Claims about councillors should be verified
It’s time for activist community to reflect seriously on the anger and disdain it promotes
It is my position that any allegations put forth in letters from the public regarding city councillor behaviour must first be substantiated prior to being formally included into the public record.
If not verified, letters with unproven allegations would result in undue harm to a councillor. Any news publications or journalists understand the importance of verifying information before an article goes to print. There are standards in place to protect both the individual(s) alleging something and the individual(s) being accused of something. These situations can also fall into libel and maybe even defamation legal conflicts.
Is it more acceptable to create harm for someone simply because they have taken the oath of a public office? We too have family, friends and relatives and do not forgo our rights as a citizen when we take our oath as councillor.
For virtually every complaint, there are avenues that the city provides to verify or investigate allegations prior to them being put into the public record. This is a responsible approach.
The sad reality is that we still see some advocacy in our community as nothing more than groups offering an outlet for individuals to attack their councillor if they do not agree with their position on a given issue.
As councillors, we see on a daily basis the anger that ensues in certain communities on issues when there is a clash of opinions.
When we start to lend a hand to this anger by providing a formal, unregulated public platform for it, this creates a new complexity that needs to be contemplated very seriously.
It is my opinion that this approach does not serve democracy, rather, this is often more about chilling the decision-making process, creating distractions and trying to destroy reputations. The motivation for these kinds of things can be seen through several ideologies held by community members who seek to brand incumbent councillors as culpable for all the challenges our city faces.
This is consistent with what we see happening within the realm of social media. There is an active community which seeks to eject incumbents. These groups have theorized that Hamilton city council is controlled by “the old guard,” ultimately insinuating that incumbents are ineffective “dinosaurs” who do not best serve their constituency or the city in its entirety.
People need to be accountable for what they say on both sides of the fence and what they say must be verified before reputations are damaged.
If anyone has ever had a false rumour spread about them, then you understand how hurtful this can be and the emotional toll it can take on a person; shocking though it may be for some, councillors are people, too!
As I said earlier, newspapers do not go to print with anything that alleges something unverified.
Why would someone think council should not have the same standard?
It is high time that the activist community in Hamilton reflect quite seriously on the anger and disdain they promote and contemplate how this frame of mind holds them back from building bridges and repairing relationships so that the city can move forward collaboratively, despite any differences of opinion.