Now Reading
Integrity Commissioner report turning into a fiasco

Integrity Commissioner report turning into a fiasco

In the fallout over last week’s vote by Hamilton City Council to censure LGBTQ Advisory Committee Chair Cameron Kroetsch for allegedly releasing information about identifiable individuals, it appears that either the integrity commissioner didn’t have all the facts or chose to leave them out of its report to Hamilton City Council. Reading the report and watching the debate, the clear impression was that Kroetsch had posted a tweet that identified a former city staffer who had been crucified in social media for having had white supremacist ties in his past, along with a member of the Hamilton Police Services Board. As they spoke on the issue, at last week’s Council meeting, councillors appeared to be under the impression that Kroetsch had released the names of the individuals. It now turns out that Kroetsch had only referred to them by their titles. In the latest twist, it appears the names of the individuals, not the titles, were also posted on the city’s website in a link to the Hamilton Police Services Board minutes, and that they had been available for public scrutiny for a year.

In an interview on CHML’s Bill Kelly show last week, lawyer Wade Poziomka, acting for Kroetsch, told Kelly that in his client’s interaction with the Integrity Commissioner there was no attempt made to arrive at a mediated resolution, as the IC indicated had been done in 14 other matters referred to the commissioner. He said his client was interviewed once and the next he heard about the matter was receiving the draft report that went to council. A letter from the Hamilton Legal Clinic mentioned that Kroetsch submitted a 102 page response to the IC that was scarcely mentioned in the final report.

Hamilton activist Graham Crawford has sent a letter to council, demanding an apology be extended to Kroetsch, and that council investigate the apparent staff  breach of confidentiality regarding the two individuals.

What's Your Reaction?
Don't Agree
0
Happy
0
In Love
0
Not Sure
1
View Comments (2)
  • Crawford is a dingbat.
    He advocated long and loud on behalf of Mayor Freddy, telling anyone who would listen that ol’ LRT obsessed Fred was the only choice we had.

    Until he helped get him elected, at which point he turned on him like a viper, with the realization that Freddy was actually a squirrel in long pants.

    He left here for greener pastures, which quickly turned riotous…..returning here for “the inclusive and vibrant” environment….which has now turned “toxic”
    Drama just seems to follow this guy everywhere he goes.

    Cameron signed an agreement, then violated it. He was cautioned by a City Clerk, and he ignored their direction.
    Poor thing.
    Council had the facts. They know about Cameron, and they responded accordingly.

  • Everytime city council goes in camera, I always think of the Dteyfus Affair. Eventually the truth will emerge.

    I feel Cameron did nothing wrong as a “VOLUNTEER”. What a waste of time and resources over a non event.

    People look for leadership however from this current council, leadership is not something that is apparent. Council seems to want to punish and stomp on all types of marginalized groups in the city which includes those who are homeless and no plan in sight.

    I see that Mr Crawford has nothing to say or write about the most marginalized group in the city, the homeless which would include members of his own community.

    Priorities people!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2019 The Bay Observer. All Rights Reserved.

Scroll To Top