Special Report: Integrity Commissioner

The Push: Comprehensive Documentary Unpacks Ferguson/Coleman Fiasco

Director Coty Lanktree uses the incident and its aftermath as the point of entry for a more far-ranging examination of Hamilton's toxic political culture.

By Ryan McGreal
Published November 09, 2015

If The Push, the new documentary by Cody Lanktree of HamiltonSeen, was merely about the incident between Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson and independent journalist Joey Coleman, it would be an arresting human interest story without wider implication. But Lanktree has bigger fish to fry, and he uses the incident as the point of entry for a more far-ranging examination of Hamilton's toxic political culture.

This two-hour documentary unpacks the incident and its ongoing aftermath through interviews with Coleman, communications strategist Laura Babcock, management consultant Graham Crawford, CHCH reporter Donna Skelly, former Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark and others.

The most explosive moments in the film come from Clark, who was present during the altercation and helped broker Ferguson's apology the next day. His description of Ferguson's words and conduct paints a particularly disturbing picture.

The film premiered at the Zoetic Theatre at 2:00 PM on Sunday, November 8, 2015 as part of the Hamilton Film Festival.

Zoetic Theatre
Zoetic Theatre

The Incident

On February 26, 2014, a press conference was going to be held after a long and contentious Council meeting over the lease for the new Tim Horton Stadium. At around 10:45 PM, in the public lobby of the City Council Chamber, then-Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark was talking with City Communications Manager Mike Kirkopoulos. Coleman was standing not far off, carrying his recording equipment to set it up at the press conference.

Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson came into the lobby and made a beeline to Kirkopoulos, speaking to him in anger. He then turned, saw Coleman and marched over, telling Coleman he was having a private conversation and telling Coleman to move away. Then Ferguson grabbed Coleman's arm and pushed him backward.

Incidentally, February 26, 2014 was Pink Shirt Day, a national day of awareness against bullying. As is the case with so many events in Hamilton, you cannot make this stuff up.

That altercation in the Council Chamber lobby is the kernel of a saga which is still unfolding today, a debacle-in-slow-motion that has wide and disturbing implications for how power is apportioned, used and abused in this city.

The Brush-Off

The mainstream shorthand for what happened has settled into an oversimplified and misleading narrative that misses nearly all the nuance in this complex story. In addition, the various legal, business and political pressures in effect strongly nudge reporters and commentators into a 'safe zone' of language that downplays the sheer absurdity of the experience.

For example, Ferguson is said to have "laid hands on" Coleman, making him sound more like a faith healer than a bully.

As more time has passed, subsequent retellings and summarizations of what happened have progressively wiped away all the details and nuances of the incident, boiling it down to a minor altercation that everyone needs to just get over, already.

But as The Push documents in exhaustive detail, the aftermath of the incident has revealed a persistent refusal among Hamilton's centres of power to hold Ferguson to any kind of meaningful account for what he did.

In fact, quite the opposite has happened: City Hall has closed ranks around their own and painted the victim - Coleman - as the real problem, blaming him for what happened and using the incident to shut him out of his role as a citizen journalist recording public meetings for everyone to access.

The Aftermath

The next day, Ferguson read a prepared statement of apology to Coleman both privately and at a public General Issues Committee meeting, and Coleman accepted the apology.

But Hamilton has a strict Zero Tolerance for Violence policy, and Hamiltonians began to ask if Ferguson would be held to the same standard of accountability.

In fact, Council is not subject to the Zero Tolerance policy that applies to other City staff. Instead, Council is subject to the Council Code of Conduct, which is enforced by the Integrity Commissioner.

But Ferguson is not merely a City Councillor. He was also the chair of the Police Services Board and the Accountability and Transparency Sub-Committee.

Calls quickly came for Ferguson to step down from these powerful roles in light of his alleged assault in order to protect the integrity of those institutions, but Ferguson refused and the rest of Council allowed the incident to pass over in silence instead of voting to censure their colleague.

