The Urbacon lawsuit responsibility, part two

Posted April 8, 2014

Yesterday, Chief Apologist Officer , Ann Pappert, sent a news release to the Mercury in which she stated, unequivocally, that “a complete legal search of Council files has resulted in the following: There was no report to Council seeking Council approval of this (Urbacon firing) decision. There was no resolution of Council directing staff to terminate the contract.”

If Council was not aware of the Urbacon termination of a $42 million contract, who was and who ordered it?

CAO Pappert went on to say that after consultation with lawyers, professional external consultants and project management staff, interim Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Hans Loewig, based on the advice received, terminated Urbacon’s contract.

She said that the interim CAO gave Council verbal updates leading up to September 19, 2008 when he ordered Urbacon Buildings Corporation off the site. The contract was formally terminated on October 17.

Accepting this explanation, were not minutes kept of these Council meetings to verify what Mr. Loewig told Council?

Here’s where the explanation goes off the rails.

In the final days of last year’s trial between Urbacon and the city, the Urbacon legal team introduced into evidence an email sent to Urbacon management in August 2008, from Hans Loewig. In it Mr. Loewig expressed his satisfaction with the progress of the new city hall construction and said he was looking forward to full completion by January 2009.

Less than a month later, Loewig kicked Urbacon off the site.

Hans Loewig was interim Chief Administration Officer when he, on his own without Council direction, allegedly made the decision to fire Urbacon. He was hired in June 2007 as a replacement of Larry Kotseff who was fired previously by the Farbridge administration. He was not on the permanent staff at this time.

A little over a month later, November 27, 2008, the city announced that Loewig would be hired to act as Guelph’s CAO for four years at a starting salary of $195,000 a year. His contract included the unusual condition granting him eight weeks of unpaid vacation per year plus his regular entitlement of paid vacation time.

In the city news release, Mayor Farbridge was quoted as saying: “Mr. Loewig has shown exemplary leadership, integrity and commitment to public service during his tenure in the city. I am thrilled that he will continue to serve as our Chief Administrative Officer for the next four years.”

If he is now being thrown under the bus, did Hans Loewig extract a price for loyalty from a Mayor who, it is now alleged, had nothing to do with the Urbacon termination?

When Mr. Loewig left the city job in December 2012, he was making $209,000 while it appears he was working only nine months of the year. In four years, Mr. Loewig drew some $800,000 in salary not including benefits as CAO of Guelph.

In hindsight, was this entire Urbacon affair terribly mismanaged from the get go? Trial evidence revealed that a flood of change orders contributed to the contract. This delayed completion of the project, twice before termination.

Regardless, Judge Donald MacKenzie did not believe the city’s position and right to terminate the Urbacon contract.

In view of the management of this multi-million dollar issue, how can citizens trust and believe the city’s explanation of who was responsible, given the evidence?

Pappert’s explanation that the elected officials, including the Mayor, were not in the loop when the decision was made to fire Urbacon, is a deliberate distortion of the truth and smells of political interference to protect a Mayor and council.







Filed under Between the Lines

3 responses to “The Urbacon lawsuit responsibility, part two

  1. Glen N. Tolhurst

    If what the chief apologist officer says is even faintly close to being real, it becomes a defacto admission of council being either stupid or incompetent.
    Which label is more applicable? Was Mr. Loewig’s departure accompanied by a non-disclosure clause? If so, in the interests of openness and transparency (which is the current city hall mantra), why not lift any gag order and have him tell his version of what transpired? What is the likelihood of this occurring?

    • Glen N. Tolhurst: You may be right about non-disclosure. He wasn’t called to testify at the trial last year. I was surprised that Urbacon didn’t call him as a witness to back up what he emailed in August 2008 what a great job Urbacon was doing. The email was introduced late in the testimony and I felt at the time the city case was doomed. I recall about four months ago the rumors were flying that the judgment would rule in favor of the city. I guess the spin machine was already gearing up. Can you believe these people who we elected? Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake again.

  2. Glen N. Tolhurst

    Look at what happened to Pauline Marois & her PQ ilk, so there is always hope the Guelph voters will see the folly of the current administration and stage a ballot box revolt in October.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s