Fiscal Accountability
Presentation to the Corporate Administration Committee
By John Shymko
March 2, 2005

My name is John Shymko, and I am here as a citizen representing myself today.

It is admirable that the city is making an effort towards financial transparency in the Red Hill Valley Status Reports, however, the legal groupings are too vague to be of any real value to constituents and, I suspect, counselors.

I was wondering if you could clarify for me:

1. Actions Against the Federal Government.
   
   3 million, 50 thousand dollars is budgeted for this, 2 million, 592 thousand spent as of January 31/05.
   
   What does this refer to? Is this the court that succeeded in blocking the EA in 1999-2001? I believe I remember David Estrin on the 24 th of November referring to "$2.5 million that you spent on taking the Judicial Review"
   
   How much have we spent on the present federal suit? How much of this was spent between April 2004, when the suit was filed, and November 24 th , the date that council ratified it?
   
   Finally, what is the extra half million for?
   
   I originally thought it may be for the present suit, but I seem to remember a figure of about two to two and a half million coming up in the torte, and if you add those together, you're already way over budget, so I'm just plain confused.
   
   
2. Injunction Issues
   
   2 million, 600 thousand dollars budgeted, 2 million, 358 thousand spent.
   
   On what? I really don't understand this one. If we haven't even announced the defendants, how can we have spent more than 90 per cent of the budget? I'll come back to this one, although for the time being, I would appreciate some clarification as to what this term does and does not encompass.
   
   
3. Legal Counsel
   
   1 million, 900 thousand approved, 1 million, 655 thousand spent.
   
   Again, what does this term mean? Are these in house expenses, or are they earmarked for anything outside the previous two categories?
   
   I noticed that one thousand dollars was spent in January under this category, but no explanation was given in the details. Are the legal costs exempt from this accounting?

The report begins with a statement of principles from vision 2020.

Fiscal Accountability: to increase the efficiency of our City government through fiscal responsibility and prudence.

Integrity: to demonstrate honesty and sincerity in all of our dealings, upholding only the highest ethical principles; to provide open and transparent communications to create informed opinion.

A City that Spends Wisely and Invests Strategically. To get the best value for taxpayer dollars, and to ensure that we have the financial resources available to invest in our economic development and other community priorities, Council commits to increase the efficiency of our City government.

These are noble ideals.

Council is currently dealing with a budget crisis in which the possibility (and actuality) of public services are being dropped. 

And it is in the spirit of these ideals that I ask the following questions.

1. What portion of these figures represent internal lawyers/legal costs?
2. What portion was paid specifically to Gowling Lafleur Henderson?
3. Does the portion paid to Gowlings include payments to contractors such as Silverberg, StrategyCorp, LTD Security, etc.?

If so, why are these non-legal contractors included in legal costs?

If not, how much additional have we paid to outside contractors and lobbyists through Gowlings?

It appears that about 6.6 million dollars has been spent on Red Hill related Legal costs. That leaves about 900 thousand dollars unspent, but still budgeted.

May I be so bold as to ask what this is for? And would this money not be better spent elsewhere?

• Perhaps a Tuberculosis management program?
• STD treatment and prevention?
• Resources for families of Autistic children?
• Or maybe on the city's tree trimming program?
• Or to protect and reinforce the Hamilton Future Fund?

Personally, I would like to see a community roundtable on poverty more than I would like to take punitive measures on six or eight non-violent injunction offenders that will bring no financial gain to our city. It is far more moral and, without a doubt, far better fiscal management.