The Ombudsman's report brings to light a number of questions and concerns,

and some of them start in her own office.

First and foremost, I would like to know why some staff are referred to in general
terms, such as 'Guard', or 'Supervisor', when others are given titles that directly
identify who is being referenced? Do Directors, the CCO, and myself, as thenMayor, not have that same right to confidentiality? The Ombudsman is quite
capable at crafting a report in a style that would not identify individuals. The fact
that many people are familiar with the situations which took place should not
excuse her from maintaining that level of confidentiality for all employees, and
simply describe the instances which took place, without naming people, even if
only by title.
Along these same lines, I don't understand how in the same breath, in interviews,
the Ombudsman can say that the report is not about me, and then proceed to
mention me by title several times in the following sentences. This appears to be
deliberately confusing matters.
A number of the Ombudsman's findings are subjective, and are not based in
fact. In her report, she mentions that the climate at City Hall had changed, and I
cannot agree more. However, she seems to find issue with the fact that we were
trying to adapt to these ever-changing circumstances there simply could not be
a 'game plan'.
To say that my office was making unreasonable requests of Security is a perfect
example of this subjective nature of course we made requests of Security. As
we would of any staff member from any division, and as any member of Council
does on a day to day basis, be it a matter of Facilities Management, an issue
with City services, or needing a briefing note on an issue. Security only needed
to voice their concerns, and when they made requests, such as sharing calendar
information in advance, my staff obliged. Putting this at the feet of myself, my
office, and the guards themselves is inaccurate and unfair.
I also do not understand why a Councillor was permitted to make demands of
security to alter an incident report they had submitted. How can this possibly not
be identified as an exertion of influence, when security staff had submitted a
report of the incident, and it was her displeasure with it not an issue brought up
by supervisory staff caused the report to be changed?
As the City's Chief Executive and Chief Magistrate, I had a job to do. Regardless
of what was taking place day to day, I was expected to continue to do that job.
The fact that members of the media were acting in an outright disrespectful and
dangerous manner, threatening the safety of myself, my staff, other staff at City
Hall, members of the public, and each other, is incomprehensible and
unacceptable, and senior members of the administration essentially left both me
and the front line guards to fend for ourselves. Several requests were made to
implement a 'media code of conduct' of senior management, and it was agreed
this would be further examined, and reviewed with members of the press gallery.
Not only has this not yet been done, management has advised they have no
plans to do so, as they believe the issue has now passed.

This part of the Ombudsman's report, I agree with this is an example of

management wanting to simply coast along, and not deal with an issue, or a
potential issue, until it is too late.
I also have issue with the claim that the event in my Protocol lounge was a press
conference. This event was always addressed as a private event, to which
specific invitations were issued to individual people. At no time was it an open
invitation to the media, as we were mindful of the fire regulations that were
prominently posed that had been implemented to the room. I wished to speak to
a select few people, and did so. I do find it odd that the fire regulation posting
has since been removed from where it was posted, and open press conferences
are now permitted in this space, with numbers in blatant contravention of this fire
regulation. I would like to know the rationale the Mayor's Office has used to have
security stop implementing this safety regulation.
In closing, I want to take the time to praise the front line staff of City Hall Security
for constantly working in a professional manner despite the constant onslaught
from the media. Both I, and my staff, repeatedly brought safety concerns forward
to senior members of the City's administration about the actions of the media,
and rather than speak to the members of the media in the interest of everybody's
safety, senior staff chose to only put up rope barriers, even when we requested
them removed, which only further aggravated the situation.