CATCH Backgrounder:
Lister Block decision-making process
June 9, 2006

1. No tender process: The city's 2005 arrangements to lease office space from LIUNA were not subject to a tendering process, so no competitive bids were considered. The office vacancy rate in Hamilton exceeds 25 percent, equivalent to about two Stelco Towers sitting empty. The owners of that empty office space appear to have reason to complain that they were not treated fairly by the city in this process. The tendering process is utilized by government and private companies to ensure achievement of best value and price, and to provide a fair opportunity for all eligible bidders to compete. Tendering is required for most city contracts in excess of $5000. The value of the Lister arrangements is reported to be $30 million over the 15-year term of the lease. It is noteworthy that Yale Properties publicly stated after the Lister deal that they could have offered the city a much better deal. The city's purchasing polices can be viewed at
   http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/AB6886AD-39C8- 4D13-B76E-
   DF1F6EEBBE4A/13817/FINALPurchasingPoliciesandProcedures.pdf.
   
   
2. Secret negotiations: The city's 2005 arrangements with LIUNA were initiated without public notice and conducted for several months in secret. Media reports indicate that negotiations started in the fall of 2004. The first Spectator reports were in mid-April 2005 and provided a limited amount of information. Some of this subsequently proved to be misleading in that it suggested the Lister Block would be restored as part of the proposed deal. City councillors were not given the details about the arrangement until about three days before the decision. The public was not given details until after the final decisions had been taken by Committee of the Whole and finalized by City Council on the morning and afternoon of May 9, 2005
   
   
3. Delayed circulation of staff report: The normal process is for staff reports to be distributed to councillors at least five days prior to a meeting. In some situations, exceptions are made when reports are late being prepared, but in the case of the Lister Block the staff report, which was dated April 25, 2005 was available long before it was provided to members of council on May 6. The city's procedural bylaw does not set out specific rules for circulation of staff reports but it is explicit about circulation of agendas (which staff reports are normally part of). Section 9.1 reads: "The Clerk shall distribute the regular agendas of Council and Committee meetings to members of Council and Corporate Management Team at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meetings."
   
   
4. No prior circulation of the staff report to the public and media: Section 9.2 of the procedural bylaw states: "The Clerk shall initiate the distribution of the regular agendas of Committee meetings, to the media and general public, 48 hours following the distribution outlined in subsection 9.1." The staff report was not made available to the public or media until after the conclusion of the decision-making process on May 9. Consequently, there was no opportunity for the media or the public to examine, evaluate and comment on the proposed agreement prior to it being adopted by city council.
   
   
5. Secret debate of councillors: The first council meeting on the Lister Block deal was held on the morning of May 9, 2005. The meeting of Committee of the Whole went in camera for about one hour to discuss the deal. When the councillors emerged from the secret session, a number of councillors expressed their views on the deal, but it was clear that the debate was over and it had already been decided (even if the vote had not been held in camera). There was no public questioning of city staff, and no debate among councillors. The open session was confined to statements from councillors. The procedural bylaw does not specify leasing arrangements as a matter that can be considered in camera. The bylaw does specify that "a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for municipal or local board purposes" may be considered in camera. It's not clear if this clause applies to a leasing arrangement. The minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of May 9 provide the following reason for going in camera: "On motion, (Jackson/Collins) the Committee moved In Camera to discuss property negotiations. Carried."
   
   
6. Incorrect information may have mislead councillors: The media coverage prior to May 9, 2005 speculated that a deal was being made to house city staff in a renovated/revitalized Lister Block. The media coverage strongly suggested that this deal would result in "saving" the Lister Block and that the councillors who supported the deal would be "heroes". On the morning of May 9, the Spectator incorrectly reported that the deal cost was $18 million (rather than the $30 million subsequently accepted as the cost of the 15-year lease agreement). This coverage may have also influenced the decision-making of councillors.
   