Likewise, the Police Services Board discussed the matter in camera and decided not to take any action, and at the same time the Hamilton Police Service decided not to investigate the incident as a possible assault. This only added to the unpleasant perception that a person in a position of power was being shielded from accountability.

The Report

Three months after the incident, two people independently filed complaints to the Integrity Commissioner. It took nine months for the Commissioner, then Earl Basse, to submit his report to Council the following February. Ironically, Council received the report on February 25, 2015 - Pink Shirt Day again.

The report itself was a shambles. In addition to taking nine months rather than 60 days to complete it, Basse only interviewed Ferguson. He did not interview Coleman or any of the other witnesses to the incident.

He provided no analysis, offered no methodology for how to decide on a conclusion, and spent a large part of the report speculating about possible collusion between the complainants, repeating Ferguson's contention that Coleman was trying to eavesdrop on a private conversation, and criticizing Coleman for asking the City to retain the surveillance video of the incident.

Andre Marin, then the Ontario Ombudsman, took to social media to excoriate the report, giving it an F grade and noting that his department would use it as a model of how not to write an integrity report.

Ombudsman Andre Marin's F grade on the Basse report (Image Credit: Andre Marin)
Ombudsman Andre Marin's F grade on the Basse report (Image Credit: Andre Marin)

Basse concluded that Ferguson violated the Code of Conduct but that it had been a long and hard day, and in any case Ferguson had already apologized so there was no need for any further action.

Ferguson said that he was "vindicated" by the report, which, as The Push notes, is a very strange thing to say for someone who feels sorry about doing something wrong.

Council voted to receive the report, a decision which officially enters the report into the public record. Only two Councillors raised objections: Ward 3 Councillor Matthew Green and then-Ward 7 Councillor Scott Duvall. Council imposed no sanctions on Ferguson.

The Chill

Coleman's presence at City Hall had always been a thorn in the side of some councillors and staff. His commitment to record every public Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meeting was a new development for the City and he encountered constant friction.

Joey Coleman with equipment
Joey Coleman with equipment

After the incident, things got worse quickly. Some staffers actually tried to have Coleman banned from City Hall under the City's Zero Tolerance for Violence policy because he yelled and swore when Ferguson grabbed and shoved him.

Coleman began to face a steady barrage of harassment at City Hall, including being kicked out of the media room, being refused entry to public committee meetings to record them and even being accused of "hacking" the Committee Agenda website because he used its publicly accessible RSS feed to follow when staff posted new meeting agendas and other documents.

As Crawford put it in the documentary, Coleman "was pressured out of City Hall" in the aftermath of the incident.

Or as Clark put it, "Where [Coleman] irritated people is he brought a camera into [pauses] public meetings. And I say it with a smirk because I find it so comical that civil servants or elected officials would be offended by someone wanting to tape a public meeting, whether audibly or visually."

The Video

There is a surveillance video of the incident, which Integrity Commissioner Basse and a few other people have seen but which has not been released publicly. This video would make what happened quite clear, and Coleman wants the video to be release so everyone can see for themselves what happened.

Similarly, the other identifiable witnesses to the incident - Clark, Kirkopoulos and Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr - have all consented to its release. But one person identified in the video is trying to block it.

The legal silliness around identifying who that person is constitutes just one of the factors making it difficult for this story to get a fair airing. Meanwhile, the case is under appeal with the Ontario Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Scope

One of the challenges in telling this story properly is that every piece of it unfolds fractally into a whole constellation of new details that shape the context and framework around what happened.

For just one example, we find out that when Basse abruptly quit as Windsor's Integrity Commissioner in 2010, he left six open files on complaints against Council members unresolved.

The story is crammed with such delicious ironies, and the movie airs them playfully, eliciting a steady stream of applause, laughter, cheers and cries of "Shame!" from the engaged audience.

But we must ask: when Council voted to appoint Basse, did they know this? Did they choose him precisely because he had a record of taking a long time to draw cozy softball conclusions? Or did they simply not bother to do their due diligence?

