Monthly Archives: April 2015

The mayor speaks of platitudes and promises

Posted April 26, 2015

Recently Mayor Cam Guthrie addressed a breakfast meeting of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce in what was billed as the State of the City. He was elected leader and took over as Mayor approximately 100 days ago.

He demonstrated that he was a far better communicator than his predecessor. His message was one of promise and a lot of “thank you’s” and acknowledgements to the senior city staff, members of council, but only those attending the breakfast, also a blanket thank you to city employees and those Chamber members in attendance.

He launched into his vision for Guelph over the next four years. “I am working with a professional staff who are providing their best advice and recommendations. My vision and my challenge over the next four years is to ensure that while Guelph is livable, it is also affordable.”

His vision of what is affordable for taxpayers took a left turn March 25 when his council voted to increase property taxes by 3.55 per cent, the highest increase since 2010. That figure was upgraded to 3.96 per cent when certain adjustments were made to shift portions of the tax burden from multiple-use residences (hi-rise condos) and industrial, to the residential sector of the tax roll.

“The best way to ensure Guelph is affordable is by attracting jobs and investment.”

How does Mr. Guthrie square that statement when his city council just approved the highest property tax increase among 14 peer municipalities? Only the Mayor and Councillors Dan Gibson, Andy Van Hellemond and Christine Billings had the guts to vote against the 2015 budget. A budget that denied the wishes of the majority of citizens to change the way the city was being managed.

Remind us, did not candidate Guthrie campaign on holding property tax increases to the Consumer Price Index? That figure for 2014 was 2.2 per cent. Here’s some food for thought. Mayor Guthrie may have won the election but lost control of council by five votes in the ward three election of devoted Farbridge supporter, June Hofland. Ms. Hofland also donated $250 to the former mayor’s campaign.

The utter failure of the economic development department to increase industrial and commercial assessment will only be more apparent as the years roll by. The problem lies in two factors, Guelph has the reputation of being a high-tax city and city-owned business park’s land costs fail to be competitive with surrounding cities.

So why would these two factors encourage new business investment in Guelph?

The mayor did not mention the role of the Guelph Municipal Holdings Incorporated (GMHI). This organization, set up and controlled by the previous administration, has one large asset, Guelph Hydro. In the last few years, Guelph Hydro has paid “dividends” to the city that is funneled through to operate GMHI. The company now has a general manager with a salary of $132,000, plus additional staff. It is charged with operating Envida Corporation to develop subterranean geo-thermal heating and cooling for certain areas of downtown and the Hanlon Business Park.

Why is GMHI even necessary? Who is paying the bills? Does it have a separate budget and bank account? Why did the city staff recommend hiring two senior asset managers on staff to cost more than $240,000, when that is the alleged role of GMHI, to manage the city assets? When does GMGI report its activities to the people?

There was no mention in his speech of the final costs of the Urbacon affair. In fact, he never brought it up, like it never happened. There was an unfortunate 11th hour motion by Coun. Karl Wettstein to reduce the promised repayment to the depleted reserve funds, used to pay off Urbacon’s settlement of $8.39 million.

CAO Ann Pappert said, after the settlement announcement, that property taxes would not be affected by the city’s costs of the agreement to settle. She said that the reserves would be replenished over five years at a rate of $900,000 per year from the operating budget. Mr. Wettstein’s motion changed that to $500,000 in the 2015 budget and asked the staff to come up with a new repayment plan.

In polite circles that is known as “kicking the can down the road” to avoid fiduciary responsibility.

Oh! The budget includes $600,000 for “multi-paths” to be constructed on a section of Woodlawn Road to appease the Active Transportation lobby of cyclists and pedestrians. Initially $300,000 was approved by the former Farbridge administration in 2014. Even they had the wit to cancel the spending in an election year.

Then along comes newly elected councillor Mike Salisbury, like true grit out of the west, who had a dream that council should spend $600,000, composed of last year’s allotment plus this year’s. It was approved.

The mayor spoke well and used anecdotes to bolster his presentation. But it now appears nothing has changed. Taxes are as high as they have ever been, spending has reached new heights and the same staff and majority of council are still in charge.

Well, Mr. Mayor if you expect to be around in 2018, you’d better pull a “Carpe Diem” – seize the day – before it’s too late.

The 19,000 plus voters did not elect you to be Farbridge-lite.


Filed under Between the Lines

Following the money, how the Farbridge candidates kept control of council

Posted April 20, 2015

The interesting part is who gave money to whom? Delving into the names and numbers, it is apparent the great political divide in Guelph is not necessarily driven by ideology but by influence and money.

