A power struggle, a determination to do things by the book or a clear example of why the law governing who can vote in the City of Hamilton badly needs updating?

It's not clear yet which of the above will eventually prove true of a squabble at City Hall over whether two of the Corporation of Hamilton's members are eligible to serve.

But the matter — now in the hands of the Corporation's lawyers after an official complaint was made — throws the spotlight on the 85-year-old piece of legislation which determines who has the right to go to the polls in Hamilton and who can control the Corporation's $21-million budget.

The Municipalities Act 1923 demands that anyone wishing to stand as mayor, councillor or alderman is a bona fide voter in the city.

There are currently about 420 voters and each must own or occupy a valuation unit in the capital or be a chosen nominee for a company or organisation.

But some are now questioning what the Act — which is under scrutiny at the moment by both Government and the Corporation's legislative committee and likely to be extensively amended — means exactly by 'occupier'.

Certainly, common councillor Graeme Outerbridge and alderman David Dunkley — the members whose status is under investigation — consider themselves to be valid tenants of the city.

Mr. Dunkley is listed on the municipal register as an occupant of 57 Victoria Street with the company DWD Management and Development Group and is understood to have produced a landlord's certificate to prove his eligibility.

Mr. Outerbridge is listed as an occupant at Mercury House on Front Street and has also provided the Corporation Secretary with a certificate, as the law requires, and a letter from his landlord.

Yet not everyone is satisfied that the two men — who have butted heads with Mayor Sutherland Madeiros around the decision-making table and claim the inquiry is a "witch hunt" against them by him — have proved without doubt their eligibility.

Two sources asking not to be named have contacted The Royal Gazette claiming that although both may pay rent to their landlords they are not in "beneficial occupation" of a valuation unit, as the Act requires.

This newspaper paid a visit to 57 Victoria Street — where the sign outside says Sunshine Gas — and asked to speak to someone from DWD Management.

Our request met with a blank face from the receptionist until we mentioned Mr. Dunkley's name.

She said he was not there at that time and neither was building owner Wendell Brown.

We couldn't see any signs for DWD at the premises and couldn't find the name listed at the Registrar of Companies.

But that doesn't prove Mr. Dunkley is not a tenant there — and he is adamant that he is.

Likewise at Mercury House, none of the signs appear to refer to Mr. Outerbridge but Gregory Tolaram, director of Mercury House Ltd., insists: "From our point of view, he is an occupier. He rents a space (on the fourth floor) which he can use."

He said a number of other businesses had space on the fourth floor and that Mr. Outerbridge used the vote for that valuation unit.

"Graeme is someone who uses the office often but not every day. He is an occupier here and he's been doing that for at least five years."

Mr. Tolaram continued: "What is a beneficial occupier? It would be very nice to have that clarified.

"We would all love to know. We wouldn't do anything which we would consider dishonourable or inaccurate."

Lawyer John Cooper, returning officer for the Corporation at the last election, thinks the law is quite clear.

"My own personal view is that if the whole of a single valuation unit is occupied by more than one tenant on some sort of shared basis then there cannot be an occupier of that valuation unit that is entitled to registration," he said.

Mr. Cooper, who as returning officer was not responsible for the accuracy of the municipal register, added that the Act makes clear that a tenant who has occupied the whole of a valuation unit but only on an intermittent basis is not entitled to registration unless they've had continuous occupation for at least three months prior to applying for registration.

Lawyers are understood to have previously advised the Corporation that a sub-tenant of part of a valuation unit is not entitled to be on the municipal register.

Voters might wonder what all the fuss is about since people are hardly lining up to become Corporation members. Mr. Outerbridge and Mr. Dunkley were both elected unopposed in 2006.

Members — whose responsibilities for the administration and maintenance of the city are not exactly glamorous (they include garbage, sewage, parking and wharfage fees) — receive no payment for their service to the city.

But one of the sources said that was not the point. "It's allowing people to break the rules. You have to be a beneficial occupant and a beneficial occupant is there all the time. Ninety nine percent of the people on the voters register adhere to it absolutely strictly."

The second source claimed: "They don't live in the city, they don't work in the city... they don't pay taxes in the city, they don't own property in the city."

Mr. Madeiros thinks the notion that he instigated the inquiry came about because he made the initial complaint — but he insists he only did that on behalf of someone else and withdrew it when he realised it was in his name. The original complainant then lodged the gripe themselves.

The first source said: "Somebody reported it to the Mayor. If he didn't do anything about it, he'd be screwed. All he has done is say 'we'd better look into this'."

Mr. Outerbridge, who has previously run unsuccessfully for Mayor, says he has no concerns about his eligibility, adding that the inquiry "really is about the differences around the table".

He claims he and Mr. Dunkley are being targeted because of "philosophical" disagreements and because they have tried to ensure the Corporation operates under good governance.

He thinks the inquiry is "counterproductive" since Government and the Corporation's own legislative committee are looking at updating the Act already.

This year's Throne Speech said the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George were operating within an outdated framework which arguably failed to reflect good governance.

"Even when the Mayor withdrew his letter we referred this whole issue of clarifying what an occupier is to the legislative committee," said Mr. Outerbridge.

Now he is considering whether to stand at the next election in 2009.

"It's been a very bumpy ride," he said. "The workload is getting more rather than less and most busy business people don't have the time. I'm intent on serving my term and then reassessing."

If the dispute really is an attempt to oust Mr. Outerbridge and Mr. Dunkley it seems pretty pointless.

The five common councillors of which Mr. Outerbridge is one have no real power since resolutions can only be passed if they are "assented to by not less than two aldermen and by the Mayor".

There are three aldermen but the Mayor need only have two on side to get a resolution approved and he can veto any resolution himself.

Councillor Kathryn Gibbons, chairman of the legislative committee, thinks the issues of internal governance and the franchise need thoroughly reassessing and her team is now applying itself to that task with a view to making recommendations for change by the end of the summer.

Mrs. Gibbons said last month she believed there was the potential that the law regarding who has the right to vote might not be fair.

Corporation Secretary Kelly Miller said this week she could not comment on the inquiry as it is with the Corporation's attorneys.

Until they make a decision on whether the complaint has any validity, the latest episode of the City Hall soap opera looks set to roll on.