By Pepper Parr
March 21st, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
I am somewhat surprised at the number of people taking issue with the Gazette’S position on the way swimming pool time was allocated in the recent past.
Cody Bradt, GHAC spokesperson, addressing the Audit Committee meeting.
One comment in the Gazette asked why we refused to meet with the lawyer representing GHAC. We had asked the GHAC leadership to meet with them at their pool premises and ask questions.
They said they were prepared to meet with us at their lawyer’s Hamilton office.
Lawyers are not interested in finding a common ground or in dealing with facts that are uncomfortable for their clients.
One hires a lawyer when you want your side of the story told; if the discussion is taking place in a courtroom the lawyer representing you is there to win. That’s why you hire them.
The Gazette has always taken the position that Burlington city Councillors were elected by the people of Burlington to represent the interests of the citizens of the city. Not the interests of a regional swimming club that wants to operate in Burlington using Burlington swimming pools.
The Gazette is dismayed at just how uninterested the current Council is in resolving the issue. With the exception of Councillor Kearns, Council is happy with the decision made to allocate space to Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (GHAC) and leave the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (BAD) scrambling to find space to continue with their program.
Councillor Kearns chairing a meeting of the Audit committee.
Councillor Kearns has come to the conclusion that there isn’t anything to be done at this point. “Sometime in the future” she said, “we might be able to change what is in place.”
The City Auditor was asked to review the agreement that was in place. In a long, very long report filled with minutiae, the Auditors said the city had followed the various protocols in place to manage procurement agreements. The question the auditor didn’t answer, because no one asked him for an answer: was procurement the best way to allocate swimming pool time.?
What is in place could be changed in minutes, at the stroke of a pen. All Mayor Meed Ward has to do is issue a direction under the Strong Mayor Powers she has, directing the Chief Administrative Officer to revoke the agreement and give BAD the space it needs; anything left over can be given to GHAC if they want it. My understanding is that there is a provision in the agreement in place for this kind of action.
Would GHAC sue? Probably – and the city would have to defend a decision that is weak to begin with. The city administration made a mistake – fix it and move on.
The city could be generous and allow GHAC to continue for the season they are about to go into – but would not be able to operate under the provisions of the agreement for years three and four of what I understand is a four year agreement.
The city has been less than transparent on this one. Documents that would shed light on just what has been agreed to have not been available.
Quite why the Mayor has become mute on this issue is hard to understand. It will be a tough stand to explain come the municipal election in October.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow it is clear that few realize or understand that the use of a RFP and with entirely inappropriate”construction” terms to boot is ludicrous for essentially what should be a straightforward pool “rental agreement”. My 30 plus years in varied supply chain activities says so
It remains outrageous that Burlington Council would allow folks from outside Burlington particularly from Hamilton have any priority over the taxpayers who built and paid for these facilities.
Hamilton is at this time closing aging pools & rinks largely because of longterm incompetence. Read the Spectator. We left Hamilton largely that reason. The way Burlington is currently being run its time to consider our next move. Ted Gamble
Editor,
I have you been out late tonight with my family. But having read your article earlier today, I could not go to bed without commenting and correcting you on many of your assertions. You likely won’t publish this because I call you out!
You are naïve, knowing it is a 99.99% certainty that releases and NDAs have been signed by all three parties, that GHAC would meet the Gazette or any media outlet without a lawyer present to guide them. Ms Pritz in a comment attached to another article in saying she was not at liberty to talk about things, eluded to the existence of NDAs!!
You continue to be blindly biased in your writings in favour of BAD and misrepresenting the facts.
An audit was conducted and the findings made public. I too have read the audit report.
https://www.burlington.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/audit-committee.aspx?_mid_=10764#Aquatics-Space-Allocation-audit
Councilor Kearns’ stated interest in having an audit conducted was to get the public clarification as to how the process was conducted; whether there were any mistakes made by staff; and, contrary to your assertion, to comment upon upon the appropriateness of the bid process.
The auditor was very clear in stating that the BAD bid was correctly not accepted because it failed to submit the same documentation it had submitted 5 years previously in response to the exact same bid requirement – to provide a certificate of incorporation as a not-for-profit corporation. The auditor states in 2020 faced back them with the same dilemma of having to provide a certificate of incorporation as proof of being a not-for-profit, BAD sought and obtained direction from city staff which was to provide a copy of its letters patent. Prior to October 2011 letters patent were the equivalent of what now is a certificate of incorporation.
In 2025 BAD neither sought direction from the city nor did it use its past experience to submit a copy of its letters patent, which would have met the bid requirement.
I believe Councilor Kearns’ stated objective in seeking the audit was to get transparency as to all aspects of the process. The commissioned audit would not in any way lead to a change in the outcome. She was very clear on that point.
Editor, you say you are dismayed at the lack of interest shown by the council to resolve this matter. You obviously find it hard to accept that the matter IS resolved. An agreement has been reached between the three parties. That is the definition of resolved.
