

And I would add, if you’ll pardon the self-serving declaration, that without media inquiries, we would not have had all the talk this week from politicians about the need for more public “transparency” and government scrutiny.

Consider this: Paddon asked for the minutes from Waterfront Trust meetings 13 times over the last six or seven weeks.

Finally, last week we were told they would be available sometime before a city committee meeting Oct. 4. Does that seem reasonable? Why all the fuss?

The Hamilton Waterfront Trust does good work with taxpayer money. It operates businesses and promotes tourism along our beautiful waterfront: a sightseeing trolley and boat, a coffee shop, an icecream stand, and a skating rink, for example. And it manages a beautiful building that was until recently an upscale restaurant.

The trust may be a bargain compared to what those operations would cost the city, but it also owes hundreds of thousands in back taxes. Should this alone not trigger a review?

Which brings us back to the mysterious minutes and the media’s attempt to do just that. If an organization receives public money, it should be transparent.

The minutes and financials should be available to the public, barring any sensitive personnel or property matters. These documents don’t need to be on the website, but they should be available if someone asks, journalist or no, without a discussion at the board.

The fact that at least one city councillor, Donna Skelly, has now said she will put forward a motion for a forensic audit, while another, Matthew Green, wants to make documents from taxpayer-supported agencies public, is just one indication the trust has a communications problem.

In the case of the latter motion, why is it even necessary? The city gets the trust’s financial statements (and has shared them in the past with the media), but it received the trust’s 2016 documents only two weeks ago.

The answer is simple: Despite all the talk from politicians and government everywhere, transparency is not a priority.

Worse, as with most government organizations, secrecy is not only easier, safer and more convenient than transparency, it is both habit and human nature. It is ingrained in the bureaucracy.

In this case, perhaps it was simple lack of will? Maybe the trust simply didn’t get around to doing what is necessary?

Again, to beat a dead horse, if it weren’t for the media, many documents like these would remain unavailable at agencies throughout the land, and scrutiny, along with possible improvements and efficiencies, would remain elusive.

This isn’t the first time the trust’s operations have been questioned. The Spectator has done at least two major investigations in recent years and the answers are inevitably both complex and unsatisfying.

Is the debate worth revisiting?

Paul Berton is editor-in-chief of The Hamilton Spectator and thespec.com. You can reach him at 905-526-3482 or pberton@thespec.com