Columnist Andrew Dreschel looks at councillors clashing over ward spending

Green and Skelly clash while others defend their area rating records

If you need a reminder of how easy it is for tempers to fray even among rational people, just catch Hamilton councillors in action on the right — or maybe wrong — day.

At Wednesday’s council meeting, a moderate proposal to clarify spending rules on area rating infrastructure dollars saw Matthew Green throw a full-blown tantrum against Donna Skelly. He called her a hypocrite. She called him a bully. The hostility in his voice was as glaring as the distaste in hers.

This isn’t the first time the ideologically opposed duo — he’s a Dipper, she’s a Tory — have clashed.

The only good thing about it was the rest of council refused to be drawn in. They were too busy defending their spending records while simultaneously supporting more transparency and a clearer definition of what constitutes infrastructure.

The push for more openness and clarity stems from growing public and media scrutiny of how area rating infrastructure cash is spent.

The money comes from a reserve which annually apportions each councillor in the old city — Wards 1 through 8 — $1.7 million to be spent on basic infrastructure, such as roads, water supply and facilities.

The reserve was established in 2011 as the result of corrective tax redistribution. The problem is, over the years the definition of infrastructure has softened to the point where it’s occasionally bent to include funding for everything from school nutrition programs to tree plantings.

Although the expenditures have to be approved by council, they always pass unchallenged because no councillor likes to meddle in another’s ward business in case the same happens to them. It’s a combination of political cowardice and self interest.

On top of that, the annual $1.7 million includes a yearly $100,000 in discretionary funds that are disbursed by councillors to community groups or projects without a smidgen of oversight.

The definition of infrastructure in the use of these discretionary dollars is frequently diluted to include everything from funding movie nights to post cards.

Earlier this week the audit and finance committee endorsed a staff report which, among other things, recommended council vote on all future discretionary grants above $350.

Committee members, led by Skelly and Brenda Johnson, also asked staff for a clear definition of basic infrastructure and what the spending criteria is.

That basically sets the table for a future discussion on parameters, which, truth be told, were first watered down by former councillor Brian McHattie’s use of the phrase “social infrastructure,” a pliable term which, up until now, has not been seriously questioned. So far, so good. As Terry Whitehead noted, a review is long overdue.

Green went on the warpath, however, because on the very day council was ratifying the committee proposal, Skelly was seeking approval to spend $15,000 from her area rating fund for a public art installation for the Concession Street BIA. Green may have been loaded for bear because at an earlier meeting Skelly had the nerve to ask questions about his use of non-levy cell tower revenue for community projects.

He now railed against Skelly’s “audacity” at bringing forward her motion so soon after talking up her concerns about spending area rating dollars on non-infrastructure.

“The hypocrisy is rank to be able to spend a week in the media trying to go after councillors to make their communities a little bit better, to invest in people,’” Green fumed, calling down “shame” on her.

Skelly responded by drawing attention to the pink shirt Green was wearing as an antibullying symbol.

“And I often find it odd when people wear pink and are sometimes the biggest bullies in the room,” she said.

They were both right. Skelly’s motion was rash, given her arguments. And Green was guilty of browbeating.

In the end, council unanimously approved nailing down a definition of what exactly hard infrastructure means. And Skelly withdrew her BIA beautification motion pending the report. All that remains to be seen is when she and Green will skirmish next.

Andrew Dreschel’s commentary appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. adreschel@thespec.com @AndrewDreschel 905-526-3495