By Gazette Staff
October 24th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns has filed a Motion directing the City Auditor to perform an audit of the allocation process of pool time. This has been a talking about issue since last August. We erred when we said in previous reports that Kearns needed a seconder to get the Motion on the table. When a Motion is at the Standing Committee stage, a seconder is not required.
The issue now is: Will members of Council come out of their foxholes where they have been hiding ever since the allocation of pool time was first made public? Mayor Meed Ward has said the decision is not being very well received by the public: she has not said this needs a thorough review.
There is a paucity of facts on this issue. For a City Council to let a club that has served the city for more than 40 years allow a club based in Hamilton to use the bulk of the available pool time due to a flawed process is a disturbing issue. One asks – who is the City Council working for?
The leadership of the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) at the time the decision was made appears to not have been up to the task.
Motion for Council to Consider:
Direct the City Auditor to perform an audit of the allocation process of pool time for competitive swimming programs and report back to Committee of the Whole by December 2, 2025.
Reason:
Community members have voiced their concerns for transparency around the decision making for the space allocation process performed in 2025 to award pool time to
competitive swimming programs within City-run pools.
Outcome Sought:
To obtain an independent audit of the documentation, decision making and compliance to the Council approved Procurement Bylaw. The audit should reveal the following
items:
1. The chain of events, including the timing of when key documents were issued by the City, received by the bidders, evaluated by staff and reported back to bidders.
2. Any differences in approach that were taken between the processes for allocating space in City pools between adults and youth.
3. Definitions and requirements within City procurement documents including whether those definitions and requirements are aligned with the City’s Procurement Bylaw.
By requesting an independent audit of the space allocation process, Council will be able to demonstrate transparency and accountability to the community and all stakeholders
involved.
Students at the Nelson Pool
Implications:
There is no financial cost associated with this audit outside of the Council approved budget, as it would be performed by the City Auditor.
The Gazette asks:
It has taken far too long to get to this point. And are all the right questions being asked?
Will the City Auditor deliver the audit at a Public meeting and be available to answer questions?
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nobody is asking the city to favour one club or the other. The point is the club that was damaged immensely is a 40+ year old “community based” Burlington Club and that is why their name is referenced Everyone understands Council is responsible to the voters/taxpayers of Burlington. The point is a review/audit must be conducted to bring the facts out and it is almost impossible to mention the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) because a technicality unfairly excluded them from a fair process in the first place. They never were considered based on the merits of both clubs (programs, fees, training, opportunities, community involvement, etc.), nor did the City contemplate the impact of such a drastic change (good, bad or indifferent). That is the issue. The consequences of the decision have been devastating for the not just the BAD club but their kids (the swimmers), and other sports clubs are concerned it could happened to them. The City must first acknowledge the error in the first place — Burlington Aquaticʻs Devilrayʻs submission was thrown out because of the aforementioned technicality that faced both clubs but only one club was brought into the loop in time regarding the solution (which they had already obtained from the correct authorities). A simple clarification on how a 40+ year club could confirm it was in good standing as a not-for-profit entity (original documents asked for do not confirm todayʻs standing) would solve the problem and BAD consulted with the authorities to ensure this — before they could attempt to satisfy the City, who had given clarification to only one club via the Adult RFP (BAD only applied under the Youth RFP) Bad was left out and disqualified and their proposal never even opened. That is the unfair part and then additional time was unilaterally rewarded to the ʻregional club” to meet residency requirements. It must be done properly and the City has the right to change contracts. Transparency is lacking on residency requirements, etc., as well.
Congratulations to Councillor Lisa Kearns for taking the initiative to call for an independent audit of the City’s pool allocation and RFP process. Her motion is both welcome and necessary.
That said, one has to ask — why did it take this long? The Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) and their young athletes have been in limbo since the spring. Where were the Mayor and the rest of Council while questions of fairness and transparency continued to swirl? Council was right not to interfere with procurement, but when community trust erodes, leadership demands more than silence.
The coming audit may reveal information that is uncomfortable for some — whether within City staff, members of Council, or even representatives of BAD and GHAC. But that is exactly why this step matters. Public confidence depends on knowing that our institutions operate with integrity and that all participants are treated equitably.
This is not about blame; it’s about accountability. The audit offers a chance to restore confidence, set a precedent for better governance, and show that Burlington’s leadership can face the facts, however inconvenient they may be.
Kudos again to Councillor Kearns for having the courage to put this motion on the table. The community will be watching closely.
The article says:-
“There is a paucity of facts on this issue. For a City Council to let a club that has served the city for more than 40 years allow a club based in Hamilton to use the bulk of the available pool time due to a flawed process is a disturbing issue. One asks – who is the City Council working for?”
To answer that question the City does not work for BAD. The City should be working for and in the interest of its residents as a whole; not a specific interest group. The geographic location of the swim club is in my opinion irrelevant. What is relevant is the quality of product that is offered to the parents and swimmers. The writer of the article concedes the leadership of BAD was somewhat wanting. Maybe its product was also lacking.
Neither the writer of the article nor myself can really comment upon that because we are ignorant on the subject. Similarly, neither of us know if the process was flawed or not. We can only give our opinions. We cannot state facts because we do not know the facts.
Let’s all hope that an audit is sanctioned and it is done expeditiously and the outcome is published without holdback.
If the motion fails to be adopted past whatever the right expression is it will be more than interesting to know which councilors voted it down.
As everybody knows this matter has been going on for months. A question I would like to have answered is:- Why do City Council, Councilors and Advisory Committees go on break through August & September? The world, life etc all go on (e.g. this aquatics matter). Councilors are not like MPs or MMPs. They do not have a need to go back to their ridings to meet with their constituents. Can somebody please give me a justifiable reason for the almost 2 month unproductive break?