How far does Hanlon's Razor take us when trying to determine how this incident could cascade in so many directions?

This question, with its implications for finding the right balance of detail and relevance, presents a quandary for Lanktree and the documentary.

To give the story the full space it arguably deserves, you end up making a two-hour movie, which starts to feel too long by the end.

But if you edit too aggressively, you end up with a dumbed-down accounting of events that misses most of the absurd layers of irony and hypocrisy.

(This tension around wanting to do justice to a story that has been whitewashed in the mainstream news media is also why the review you're reading is over 1,700 words, despite my chopping out still more of the first draft!)

For each piece of the puzzle, the documentarian must ask: does this part matter enough to include it and push out the run time? Does it advance the broader themes the movie explores or does it fall more on the inside-baseball end of the spectrum?

Without tossing out this comprehensive cut, I'd love to see a more streamlined one-hour version and compare the two to see how much is lost from the picture against how much is gained in terms of broadening the film's reach.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

34 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Lee Edward McIlmoyle (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 11:28:07

Thank you for this, Ryan. There may be greater debate about the documentary and it's validity, but it starts with media actually examining the story without editorial oversight clouding the view.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 11:53:06 in reply to Comment 114735

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 11:52:33

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By LOL@LOL (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 12:14:56 in reply to Comment 114736

ONLY IN HAMILTON is it okay for an elected councilor, chair of police services board and chair of accountability and transparency committee to assault someone, say sorry and think that should be the end of it with no other repercussions. And of course the psychopathic troll comes out in defense of the authoritarian bully, go back under your bridge.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted November 15, 2015 at 12:18:02 in reply to Comment 114738

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By jorvay (registered) | Posted November 10, 2015 at 08:54:38 in reply to Comment 114738

Even if you accept that it was a mistake with an accepted apology, there's still the much larger question of how it was handled so poorly after the fact. The integrity commissioner's report that took a year to produce, and was by any standard inadequate in both its preparation and presentation. The fact that security footage of the incident is still being withheld is also an issue. The act of violence is an issue. The efforts to hide, downplay, and avoid responsibility and accountability for that act is perhaps an even bigger one.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pedro (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 13:02:28

Ask your Councillor what's been done to ensure the next incident isn't followed by a two years of confusion, conflict and lack of closure. You'll be disappointed with the answer.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Clarinda (registered) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 13:22:36

This isn't over because not only hasn't there been closure; but also because the harassment is continuing. Not only in this regard but also Merulla's recent verbal harassment of Saunders which followed these events. Some Cllrs feel empowered at the expense of citizens. As the article stated, this is a toxic political culture. Didn't Bratina say not addressing the culture at City Hall was one of his biggest regrets?

Permalink | Context

By Bratman (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 13:58:07 in reply to Comment 114740

When Bratina was still mayor he was as big a part of that toxic culture as anyone.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ancaster boy (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 16:11:34

Lloyd is about everything that is wrong with Hamilton
Have a look at who made contributions to his campaign ... Nothing illegal , just morally wrong

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Rose (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 17:21:47

Umm. Look again. I spot 2 maybe 3 illegal contributions from his "Customer & Job List" aka corporate contributors to his campaign.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Teddy (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 17:26:24

Hey! Did anyone notice that the Spec article on this subject has removed all the comments and votes. System problem or have Lloyd's lawyers been busy?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JoeyColeman (registered) - website | Posted November 09, 2015 at 17:53:29

In regards to the hacking conviction, the City Clerk sometimes uploads large public documents to the SIRE agenda system and only emails the link to selected members of the "accredited media". The link is not shared on the City's Council calendar until a few hours later.

With the RSS feed, I automatically download the agenda and an alert is sent to my smartphone. I often tweet that the agenda is available and the public can view it.

Council agendas are the most public of public documents.

