Hamilton Mayor Graeme Outerbridge has condemned a fellow councillor for using back door tactics to undermine the authority of the municipality.

Mr Outerbridge finally spoke out over the Signgate controversy yesterday. And in a thinly veiled attack on Carlton Simmons, he accused the Corporation of Hamilton alderman of acting in his own interests and sabotaging majority decisions made by the municipality’s Board.

Earlier this month The Royal Gazette revealed that more than 50 newly erected pay-and-display parking signs had been stolen from four streets in north Hamilton. Police were called in, but dropped their inquiry after it was discovered that Deputy Mayor Donal Smith and Mr Simmons had secretly plotted to have the signs removed.

On Tuesday Mr Simmons defended his actions, claiming that the decision to take down some signs was made at a September meeting of the Corporation’s Infrastructure committee attended by himself, Mr Outerbridge and Mr Smith.

And Mr Simmons also criticised the Corporation’s top administrator — Chief Operating Officer and Secretary Edward Benevides — for failing to carry out the order and forcing Mr Simmons and Mr Smith to take action.

“He doesn’t listen to us. I don’t think he feels that he has to take orders from us and the Mayor won’t punish him,” the alderman said.

Mr Benevides later described that version of events as “misleading, inaccurate and unfortunate”, and pointed to records of recent Infrastructure committee meetings which showed that no decision to remove the signs was ever made.

And yesterday Mr Outerbridge backed Mr Benevides’ version of events suggesting that Mr Simmons had betrayed his fellow councillors in a bid to gain support among north Hamilton voters. Municipality elections are scheduled to take place next May.

“I think it’s quite clear from the secretary’s comments what transpired at that [Infrastructure committee] meeting,” Mr Outerbridge said.

“The vote for the new parking tariffs was a clear 8-0 mandate, and then you have one member coming along who tries to change things via the back door because it doesn’t suit him personally.”

When originally questioned two weeks ago about the disappearance of the signs, Mr Outerbridge appeared to be shocked and dismayed by the news.

He told this newspaper that he was “deeply concerned” by evidence which implicated Mr Simmons’s and Mr Smith’s involvement in the theft, and confirmed that an inquiry into the breach had been launched.

Yesterday Mr Outerbridge said that he had not had an opportunity to speak to Mr Simmons about the incident until Tuesday.

But he declined to say if he or the council will be taking disciplinary action against Mr Simmons or Mr Smith for their involvement in the incident.

“We had a discussion about the very thing you are talking about but I have no further comment at this time, other than the fact that the signs should not have been removed,” Mr Outerbridge said.

Removing or defacing Corporation signage is a criminal offence that carries a $2,100 fine.

But The Royal Gazette understands that police are not pursuing the matter because the “theft” of the signs was sanctioned by Mr Simmons and Mr Smith.

Editor’s note: On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. As we are legally liable for any defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.