If you are feeling less than confident with decision-making at Hamilton City Hall these days, you're in good company.

First there was the lost-and-later-found consulting report suggesting the surface of the Red Hill Valley Parkway was slippier than recommended, possibly making it unsafe in some circumstances. When it resurfaced, the report prompted city council to move with uncharacteristic quickness ordering parkway resurfacing, which is now complete. It also decided to set up an independent probe to find out how the report was lost and unacted on for several years. Eventually, we should find out how this happened and who knew what, when, but that could take years.

Then there was the case of Marc Lemire, a city IT staffer whose past links to white supremacist groups prompted an external investigation. He hasn't been on the job for some time, and those investigations are complete. But city hall is still not saying whether he is fired or otherwise permanently removed from duty.

Then, The Spectator's Andrew Dreschel and Matthew Van Dongen reported the city is doing urgent inspections of all overhanging sign structures after finding out urgent repair recommendations dating back to 2012 were not acted upon.

How did the city lose the Red Hill traction report? How did someone with a known racist background get into a sensitive IT role without red flags being raised? How did reports calling for urgent sign repairs get set aside with no action taken?

And, most disturbingly, is there a pattern here? Is there a culture of avoidance at city hall? Is money so tight staff are reluctant to spend, even on projects that may avoid public safety threats? Surely, there isn't a laissez-faire attitude about preventive maintenance?

We are not among those who believe that city hall is a collective bumbler. Running a city of this size and complexity is a massive undertaking, which in Hamilton's case requires a staff of 8,000 and spending of more than $2.2 billion per year. It's not reasonable or fair to expect such a large operation to run without problems and glitches.

But these three examples, and some other smaller ones, can lead reasonable people to wonder if there's something systemically or culturally wrong at city hall. To further complicate matters, the city is not known for transparency. Yes, there are times when things involving legal matters and personnel have to remain behind closed doors. But in the past the city has often seemed to default toward confidentiality, even when it's not strictly necessary.

Let's go back to the Marc Lemire story as an example. City manager Janette Smith rightly sought external, objective help to investigate when the story came to light after a Vice News article back in May. The probes are now finished. Councillors have been briefed. But the public still knows next to nothing.

That may be tolerable, for now, in the name of letting the process run its course. But if city hall thinks it can make this go away without robust disclosure, they're wrong. Is Lemire fired or not? When did the city learn of his past affiliations with white nationalism? Who knew what, when? Were any red flags raised at any point in the process? Could the same thing happen again? City officials need to go above and beyond in the Lemire case, partly because of the sensitive nature of this case, and partly because it's just the right thing to do. Otherwise, the story will not fade away.

- Bombshell admission: Buried study highlighted slippery Red Hill asphalt

- Hamilton did not do 'urgent' overhead sign repairs on the Linc for years

- Hamilton's probe into IT worker linked to white supremacists is done - but results are not being made public