The record shows that a number of corporations and individuals donated not only to the former mayor’s campaign, but also to individual councillor’s campaigns who were Farbridge supporters.

In this election, those who supported the mayor lost big-time. That was then and this is now.

For some time, has been investigating how the Guelph and District Labour Council spent a lot of time, organizational and financial support to ensure the former mayor and friendly councillors were re-elected.

The official financial reports of former Mayor Farbridg’s campaign spending. states she spent some $80,217.63 to be un-elected.

Her opponent. Mayor Cam Guthrie spent close to $90,000 to win the election. Some of his donors hedged their bets and also donated to the Farbridge campaign.

The most interesting campaign was in ward three, where incumbent June Hofland won by just five votes. The interesting part is the source of the money she received funding her campaign and when it was received.

Let’s take a look.

Of the nine donors to June Hofland’s campaign who spent more than $100, five also donated to the mayor’s campaign. Not chump change but big bucks. Four people donated $2,000, plus another $250 from Fusion Homes through an individual named Pamela Kraft. That was a total of $2,700 out of $3,580 or 75.41 per cent of her total campaign spending. There was $550 in donations from those who donated under the limit of $100.

How can the financial support of just nine donors re-elect a member of council? Even more concerning is that five donated $2,250 of the $2,700 total to keep June Hofland on council. And Ms. Hofland found $250 to donate to the Farbridge campaign.

Here is something to think about. Why would Susan Watson donate $500 to Hofland’s campaign and $750 to the Farbridge campaign? Her husband, Ian Digby, matched her donation of $1,250.

And Susan Watson is the same person who is challenging the right of GrassRoots Guelph to donate to a GRG candidate who was defeated in the 2014 civic election. He acknowledged receiving $400 from GRG in his campaign financial report. Ms. Watson has filed a complaint to the election compliance committee about the right of GRG to donate, participate or recommend municipal candidates.

What a pathetic attempt to discredit a legitimate organization composed of ordinary citizens. The Ontario Municipal Elections Act does not prohibit participation of third party organizations in municipal elections.

This Watson attempt to convince the compliance committee to rule on the legitimacy of GRG. is misguided. Depending on the ruling of the committee on May 6, it could result in a barrage of objection including the Canada Charter of Rights, the Ontario Civil Rights commission and the Ontario Ombudsman’s Office.

Wait! It gets better.

Let’s look at ward three Councillor Phil Allt’s campaign financial support. Allt, a former New Democratic candidate for the Ontario Legislature, spent $6,319,97 to win the election.

His donation pattern shows that he collected $1,230 in under $100 donations but collected $4.583.16 in donations exceeding $100. Of that, one sticks out: Alan Filwod of Kitchener, who donated $750.

Professor Filwod is a teacher at the University of Guelph. He does not live in Guelph but is a resident of Kitchener. Now why would Mr. Filwod spend $750 to elect a city councillor in Guelph when he isn’t a taxpayer here? Or, why would Geoff Ondercin-Bourne who lives in Ancaster, Ontario, and teaches at Mohawk College, donate $400 to Mr. Allt’s ward three campaign in Guelph?

The most charitable explanation is that they are either New Democratic Party members, political allies and/or supporters of labour. They certainly were not on GRG’s membership list.

Assuming that is true, what’s the difference between the energy and efforts of residents of Guelph advocating a change of government, than the support by the Guelph and District Labour Council given to mayor Farbridge and her supporting cast of candidates?

The alleged use of surrogates to distribute funds anonymously is worse than any U.S. Style “super PACs” as has been described by Ms Watson’s lawyer, Ian Flett. He compared GRG with U.S. Super PACS and a threat to democracy. Such political action vehicles are not permitted in Canada.

What is needed is proof of the source of funds donated by individuals and corporations.

The underlying threat to citizens is the enormous grip and control of our city government by the civic unions. Some 80 per cent of all employees are unionized and they have a lot at stake to maintain their lifestyle and working conditions.

The bottom line is they want to work in the shadows supporting favoured candidates. That is to ensure election of those favouring control the council.

Because the campaign financial reports do not list affiliation and sources of the donors’ donations, whether or not they are city employees, union members or surrogates to distribute funds.

Electors in ward three should challenge Hofland and Allt to reveal the sources of money given to them. This includes Susan Watson and Ian Digby’s $1,000 gift to June Hofland’s campaign.

If interested in examining the candidates’ financial reports, here’s how: Go to; in the search box located on the upper right of the screen, type in “municipal elections” and press enter. When the screen comes up click on the line under the heading that says “More on municipal elections”. This will take you to the list of candidates, the number of votes each received and their financial statements.