Editor you also write “The question the auditor didn’t answer, because no one asked him for an answer: was procurement the best way to allocate swimming pool time?”
You must not have read the relevant section in the auditor’s report. Here it is in excerpt:-
‘Why a competitive RFP was selected to allocate pool space:
Interviews with staff from the Recreation, Community & Culture (RCC) Department and Procurement Services determined the following rationale for utilizing this approach to allocate space in the City’s pool facilities:
• The City’s swimming pools are operated to support broad community access and the development of essential life-saving swimming skills, such as those taught through public lessons and general programming. Historically, several competitive swim groups operated in both the youth and adult categories, so a fair and transparent process was needed to allocate any remaining pool time after community programming needs were met. This is consistent with the City’s corporate policy for Recreation Facility Space Allocation, approved by Council on July 11, 2023 (see report RCC-13-23) and the City’s ‘Framework for Community Recreation in the City of Burlington’, approved by Council on Feb 24, 2020 see report PR-11-19). In summary, the City’s policy framework prioritizes broad community access ensuring for residents of all ages and abilities. With limited pool inventory, significant population growth, and high demand for prime-time hours, only a small portion of remaining pool time is available for allocation to competitive or specialized program providers.
• In recent years, both youth and adult competitive swimming have experienced significant growth, driven in part by the sport’s affordability and accessibility. As a result, multiple swim groups continue to seek access to limited pool space. Given the high demand and constrained inventory, staff determined that a competitive procurement process was the most fair and transparent way to allocate the remaining available pool time.
• Staff applied a risk management lens to their approach with a priority of reducing the general risk to the City.
• An RFP approach allows for consideration of additional factors beyond lowest cost to the City (or conversely highest revenues).
• Staff from RCC and Procurement Services deemed that the 2020 RFP processes were successful and there was little rationale to deviate or select an alternative approach.
For further clarity, aquatics differs from other recreation asset categories such as gymnasiums, recreation centres, arenas, and sports fields. These facilities are designed to serve broad, multi-purpose community needs, and the City offers far fewer direct-delivered programs in those spaces. The City also does not directly deliver or compete with the private sector in most organized sports, which means these assets are generally scheduled alongside community groups rather than being driven by City program requirements. While these facilities experience similar pressures related to growth and limited inventory, their allocation processes operate differently from pools and were not included in the scope of the review assigned by Audit Committee.”
And finally you write “Quite why the Mayor has become mute on this issue is hard to understand”. One more time the reason for silence is NDAs.
Thanks for the suggestion. I found the report and read it. I found it to be clear and with the amount of detail expected from a professional auditor. The report showed the RFP was clear and had mandatory steps that had to be followed to protect all bidders in order to show all bidders were treated equally – I.e. to avoid favouritism creeping into city contracts. One of the bidders did not meet one of the mandatory steps and was disqualified. I don’t see this issue as being a governance problem. I appreciate the city was able to negotiate a compromise between the winning bidder and the losing one. In this case common sense seems to have prevailed and I do not see anyone ducking responsibility.
Strong Mayor Powers can only be used to further Provincial priorities such as housing and infrastructure. They don’t allow Mayor My Way to issue the type of direction the editor suggests.
The City has four year contracts in place with BAD and GHAC. They have already fixed the problem and moved on. Time for the Gazette to do the same.
Your commentary on pool allocation is both frustrating and, unfortunately, not surprising.
As usual, what we see is confusion, inconsistency, and a process that clearly didn’t work the way it should have. Whether it’s poor communication, flawed execution, or a breakdown between staff and Council, the end result is the same.
But what’s most telling is what happens next.
Instead of clear accountability, we get the usual pattern from MMW and Council: explanations, process reviews, and perhaps an apology — but no one truly owning the outcome.
The responsibility for all these failures rests with MMW. People should be tired of her trying to minimize issues at City Hall.. She should be a “leader”and ensure the systems, oversight, and accountability are in place before problems occur.
This pool allocation is simply another example of a leadership culture where mistakes are managed, not owned.
All the while there is no shortage of messaging from the Mayor about the importance of “respect.” Once again I say ….”respect isn’t demanded — it’s earned.” And it’s earned through accountability, transparency, and a willingness to take ownership when things go wrong. What happens to “respect” when nothing changes ?
I don’t understand this article’s criticism of the auditor’s report. An audit reports what happened. There were conflicting descriptions from different parties about pool time allocation. That auditor got the facts. I thought in response to public concern the councillors modified their original decision to arrive at a compromise on pool time. Isn’t this how government is supposed to work? Unless there is fraud, voiding an agreement, as suggested by the article, does not strike me as a good practice.
Editor’s note: The problem is that the Devilrays don’t beleive the auditor considered all the facts. The Auditors report is mind boggling should you choose to read it.