Here's the link to the RSS feed, it's a great way of tracking documents and following public meetings. http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/rss/rss.aspx

On May 20, 2015, Council meet in Closed Session at the request of the City Clerk for a "Security Session" during which time, the City Clerk noted that I was in violation of the City's website terms of use.

Specifically, this section:

Unless prior written permission is obtained from the City, the Content's owner and the City's licensors, You may not reproduce, publish, copy, link to, frame, tag, embed, merge, modify, recompile, license, distribute, sell, store in an electronic retrieval system, download (except by the browser of a single user) or transmit, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means whatsoever, be they physical, electronic or otherwise, the Portal and/or the Content.

Based upon this "hacking" conviction, my media access to the hardwire connections which I use for streaming was revoked - ending my ability to livestream meetings. Hence, when you see the City say I have access to the wifi, they are being disingenuous as they are aware the media hardwire access is the matter at issue and not the wifi.

Permalink | Context

By mkuplens (registered) - website | Posted November 13, 2015 at 16:39:08 in reply to Comment 114752

Worth noting, those terms (http://www.hamilton.ca/government-information/site-policies/terms-use & its subsidiary documents) specifically reference they apply to "the myhamilton.ca portal". That URL redirects to the Hamilton Public Library website.

Oops!

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 11, 2015 at 23:33:02 in reply to Comment 114752

Aren't you violating the rule by posting this excerpt?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 12, 2015 at 06:13:08 in reply to Comment 114807

Yes.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted November 09, 2015 at 18:25:21 in reply to Comment 114752

Wait, they published a public URL and then mentioned it in their RSS feed and it's your fault for tweeting this advertisement?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 10, 2015 at 06:37:26 in reply to Comment 114753

These are the same clerks who recently signed off on the new committee meeting website, about which the less I write, the better for my blood pressure.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 10, 2015 at 10:00:57 in reply to Comment 114761

And so the fact that it is impossible to link to pdf's of council meeting agendas because they are only temporary is a feature not a bug because it helps innocent Hamiltonians avoid being charged for publishing or copying a link to the information?

This is just Orwellian: it is actually illegal to publicly share any information published on the City website even via a link (e.g. on Facebook or twitter)?

Note that, as far as I know, this regulation is itself illegal because it is counter to the fair use provisions of the copyright act since prohibits transfer or publishing anything in whole or in part!

Taken literally (as the clerks seem to want to when the urge strikes) it means that the City website is strictly useless: you couldn't even print out an agenda for your own use, or print out the recycling guidelines since that would be "copying"! This regulation is just nonsense and would obviously be struck down if it were challenged in court.

And how does it gibe with the City's Open Data goal?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-11-10 11:01:59

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 10, 2015 at 10:05:45 in reply to Comment 114773

I wrote about the City website Acceptable Use Policy back in 2011. It was supposed to be updated but that clearly has not happened. It is not even Orwellian, since the government of Oceania was at least competent in its totalitarian control over public information.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2015-11-10 11:06:01

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 10, 2015 at 10:52:03 in reply to Comment 114774

I'd forgotten about that.

However, the response from City staff back in 2011 not to worry because these draconian provisions had not and would not be enforced have been shown to be very misleading!

In an email response, Brunetti confirmed: "The City will not be enforcing those provisions of the policy - nor has it in the 6-7 years that the policy existed."

Why did they decide to enforce them on Joey? Anyone who sufficiently annoys the City and publicizes City affairs is facing this risk.

Are the journalists at CBC and the Spec changing how they report because they might be banned from City Hall for posting a link to an agenda, or citing a passage from a city report?

This incident unfortunately leaves the impression that, like a totalitarian state, they keep obviously ridiculous draconian laws that everyone violates all the time for the exclusive purpose of being able to harass those citizens they find annoying!

How else can you explain the public reassurance that the City will not actual enforce the policy with the fact that they decided to enforce it on the one person whose work was aimed at ensuring the public was better-informed about how the City and Council functions? And the enforcement had the effect of preventing Joey from doing his work!

