Muddy Reporting Does Governance Process Disservice

Last week, the Hamilton Community News featured an article entitled Expect ‘push back’ from developers, says Ontario integrity commissioner'. It caught my eye, and as I began reading, my curiosity was piqued all the more:

'If Hamilton adopts a lobbyist registry, organizations as small as neighbourhood groups, and as large as developer associations will need to sign onto the document to identify them as lobbyists, says Ontario Integrity Commissioner Lynn Morrison.'

The neighbourhood association reference surprised me. I couldn't see how conversations that should be happening between councillors and their constituents could fall under any 'lobbying' guidelines. So I contacted the Ontario Integrity Commissioner's office for clarification. 

I spoke with Ian Stedman, Inquiries Officer, and he was kind enough to make up for the lack of clarity the article presented. 

In a nutshell, the Integrity Commissioner's office only presides over provincial matters. That is, Queen's Park. It has no jurisdiction over municipalities. Lynn Morrison, the Integrity Commissioner, was invited to provide input to Hamilton Council regarding the ins and outs of a lobbyist registry; 'The Guide To The Lobbyists Registration Act' is a great place to start to get a handle on what's involved. 

(For the record, Toronto is the currently the only municipality in Ontario that has a mandatory lobbyist registry. Edit; it appears Hamilton already has a lobbyist registry, with one registered lobbyist...so now I am completely and utterly confused.)

Most importantly to me, it was confirmed that were the same basic guidelines adopted by Hamilton as are in effect by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner's office, neighbourhood associations would not have to register, primarily because NAs don't have paid employees. That's not to say that a not-for-profit the size of an NA wouldn't have to register, and be subject to rules and regulations...but even here, particulars would apply. 

This discussion is directly connected to the drive towards accountability and transparency, which I would never have any argument with, but wonder just how limiting such an approach might be in terms of development issues. Meaning, would arch guidelines be an impingement to genuine, open dialogue, building relationships and fostering relationships making the most of common goals and aspirations ?

Moreover, would this approach be necessary if we had a  less sequestered governance process? Does the need for 'transparency and accountability' come from a history of councillors 'misbehaving', or rather, that there's traditionally been a fair distance between the average resident and the goings-on of their councillor that results in distrust and wanting to keep our local public servants on a short leash?

'Sometimes in trying so hard to get it right, we can get it so wrong.'




M Adrian Brassington