Hamilton City Council's ratification meeting is underway.
Watch live on YouTube here [thread of tweets follows]

Council now hearing from their Integrity Commissioners.
Janice Atwood-Petkovski, former Hamilton City Solicitor, is one of the top in the video conference.

Jeffrey Abrams, the other Integrity Commissioner, now speaks to why he and Atwood-Petkovski have decided that Advisory Committees are Local Boards. Among the reasons
'Municipal Act does not say that Advisory Committees are not Local Boards, they therefore are Local Boards.'

Jeffrey Abrams is responding to public questions why they decided to not complete public reports on Councillors who've made threats against people.
Abrams says they privately told him they admit they were wrong, Kroetsch did not admit to being wrong, hence the report.

Now Councillors will speak, Clr Ferguson is the first to speak.
Clr Ferguson oversaw the Integrity Commissioner as Chair of the Accountability and Transparency Cmte.
Ferguson asked the Clerk to censure LGBTQ minutes critical of the citizen Police Board appointment.

Ferguson asks why the Integrity Commissioner is asking Council to make a decision.
IC says the Bylaw only delegates powers to implement punishments upon Councillors.
Council did not add Advisory Committees to this delegated power when they recently changed the rules.

Abrams, correctly, explains that under the Municipal Act, the decision is to be made by Council.
Council's cannot delegate the powers of punishment related to Municipal Act Section 223.

Clr Clark takes issue with the public stating Council directed the Integrity Commissioner to investigate Kroetsch.
The IC says Council "initiated" the complaint.

This is a distinction without difference

Council changed the rules, voted to have the IC investigate Kroetsch.
Initiating versus Directing, it makes no difference.
This happened because Council wanted it to happen

Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls declares a Conflict of Interest because her son is a police officer, and the punishment recommended is in part because of Kroetsch's criticism of how police mishandled violence at PRIDE.

Question on if Advisory Committees members signed off on a Code of Conduct, IC yes, they did. City Clerk adds they have Kroetsch's signature on the document.

A very good question from Clr Danko:
Questions IC on their ruling that volunteer citizen advisory committee members cannot advocate publicly, they can only speak to Council.

IC restates his view that citizen advisory committees cannot advocate publicly on the issues within their mandate. They cannot criticize Council.
Danko's line of questions are good.
He's getting to the Charter issue involved here.

The IC says that members of advisory committees cannot advocate if they identify themselves as being members of an advisory committee.

Worth noting, as a matter of law, that the ICs did not articulate where the boundaries or explain their legal reasoning in the report.
As a matter of law, the report must speak for itself.
If this goes to Divisional Court, this will be very important.

Now Clr Whitehead asks question.
Starts by asking if it is the role of the Integrity Commissioner to resolve matters without sanction.
Whitehead has threatened people on Twitter, the IC has deemed it not serious enough for public report.

Whitehead speaks to Council's concerns about the Advisory Committees meeting together, says Kroetsch is one of the key organizers of the advisory committees working together.
Mayor quickly cuts off Whiteheads, warns this statement harms Council if there is litigation

Clr Wilson gets to the issue of if the Advisory Committee is a Local Board. Wilson notes the Municipal Act states Local Boards have power or authority, who is it a Local Board if there is no power.
IC does not provide an answer, says a Committee is a Local Board.

So, if there is no difference between a Committee and a Local Board, why would the Municipal Act bother with having two terms for the same thing?
Because they are significant differences!

Clr Nann asking how the IC determined that volunteer citizen advisory committee members are not allowed to speak publicly on the issues the committee advised upon, when people see them as members of the committee.

IC says the Council policy for volunteer citizen committee members state they are not allowed to speak to outside agencies or the media.

Clr Nann is speaking to the historical and ongoing discrimination against marginalized and minority committees.
When they speak about their lived experience, institutions can see that as advocacy.
What is the distinction between advise/advocacy.

The IC "I'm happy that you asked the question" "We don't believe our recommendations creates a chill", speaks in generalities.
The question is what is the distinction between advise/advocate.
IC does not answer the question.

Clr Jackson repeats the report is independent and proper. Is that the case asks Jackson.
IC: Yes.

The City's Executive Director of Human Resources (who was involved in the IT coverup) has a hot mic, the meeting pauses for them to mute again.

The IT coverup is one of the issues that Kroetsch was critical of the City for.

Clr Jackson asks the City Clerk about her recommendation to "receive" the IC report, what does that mean in terms of action?
Holland says Council may decide to do otherwise and decide on another action.

Clr Jackson says Council should change the by-law to delegate powers of punishment to the IC.