Filed under Between the Lines

Farbridge supporter Susan Watson and her husband Dr. Ian Digby donated $4,250 to candidates

Posted April 17, 2015

There is an old story: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

But that’s exactly what Farbridge confidant, Susan Watson, is doing by requesting an audit of the campaign financial statement of ward six candidate, Glen Tolhurst, who listed a $400 donation from GrassRoots Guelph (GRG).

Tolhurst was unsuccessful in his bid to win in ward six. That didn’t deter Ms. Watson. She engaged a Toronto lawyer, Ian Flett, to represent her at a hearing of the election compliance committee, May 6.

Her lawyer says that all his client wants is “clarity” on third party spending specifically naming GRG. He further went on “If the audit finds that the donations by GrassRoots Guelph are appropriate, Guelph and the rest of Ontario needs to brace itself for essentially the municipal equivalent of a super PAC.” That’s a reference to U.S. super PACs that are not permitted in Canada.

That spooky, specious comment has no bearing on the legitimacy of GRG.

It’s a fishing trip by Watson and the remnants of the Farbridge administration to muzzle and discredit the organization. GRG is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation whose activist mission was to inform and educate electors in the October 27 election campaign. It now appears that GRG’s efforts were rewarded with a much greater participation by Guelph electors.

Why then, more than five months after the election, is Watson complaining about the right of a third party to participate in a civic election? Why does she gloss over the third parties involved in the last three elections, who specifically supported former mayor Karen Farbridge and her council team?

Let’s name a few: The Guelph Civic League, We Are Guelph, The Guelph Citizen, Politico, The Sausage party and Guelph Bugle. All these organizations flooded cyber space and the print media with pro-Farbridge messages. Some were often attacking GRG and the blog,

Despite the effort, the mayor lost her fourth re-election bid.

So, Susan Watson is demanding clarity around third party spending, according to her lawyer. He’s the same guy who admits there is nothing explicit prohibiting such participation in the Ontario Municipal Act. His argument that third parties are not allowed to participate in provincial and federal elections. But this was a municipal election and has no credence in this demand for an audit of a defeated candidate in Guelph.

Lets take a look at the money donated by Susan Watson and her partner, Dr. Ian Digby. She spent $3,000 and Digby spent $1,250.

Karen Farbridge                              $750 by Susan Watson & $750 by Ian Digby – defeated

Maria Pezzano, ward one            $250 by Susan Watson – defeated

James Gordon, ward two            $250 by Susan Watson – elected

June Hofland, ward three            $500 by Susan Watson & $500 by Ian Digby – elected

Mike Salisbury, ward four            $250 by Susan Warson – elected

Leanne Piper, ward five                $500 by Susan Watson – elected

Cathy Downer, ward five              $500 by Susan Watson – elected

Note the pecking order of these donations, who received them and who didn’t receive the Watson largesse. It is obvious where the Watson/Digby loyalties lie, and their cheque books, at the ready.

More than a year ago there was a meeting held by the Guelph and District Labour Council at the University of Guelph. Councillors Maggie Laidlaw and June Hofland attended it. The meeting resolved to run pro-labour candidates in each ward.

Now if this isn’t a third party that funded and organized candidates, then why is Watson persisting in attempting to discredit GRG because it helped a candidate?

Let’s try to follow the money.

* Who is paying for Mr. Flett’s services?

* Did Watson and partner use their own money to donate to specific pro-Farbridge candidates?

* Is it possible that financial support from the civic unions for those candidates was channeled through individuals for distribution?

* Did Watson even know those people to whom she donated money?

* Is it not peculiar that a couple would focus their financial support on a specific group known to be part of the Farbridge team?

Obviously, the city compliance committee is not the venue to determine if third parties can participate in municipal elections. They don’t make the rules.

Watson and her lawyer should take their perceived affront to democracy to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for resolution.

Warning, be careful what you ask for because that door swings both ways.


Filed under Between the Lines

Looking in the mirror we see We are Guelph – stronger together

Posted April 15, 2015

It appears that the application to audit the campaign financial report delivered by ward six candidate, Glen Tolhurst, was submitted by Farbridge activist, apologist and core supporter, Susan Watson.

Throughout the recent civic election campaign, Ms. Watson stoutly defended the Farbridge administration usually through the Mercury’s 59 Carden Street blog.

Her views closely followed the platform of the pro-Farbridge website “We Are Guelph” (WAG). It was sponsored by The Guelph and District Labour Council who financed the site and selected the candidates.

