By John Best
December 10th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
The Ombudsman for the city of Burlington has ruled that it cannot involve itself in political decisions and for that reason is unable to act on a complaint lodged by the Bay Observer about the communication process surrounding the Bateman School Project. The Bay Observer launched a complaint against Burlington City Council in November of 2023, alleging that Burlington Council had misled the public about the real financial scope of the Bateman project when it was first floated with the public, and throughout the election year 2022, engaged in a public consultation process that had participants providing comments and buy-in with no idea of the financial implications of the project.
The Ombudsman found in his conclusion: “I am satisfied from the evidence that the City’s Communications staff followed City policies, and professional practices in the communications field. I further accept that City staff can only publish information they are authorized to share (Our emphasis). I interpret that the remainder (and bulk, frankly) of Mr. Best’s concerns are directed to the City’s political processes or decision-making – which isn’t appropriately within this Office’s jurisdiction.” The Bay Observer had not directed its criticism towards communication staff, understanding their role is to carry out council communications.
What got the Bay Observer interested in the Bateman project was when members of council initiated an integrity commissioner complaint into comments made by Councillor Shawna Stolte at a meeting in late 2021 where she referred to the cost of the project saying, “the reality is that the final cost will be well above $50M.” That figure had earlier only been presented to council in closed session. The Integrity Commissioner ruled that her comments were a clear violation of procedure and Stolte was sanctioned.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward
What seemed unusual was Mayor Marianne Meed Ward’s release of a 2,300-word statement the day after the Integrity Commissioners report was approved by council, that had the feel of overkill. Among many other statements, the Mayor wrote, “Any breach of the Code is a breach of public trust. The community loses; The breach related to the purchase of Robert Bateman High School, as the Integrity Commissioner has noted, had incorrect information that risks misleading the public. In addition, while the dollar amount disclosed was incorrect, it could have seriously damaged negotiations as the seller could have interpreted that number as indicative of the City’s price point.” (The mayor rightly pointed out the $50 million figure was incorrect, as the final figure at last estimate is now more than double that.) What struck us then was the force with which the mayor and councillors came down on Stolte, leading a reporter to wonder if the urgency of sanctioning Stolte was really the breach of confidentiality itself or the fact that through Stolte’s actions the size of the project was now in the public domain.
Publisher’s note. During the kerfuffle surrounding the sanctioning of Stolte, the Mayor attempted to force Stolte to make a public apology to a city Staff member. The attempt was made by the Mayor during a virtual Council meeting. The Gazette published the rant which can be reviewed HERE
With the Stolte matter behind it, council throughout 2022 developed a public consultation plan that in our view was misleading to participants, and formed the basis of the complaint to the Ombudsman. Both in our reporting, and in our complaint to the Ombudsman, the Bay Observer stated that the complaint, “relates to the genesis of the Bateman project, specifically the failure by council to provide the public with any sense of the size and scope of a plan to spend tens of millions of dollars on renovations to the former Robert Bateman School for use as a community centre as they were conducting public consultation throughout 2022. In fact, I submit that the city engaged in deliberate obfuscation of the financial scope of the project, as they engaged in public consultation. Indeed, those members of the public who participated in surveys and town halls had no idea for what they were actually providing buy-in, making the public consultation piece a sham. The project was essentially presented to the public as a simple land swap, with the end goal providing space for a Brock University satellite campus, a city economic division known as Tech Place and the Library.
A development project that included everyone except the public.
The (cost and scope of the) community centre aspect was only alluded to in the most vague terms throughout the public consultation period, when in fact every member of council had known it was a major capital project costing at least $50 million (December 2021). As soon as the election was over the price was announced at $80 Million and has now grown to $100 Million. A decision to embark on a project of this magnitude while giving the public at least a ballpark sense of the cost would not have frustrated subsequent tendering. The fact that this communication process was followed in an election year is particularly concerning as it was a legitimate item for public discussion. Large municipal projects are frequently presented to the public for comment with an approximate price tag attached, in fact plebiscites (on significant public works projects) are often framed with this information.”
