LGBTQ Advisory Committee Chair Cameron Kroetsch is still looking for an apology from the City for censuring him for allegedly releasing information about identifiable individuals The Integrity Commissioner’s report left the clear impression was that Kroetsch had posted a tweet that named 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 the meeting that led to the censure, councillors appeared to be under the same impression– that Kroetsch had released the names of the individuals. It turned out, however, 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.
Kroetsch has asked for a judicial review of the process that led to the censure but says he would prefer a mediated solution and an apology. In a letter released this week, Kroetsch says he has been stonewalled by city staff.
Principles Integrity, who have been the city integrity commissioner for two years are currently engaged in a fee dispute with Hamilton Councillors, some of whom are suggesting the appointment be reconsidered. At the same time the IC was slammed by Councilor Sam Merulla over and adverse ruling against him for language he used against a company in a private dispute.