Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger is warning the city’s judicial review on the Red Hill Valley Parkway will take some time before the process even begins.
“It could be four to five months before anything gets going,” said Eisenberger in an interview. “It may take several months to get a judge appointed, get staff and legal counsel.”
Days after Hamilton councillors voted 14 to 2 to initiate a judicial review on why a friction report on the Red Hill Valley Parkway was only revealed to councillors in February even though it had been completed five years earlier, Eisenberger said officials, politicians and staff are prepared to be “clear and open” when they are expected to give testimony.
“We want to find a way to never have this issue happen again,” said Eisenberger, who expects to be called as a witness along with other councillors. “We are more than happy to do that in a very public way.”
But before any testimony is given, there is the arduous process of identifying the scope of the review, selecting who will oversee it, hire various lawyers and locate a place to hold the hearing.
Councillors cited a judicial inquiry as being the best option to provide an “open and transparent” opportunity for the public to hear testimony when they made their decision over an intense nine hours of discussion both in public and behind closed doors.
An auditor general or ombudsman review would have conducted witness interviews behind closed doors, with a final report issued to the public with recommendations. It was an alternative that wasn’t palatable for some councillors who wanted the community, including family members who had lost loved one in accidents along the parkway to see and hear first-hand testimony from witnesses.
“I think we landed in the right place,” said Eisenberger, even though he was “reluctantly” supporting a judicial review. “Transparency and openness is essentially where most of the councillors landed.”
He cited the “whispers” and “innuendo” within the Hamilton community and on social media that amounted to conspiracy theories about why the report remained undiscovered for years.
“Trust in government, trust in staff is critical,” he said.
But a problem with holding a judicial inquiry, besides the length of time, which can take years, is the high cost. It was one of the reasons that Eli Lederman of the law firm Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin recommended an auditor general review. He said the cost could be about $300,000 and take about four months.
A judicial inquiry, he said, can sometimes take on a life of its own. He cited the Bellamy inquiry into the City of Toronto’s computer leasing scandal that took three and a half years and cost $11 million. He also noted Collingwood’s judicial inquiry into the town’s decision to sell its shares in a public utility company that began last spring and remains ongoing at a cost of over $1 million.
“This is not going to be a quick process,” said Eisenberger. “That’s the unfortunate part. The auditor general approach is much more private, but it is quicker, speedier, with a cost-effective answer at the end of the day.”
As part of council’s motion to approve a judicial review, which was advocated by Stoney Creek Coun. Brad Clark, was a request to staff to work out the scope of the inquiry and what questions need to be answered before selecting a person to oversee the review.
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger is warning the city’s judicial review on the Red Hill Valley Parkway will take some time before the process even begins.
“It could be four to five months before anything gets going,” said Eisenberger in an interview. “It may take several months to get a judge appointed, get staff and legal counsel.”
Days after Hamilton councillors voted 14 to 2 to initiate a judicial review on why a friction report on the Red Hill Valley Parkway was only revealed to councillors in February even though it had been completed five years earlier, Eisenberger said officials, politicians and staff are prepared to be “clear and open” when they are expected to give testimony.
“We want to find a way to never have this issue happen again,” said Eisenberger, who expects to be called as a witness along with other councillors. “We are more than happy to do that in a very public way.”
But before any testimony is given, there is the arduous process of identifying the scope of the review, selecting who will oversee it, hire various lawyers and locate a place to hold the hearing.
Councillors cited a judicial inquiry as being the best option to provide an “open and transparent” opportunity for the public to hear testimony when they made their decision over an intense nine hours of discussion both in public and behind closed doors.
An auditor general or ombudsman review would have conducted witness interviews behind closed doors, with a final report issued to the public with recommendations. It was an alternative that wasn’t palatable for some councillors who wanted the community, including family members who had lost loved one in accidents along the parkway to see and hear first-hand testimony from witnesses.