The full Ombudsman report runs to 24 pages. You can read it in the Bay Observer.
John Best is the Editor of the Bay Observer
While I, like many others, agreed that turning the building into a community center was a good idea, the way the city went about it was the complete OPPOSITE of what meaningful community engagement is supposed to be. Community engagement means listening, having an active dialogue, being transparent about issues that matter to the public, and truly involving residents—especially those directly impacted. A community centre’s purpose is to unify the community, not ignite its concerns and create division and chaos, which some would argue is a direct consequence of city officials’ misguided plan.
A bunch of us—neighbours, friends, even the Former Students—were on board with the idea of repurposing when the school closed, thinking the city taking over the building could bring amenities for everyone in the community, to make official what was already a de-facto hub. But things started to go sideways FAST. A councillor was fined and reprimanded for briefly highlighting the project’s huge financial implications. Whether it was right or not, the public did indeed have a right to know this. Then, we found out the gym and other amenities would be exclusively for Brock students. That set off alarms. No real answers to questions about asbestos removal, purchase price, greenspace modifications, parking or alternate sites for Brock. Then came the real kicker: the running track and sports field behind the school were going to be RIPPED UP for PARKING SPACES. Parking spaces?! Have you seen the traffic in Burlington? They want to encourage MORE cars driving here?? What happened to wanting to have a walkable city and Public Transit? Guess who is paying for the redesign and repurposing of the school field behind Ascension Catholic School, which is located on the adjacent but separate, fenced-off non-public property? TAXPAYERS!
People were furious. Residents were practically screaming at Sharman, the mayor, and other councillors that this was NOT OKAY. But instead of addressing the concerns, city officials when hosting what seemed to be promoted as public engagement sessions on greenspace and indoor space use, dismissed critical issues as “out of scope.” OUT OF SCOPE?! Then what’s the point of public engagement? Checking a box on their plan, that they themselves failed to properly follow? Sure, let’s “engage” but not actually talk about the stuff that matters. It was a complete facade—a case of smoke and mirrors.
Finally, residents had enough. A group was formed, residents made and distributed lawn signs, and some started a petition that garnered over 1,200 signatures stating that the city’s ludicrous plan needed to be stopped and that this project required a total reset. News outlets even sent reporters to cover and shine some light on the important concerns raised by this group! Delegations were made to committees, but councillors had already thrown in the towel. They knew city officials had completely botched the process and just wanted the chaos to be over, public pushback be damned. No time to rethink. No chance to let the community properly examine the project.
This should’ve gone to a plebiscite. A community steering team should’ve been formed and mandated the moment the city bought the building. Instead, what we got was a total disaster of communication and planning that ignored residents and left us all wondering who this project was really supposed to serve.
I really hope that when the next election rolls around, these councillors get held accountable and face tough questions during what many suspect will be BRAG-hosted debates. I’m voting for a new Mayor and Ward councillor, and I want the new council to take a good relook not just at this project but at other city projects too. We need to bring stability back to our city!!
Excellent comment and I’m so sorry this has gone this horribly wrong. It’s incredible how you and your neighbours – and the 1200 ignored petition signatories – have the same experience that residents have over and over again when trying to be heard by the tone-deaf city council. Your comments on their bogus “engagement” are bang on.
Let’s also not forget the serious accident where workers removing asbestos were critically injured and this was met with silence by the mayor and council! No press release or interview for once? Nothing to say how sorry they are to hear of this and that they wish the workers a full recovery??? No, they buried it because they don’t discuss bad news.
Bateman is a huge utter boondoggle and should be the end of this council. And frankly the councillor who got treated like absolute crap for saying the cost would be over $50M – total overkill and unacceptable behaviour by the mayor and Council in her “punishment” imo – turns out to have been actually quoting what is as of now only half the $100M cost. I think they should all apologize to her. But of course, the mayor never apologizes for anything. And criticism that is posted in her newsletter comments or social media is deleted and posters are routinely blocked. Who do these public servants serve? Not the public.