   
7. Rushed decision-making process: The decision-making process opened at 9:30 am on May 9, 2005 at Committee of the Whole. At that point, the staff report explaining the proposed agreement with LIUNA was not a public document, and had only very recently even been supplied to some members of council. As noted above real debate about the proposal was confined to the secret section of the meeting. Immediately following the meeting, a special City Council meeting was held to ratify the Committee of the Whole decision. There was no opportunity for public input. There was no opportunity for public debate. There was no opportunity for reflection. Essentially the Lister decision was made in one meeting that had two parts - a Committee of the Whole followed by a City Council meeting. While there are no specific city rules forbidding such a procedure, the practice of decision-making established at senior levels of government in Canada normally requires a much less rushed process. Both federal and provincial legislation goes through three readings - the first to announce the proposed legislation, the second to debate it formally including detailed discussion by a committee and public input, and the third to ratify the decision.
   
   
8. Questionable notice of meeting: The notice for the holding of the special council meeting was circulated by email at 2:59 pm on Friday May 6, 2005. The procedural bylaw requires 48-hour written notice of a special meeting of council. The bylaw specifies only length of time of notice, not whether or not weekends can be part of that notice period. If weekends are included, the bylaw would seem to allow a meeting to be called at 8 pm on Friday evening and held at 8 pm on Sunday evening.
   
   
9. Missing Formal Information: Neither the minutes nor the agenda of the Special Council Meeting of May 9, 2005 are posted on the city's website. Approval of the minutes was an addition to the agenda of the May 11 meeting and the minutes of that meeting record that the May 9 minutes were approved, but neither the May 11 agenda nor the minutes of that meeting provide any details of the minutes of the May 9, 2005 council meeting. The minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of May 9, 2005 (http://www.myhamilton.ca/Hamilton.Portal/Inc/PortalPDFs/
   ClerkPDFs/committee-of-the-whole/2005/May09/Minutes.pdf) do not include the time of the meeting adjournment.
   
   
10. Potential bias: The media has repeatedly stated that Mayor Di Ianni initiated the discussions with LIUNA regarding the Lister Block. LIUNA-related entities were significant campaign contributors to Mayor Di Ianni's campaign. Among the campaign donations received by Mayor Di Ianni were three totalling $750 from LIUNA Gardens and two totalling $750 from LIUNA Station. It was subsequently confirmed that LIUNA Station is an operating name for LIUNA Gardens and consequently was not eligible to make separate contributions. The $750 in donations from LIUNA Station were returned and the contributor acknowledged responsibility for the over-contribution in court in May 2006.
    
    The compliance auditor spent three pages of his report trying to unravel $4,000 in donations to Di Ianni apparently related to LIUNA. There was $750 from the Labourers' International Union of North America, $250 from Local 837 of LIUNA, $750 from LIUNA Gardens Limited, $750 from LIUNA Station (which was determined to be illegal), $750 from LIUNA Ontario Provincial District Council, and $750 from LIUNA Contractors' Training Council (an organization that the auditor was unable to determine whether it was "appropriately constituted and eligible to contribute to municipal election campaigns".) Di Ianni got an additional $750 from Joe Mancinelli, an international vice-president of LIUNA, and the spokesperson for all its local operations, and another $750 from Mancinelli's wife. Mancinelli subsequently co-chaired a fundraiser at LIUNA Station to address Di Ianni's campaign deficit. LIUNA Local 837 provided $750 donations to five other members of city council in the 2003 election (Sam Merulla, Bill Kelly, Terry Whitehead, Tom Jackson and Chad Collins) and somewhat lesser amounts to two others (Maria Pearson and Bernie Morelli). Those seven, plus Di Ianni cast 8 of the 12 votes that approved the Lister deal on May 9, 2005.

The 2006 Lister Block decision - on whether to grant a demolition permit to LIUNA - continues on Monday with a 3 pm Committee of the Whole meeting. After an initial plan to hold a council meeting immediately afterwards, the process has now been changed to have the final ratification decision two days later at Wednesday evening's meeting of City Council.

The agenda for Monday's meeting is posted on the city's website at
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CityDepartments/
CorporateServices/Clerks/AgendaMinutes/CommitteeWhole/2006/June12
CommitteeoftheWholeAgenda.htm and includes the staff report. Twenty-two delegations are scheduled to address the meeting.