“I think we landed in the right place,” said Eisenberger, even though he was “reluctantly” supporting a judicial review. “Transparency and openness is essentially where most of the councillors landed.”
He cited the “whispers” and “innuendo” within the Hamilton community and on social media that amounted to conspiracy theories about why the report remained undiscovered for years.
“Trust in government, trust in staff is critical,” he said.
But a problem with holding a judicial inquiry, besides the length of time, which can take years, is the high cost. It was one of the reasons that Eli Lederman of the law firm Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin recommended an auditor general review. He said the cost could be about $300,000 and take about four months.
A judicial inquiry, he said, can sometimes take on a life of its own. He cited the Bellamy inquiry into the City of Toronto’s computer leasing scandal that took three and a half years and cost $11 million. He also noted Collingwood’s judicial inquiry into the town’s decision to sell its shares in a public utility company that began last spring and remains ongoing at a cost of over $1 million.
“This is not going to be a quick process,” said Eisenberger. “That’s the unfortunate part. The auditor general approach is much more private, but it is quicker, speedier, with a cost-effective answer at the end of the day.”
As part of council’s motion to approve a judicial review, which was advocated by Stoney Creek Coun. Brad Clark, was a request to staff to work out the scope of the inquiry and what questions need to be answered before selecting a person to oversee the review.
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger is warning the city’s judicial review on the Red Hill Valley Parkway will take some time before the process even begins.
“It could be four to five months before anything gets going,” said Eisenberger in an interview. “It may take several months to get a judge appointed, get staff and legal counsel.”
Days after Hamilton councillors voted 14 to 2 to initiate a judicial review on why a friction report on the Red Hill Valley Parkway was only revealed to councillors in February even though it had been completed five years earlier, Eisenberger said officials, politicians and staff are prepared to be “clear and open” when they are expected to give testimony.
“We want to find a way to never have this issue happen again,” said Eisenberger, who expects to be called as a witness along with other councillors. “We are more than happy to do that in a very public way.”
But before any testimony is given, there is the arduous process of identifying the scope of the review, selecting who will oversee it, hire various lawyers and locate a place to hold the hearing.
Councillors cited a judicial inquiry as being the best option to provide an “open and transparent” opportunity for the public to hear testimony when they made their decision over an intense nine hours of discussion both in public and behind closed doors.
An auditor general or ombudsman review would have conducted witness interviews behind closed doors, with a final report issued to the public with recommendations. It was an alternative that wasn’t palatable for some councillors who wanted the community, including family members who had lost loved one in accidents along the parkway to see and hear first-hand testimony from witnesses.
“I think we landed in the right place,” said Eisenberger, even though he was “reluctantly” supporting a judicial review. “Transparency and openness is essentially where most of the councillors landed.”
He cited the “whispers” and “innuendo” within the Hamilton community and on social media that amounted to conspiracy theories about why the report remained undiscovered for years.
“Trust in government, trust in staff is critical,” he said.
But a problem with holding a judicial inquiry, besides the length of time, which can take years, is the high cost. It was one of the reasons that Eli Lederman of the law firm Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin recommended an auditor general review. He said the cost could be about $300,000 and take about four months.
A judicial inquiry, he said, can sometimes take on a life of its own. He cited the Bellamy inquiry into the City of Toronto’s computer leasing scandal that took three and a half years and cost $11 million. He also noted Collingwood’s judicial inquiry into the town’s decision to sell its shares in a public utility company that began last spring and remains ongoing at a cost of over $1 million.
“This is not going to be a quick process,” said Eisenberger. “That’s the unfortunate part. The auditor general approach is much more private, but it is quicker, speedier, with a cost-effective answer at the end of the day.”
As part of council’s motion to approve a judicial review, which was advocated by Stoney Creek Coun. Brad Clark, was a request to staff to work out the scope of the inquiry and what questions need to be answered before selecting a person to oversee the review.