And why did they never revise the policy?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2015-11-10 11:58:57

Permalink | Context

By Cultosaurus (registered) | Posted November 11, 2015 at 21:42:17 in reply to Comment 114776

Honestly, I feel like writing a small program that digests and then auto-posts to twitter the contents of that feed. It is beyond idiotic the incompetence running rampant at city hall.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SawthePush (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 19:27:26

I agree with the reviewer that it would be great to see a one hour version of this with an explanation up front about what #ThePush incident was right from the top. There was a huge assumption that the audience was fully briefed on the topic. When Joey was asked that question during the Q & A - everyone leaned forward- aha- the missing piece. Context! The fact that it was admitted that most of this film was still being edited the night before and into the morning of the screening was very disappointing as an audience member and disrespectful to everyone who took part in the doc and trusted. Great subject matter. Don't waster this opportunity.

Permalink | Context

By Cody (anonymous) | Posted November 09, 2015 at 19:37:51 in reply to Comment 114756

First complaint...the subject matter deserves the length of the film.

Second...suspense is a thing. This wasn't Hitchcockian, but try and dig it.

How is editing and working as much as possible a disrespectful act on my part?

Disrespectful would be to stop editing before completion...or to anonymously offer boring criticism. ;)

Permalink | Context

By Wont See The Push (anonymous) | Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:45:58 in reply to Comment 114758

Cody - you shouldn't make any more documentaries.

Just stop, please.

Permalink | Context

By won't be seeing this based on your attit (anonymous) | Posted November 10, 2015 at 05:29:25 in reply to Comment 114758

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By IAmJamesNorth (anonymous) | Posted November 10, 2015 at 11:18:29

I sat at the back of the theatre and watched this doc. I agree that the question period after was rather damaging to the film. Laura Babcock was a solid pro, but she kept getting interrupted by an abrasive blond lady who had the microphone. I think her name was Sheena(?) but her comments were really disruptive and clueless. If she had something to do with this film they should all be embarrassed. The hearsay comments about Bob Bratina supporting Joey was the worst part of the event. Too chicken shit to comment, but sure he supports you. Shame! As they shouted in the theatre. Glib comments above from the director hurt the cause too. It is too important an issue to be handled by amateur hour, borderline YouTube video quality "documentarians", but sadly this is the best we have.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rgelder@cogeco.ca (registered) - website | Posted November 10, 2015 at 13:07:20

Having missed the screening on Saturday, is there another time/place the film can be viewed?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 13, 2015 at 09:54:35

So long as a police officer gets a five day suspension for the indictable offense of assault causing bodily harm, and has his sentence overturned by the highest court in the province reducing it to virtually nothing, this subject will not get much traction. As has been said here before without disdain, diminimus non curat lex.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-11-13 10:55:25

Permalink | Context

By Bollockus non curat fux (anonymous) | Posted November 13, 2015 at 10:11:32 in reply to Comment 114818

No one is saying Ferguson should go to jail, he just shouldn't be allowed to walk around saying he's "vindicated" with no penalties at all while Coleman gets banned from city hall by bullying clerks.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:24:54 in reply to Comment 114819

I agree with you. But people just don't care. The Liberals in this province effectively mismanaged/lost/stole billions of dollars. They destroyed government property to hide potential criminality and and people re-elected them. Ferguson's constituents probably think he should be given an award. The better way to deal with this is forget Ferguson and concentrate on getting Coleman what he needs. Don't connect the two issues.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-11-13 12:25:12

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2016 at 16:52:31

Florida police have charged a Trump associate in what looks like an even less egregious "assault." See the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz5DPqU...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By producer (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2016 at 16:20:59

New movie idea. "The elbow.". Who wants to crowd fund me?

Permalink | Context

By Silly (anonymous) | Posted May 20, 2016 at 04:48:48 in reply to Comment 118699

Seems rather silly now doesn't it.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds