Now Reading
Nann calls for reconsideration of Kroetsch censure

Nann calls for reconsideration of Kroetsch censure

Ward three councillor Nrinder Nann will introduce a motion at next week’s City Council meeting to reconsider the September 30th Council resolution reprimanding Hamilton activist Cameron Kroetsch for allegedly breaching the Hamilton Advisory  Committee Task Force Code of Conduct. Nann was one of 12 who originally voted for censure. Kroetsch was alleged to have published a social media post that identified  a member of the Hamilton Police Services Board and a former city employee.

But after the censure motion was passed Kroetsch released information that contradicted the allegation that he had identified  individuals. Following the discussion at the September 30th council meeting, 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, 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.

Reconsideration would require a two-thirds vote by council.

What's Your Reaction?
Don't Agree
In Love
Not Sure
View Comments (2)
  • What a frivolous waste of time and energy. Council was unanimous-imagine that-in their censure of Kroetsch, including Ms. Nann.
    And she believes two-thirds of her colleagues are as ill informed as her?
    Forget term limits-let’s impose Motion limits…….3 strikes and you are out…….if 3 of your Motions fail on the floor , you get to sit on your hands for the balance of the term.
    Hamilton is a hotbed for subversive misfits.

    • I feel the censuring of Cameron was clearly unfair. All the strength to Clr Nann in bringing this motion forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2022 The Bay Observer. All Rights Reserved.

Scroll To Top
WordPress Ads