Posted September 17, 2014
GrassRoots Guelph (GRG) has been informed that most candidates supporting the Farbridge regime are refusing to take part in debates to be held in each ward and sponsored by GRG.
This collective decision only points to the existing paranoia being expressed through the social media by the 19 candidates nominated for the 12 council seats and supporting the Farbridge administration.
The most pointed attacks are coming from the five Farbridge incumbents seeking re-election and their surrogates plus two former Farbridge coucillors attempting to return to the job. Guelphspeaks has identified six candidates as being on the council in 2008 when Urbacon Buildings Group Corp, the city hall contractor, was kicked off the job.
What citizens have yet to be told is who made the decision to fire Urbacon? Evidence during the five-week trial showed that council was given regular updates of the progress of the project. So it is safe to suggest that council were aware of what was going on.
Assuming the premise, why didn’t any of them speak up and question the firing decision before it occurred? Were they convinced, based on the information coming from the city manager in charge of the project, Murray McCrae, CAO Loewig and the architects Moriyama and Teshima, that the project was failing to meet the completion deadline?
During the trial Judge Donald MacKenzie questioned the testimony of Mr. McCrae finding it “ contradictory.”
It is the weakness of Farbridge’s council that has controlled this city for eight years. That is, a failure to carry out their individual mandate of representing the people and maintaining the public trust.
This attitude of arrogance and dismissal of the public interest is still being played out today as the six Farbridge loyalists are seeking a third term.
Judge for yourself if you feel they deserve re-election.
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Ann Pappert, stated following the decision by the court, that the city wrongfully dismissed Urbacon and she placed the responsibility on former CAO Hans Loewig. She further said he acted alone and had the power to do so through a special CAO bylaw that permitted him to cancel any contract.
For his efforts, Loewig was working as a contract employee and was awarded full- time employment shortly after the firing. His reward included a four-year contract with starting pay of $198,000 plus an unusual benefit that allowed him to take up to 12 weeks in unpaid vacation plus his regular vacation entitlement. Is this the way to run a $400 million corporation?
Mr. Loewig retired in November 2012. He never testified during the Urbacon trial nor has publicly spoken of the events of September 19, 2008 in which the Farbridge administration claims he was solely responsible and did the dirty deed.
How convenient. No elected councillor gets his or her hands dirty.
For those Farbridge councillors to run on the premise that they were not responsible is an affront to every elector in the City of Guelph.
They are responsible and should be held accountable.
Is it no wonder that they don’t want to appear at the only set of ward debates that are held in the ward? They don’t want to expose their crumbling weakness that led to this Urbacon $15 million error in judgment.
The Farbridge nominees are facing an aroused electorate who are demanding answers that are truthful and not the lame statements emanating from city hall that the Urbacon defeat will not cost additional taxes.
The answer, friends. is to consider who paid for those reserves about to be raided to pay the judgment? Who pays to replenish those emptied reserves over the next five years?
They must honestly believe that their constituents are terminally stupid.
No wonder they don’t want to turn up.