Comment 63892

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 23, 2011 at 01:17:49

That is a quite an assumption " Hamilton taxpayers are understandably upset that they're on the hook because the city's legal department decided the defamatory email was sent in good faith while fulfilling his duties as councillor, even though the judge in the case explicitly rejected that notion." How many taxpayers are upset? How many even care? For a city the with a budget the size of Hamilton ($1.3 billion) the $15,000 settlement and the legal fees are a very, very small drop in the bucket. One of the city's lawyers defended him and they are on staff anyway so that cost is negligible. The city wastes a lot more than the $15,000 that was awarded. How much is the city on the hook for in the 2 way conversion of York Blvd? Now that is a huge waste of money. The legal department had to make a decision before they knew how the judge would see things and rule. In fact a different judge might have ruled the opposite. The small size of the award is a hint that although the judge found the councilor guilty he did not thing it was that big a deal. Especially since claim was for $7000,000. Maybe the councilor can pay the award out of his office budget? I have talked to a number of people who live in the city of Hamilton and exactly one of them was upset about this. The fact that he used to live in Flamboruogh before moving to Dundas just might have influenced his opinion. I am sure that some people are in fact upset about this but no matter what happens somebody is going to be upset about it. You are making a mountain out of a very small molehill. Two separate blogs entries in 4 days about this very trivial incident.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds