Graeme Outerbridge has reiterated his call for change at the Corporation of Hamilton, insisting more needs to be done to involve Bermudians in the municipality.

According to the former common councillor, who last week asked the Human Rights Commission to investigate the electoral process at City Hall, the Corporation is doing nothing to address Government's stated concern that everyone does not have a fair shot at becoming a member.

"These are issues that were raised in 2003," he declared yesterday. "It's now 2008 and not one substantive change has been made to the (Municipalities) Act."

He added that a recent announcement of the Corporation's intent to speak with Government about amendments to the 1923 Act gave him little security that change is on the way.

"I take no comfort in the Corporation saying it's going to address (my concerns) because ever since the Government announced in the Throne Speech it would review the Act, the Corporation has not made any contact with Government," Mr. Outerbridge stated. "Working with Government is better than thinking it can dictate (to Government) when they're the ones who move legislation."

Describing the Act as "outdated", he said its shortcomings are such that it allows only two members per household a vote and it enables a corporation owning multiple properties, multiple votes. Such concerns led him to support former Deputy Mayor Sonia Grant instead of Mayor Sutherland Madeiros at the last mayoral election because she shared his opinion that the Act was due for an overhaul, Mr. Outerbridge (pictured) stated.

"Only one other domicile has nominee voting," he said, referring to the age-old practice of allowing companies that own multiple properties to appoint nominees, therefore giving them more votes. "I believe it should be gotten rid of totally."

The Mayor's stated aim of opening the vote to exempt companies is another concern to the former common councillor who believes Mr. Madeiros' focus should be to empower "more Bermudians".

And he questioned the fairness of an electoral process where members seeking re-election have advantages over new candidates in that they are informed in advance of when an election will be called, and they have access to the voting register.

He cited Kathryn Gibbons' decision to withdraw as a candidate for alderman only days before last month's by-election for the post as another example of why the Act needs strengthening.

"It has long been customary that the Corporation's senior councillor runs for alderman when there is a vacancy," Mrs. Gibbons said in explaining why she was pulling out of the race. "In the past, members openly discussed these transitions in the spirit of goodwill.

"Of course, there's nothing to prevent anyone from seeking the position, including external candidates. As it happened, another councillor chose to run for alderman."

Said Mr. Outerbridge: "Which means historically, the process has been (to benefit those) within."

He explained that such practices were what led him to make a formal complaint to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) last week.

"Having been a participant of a recent Corporation election and witnessed just how very few Hamilton voters are allowed to take part in Corporation elections (250 voters of a registered 360 on the Municipal Register took part), I have concerns that the fundamental human right of voting is being denied to the majority of Hamilton's resident voters," he wrote in his letter to the HRC.

"I have checked that there are over 740 Parliamentary voters in the city and a major portion of these voters are not allowed to vote in Municipal elections because only two voters from a resident household is allowed to vote because of the restrictions of the outdated Municipalities Act of 1923.

"Problems are compounded by this Act not allowing (18 year olds to vote) and the allowance of nominee voters for companies owning multiple properties in the city."