A DAMNING report into the running of the Corporation of Hamilton was commissioned as a decoy to hamper progress of a controversial waterfront development, it has been alleged.

And former Common Councillor Graeme Outerbridge said the Corporation has been left with a $46,000 bill for the 45-page document, which branded the authority as "anachronistic and gives rise to serious concerns regarding accountability, transparency and legitimacy".

Yesterday Mr. Outerbridge, who stood down from the Corporation this month, said the fact that the report was commissioned was evidence of "a lack of leadership and clear direction which allowed crucial decisions to be 'mothballed'."

Mr. Outerbridge, who plans to run for office with the Corporation as soon as he can iron out a dispute over his eligibility to stand, said: "It was a diversion away from the controversy of the original waterfront development. That had been met with such resistance by some of the conservative members of the Corporation that (former Mayor) Jay Bluck created this commission as a diversion to say 'let's see where you think the City should be going'. He basically did this to try to chart some sort of future for the city, but at the same time diverting attention away from the waterfront project. Effectively it was mothballed."

Mr. Outerbridge explained that, following the death of Mayor Bluck in 2006, his successor - current Mayor Sutherland Madeiros - expanded the remit of the commission.

Basically, the feeling among members of the Corporation was that they didn't want to be a part of it," Mr. Outerbridge said.

"Under Mayor Madeiros it was somewhat expanded and is as loose as a goose. Newer members felt that the cost of the report -incurred by someone being a reporting secretary - was growing and growing. Furthermore, it was felt it was the duty of the elected members to chart the policies and future of the city, which is why we felt the commission should stop. At a certain point the members voted that it should be stopped but the Mayor defied that and reinstituted the commission and it was allowed to continue, even though the commission no longer had any authority."

Mr. Outerbridge said he thought some of the commission's findings were unjustified - but that others were totally fair.

"I think there's such a disconnect with the functioning of the sitting Corporation," he said.

"There's such a lack of leadership and clear direction and basically things are just sitting in abeyance."

Mr. Outerbridge said the waterfront issue is now being seen as a priority issue thanks to work done by the Corporation's Wharf Committee.

"We got it back on the burner even though it had been shunted to one side," he said.

"Finally, through the Wharf Committee there was enough mass where we got the full Corporation to embrace it again and we took it to the point of giving a presentation to stakeholders in the city. I think the next phase is to show it to city taxpayers and then the general population.

"But really the waterfront cannot move forward until we have the full cooperation and participation of Government. A lot of that has to do with the phasing out of the docks, and the Corporation's new mandate is to do it in a phased basis.

"I think Government's position is a 'wait and see' one at the moment.

"They have their Waterfront Task Force looking into it and I know nothing can happen in Hamilton without cooperation from Government. We need their help and also independent financiers - it's going to have to be a public/private ownership.

Continued on page 2

"I think the city critically needs it to bring life back into the city - to make it a tourist city rather than a functional, office city. Basically the critical thing will be the financing and make sure that there's enough local involvement so that the big bucks don't just come in and move local interest aside."

Mr. Outerbridge said he agreed with the commission that the COrporation needed to take a more pro-active role in certain projects, such as the North Hamilton Economic Empowerment Zone.

"It's a great concept but it's getting the buy-in from people," he said.

"We have had some involvement but we have been too passive - we have not actively been involved in gauging the EEZ and the people behind it. We need the synergy of working with them rather than having them over there doing one thing and we have governance over certain issues and facilities that they may need - it doesn't happen in isolation, they have to work with us."