A picture on the website of their choice for mayor was Karen Farbridge. It has been taken down from the site.

Here’s how WAG stickhandled its way to naming only those candidates who supported WAG’s “Stronger Together” platform.

It’s called endorsement by coercion.

Here’s the list of those candidates endorsing the WAG platform: Ward one – Terry O’Connor and Maria Pezzano; ward two – James Gordon and Sian Matwey; ward three – Phil Allt, June Hofland, Maggie Laidlaw; ward four – Mike Salisbury and Laurie Garbutt; ward five- Leanne Piper and Cathy Downer; ward six – Keith Poore.

Remember these candidates supported the WAG platform. In the public election post mortem interests, here is a WAG platform synopsis taken from its website:

“Guiding Philosophy: Invest to implement a strategy and vision for a future that meets the needs of Guelph. Investment projects will be paid for by a combination of economic growth and responsible tax rates. All residents, present and future, should be engaged in a review process of Guelph’s priorities and needs.”

Six of those who supported the WAG platform voted to approve the 2015 budget that included a 3.55 per cent property tax increase. Three other elected councillors Karl Wettstein, Mark McKinnon and Bob Bell also voted for the budget.

Do they really believe what they passed was a “responsible tax rate”?

For Susan Watson to hire Toronto lawyer Ed Gillespie’s firm to represent her demand for an audit of Mr. Tolhurst’s election finance report is a sham and a subterfuge to discredit GrassRoots Guelph. You may remember that ten years ago Mr. Gillespie was engaged by the unions to stop Wal-Mart from building a store on Woodlawn Road. He and Ben Bennett, the union front man, ultimately failed to stop Wal-Mart whose application had been hung-up for 11 years at a cost of more than a million dollars.

The union-sponsored WAG that openly advocated supporting its candidates is not a smidge different from what GrassRoots Guelph did in supporting its list of candidates.

The hipocracy is stunning.

It is a basic right to support certain candidates and its called democracy. This case may evolve into a Charter of Human Rights issue that could result in a rebuke of the Watson claim that third parties cannot represent the people during an election campaign.

The strangest aspect of all this is why now? One explanation is that in 2006 the Farbridge team attempted to conduct an election campaign audit of former Mayor Kate Quarrie. It was turned down by the compliance committee and council.

If it didn’t work before, let’s try it again.

So who are the sore losers now?







1 Comment

Filed under Between the Lines

Revenge where is thy sting?

Posted April 14, 2015

The assistant city clerk has advised Glen Tolhurst, a former candidate in the October civic election, that she had received a complaint about a donation made to Mr. Tolhurst’s campaign by GrassRoots Guelph (GRG).

According to the clerk, the complainant, Susan Watson, friend of Farbridge, has hired lawyers to demand an audit of Mr. Tolhurst’s election financial statement, already on file at city hall.

Yep! They are still trying to demolish GRG, the citizen’s organization that played a major role in defeating former mayor, Karen Farbridge.

There has been a lot of recent whining chaff coming from former supporters of Ms. Farbridge, alleging that GRG acted illegally in donating money to candidates or engaging in its democratic right to challenge elected officials. It reminds one of the novel 1984 when “Big Brother” controlled action, thought and deed with his harsh rules.

The Municipal Election rules allow third parties to participate in civic elections. Funny, this question did not arise following the Guelph Civic League’s very active participation in the 2006 civic election that wiped out the city council save for two members.

It was a new Democratic Party’s municipal tour de force in which professional organizers and funding were employed to elect a majority of self-described progressives, including former mayor, Karen Farbridge.

Since then, nothing has changed despite the defeat of Farbridge and some of her supporters, plus two who decided not to run.

The 2015 budget topped out at 5.96 per cent property tax increase, yes, that’s correct. The majority of council approved a 5.50 per cent increase. But ignored the shifting of the tax burden from multi-family residences and industrial to the remaining residential taxpayers. Also the provincially mandated increase in assessments on all property in the city was ignored. This will result in an estimated end-cost to taxpayers in terms of percentage of 4.50 per cent for 2015.

Now these people want an audit of Glen Tolhurst’s election financial report. He was not successful in his bid for council. So ask yourself, why now?

The answer friends is revenge. Revenge on Glen and the thousands of GRG members and citizens for their role in dumping the former mayor. They want to discredit GRG and the blog so that those organizations will not be a factor in the 2018 election.

What can the citizens do, who voted for change, about this continuation of policies that have created the highest municipal tax rate in Ontario? The first step is to organize and complain to those councillors who voted for this 2015 budget.

The next step is to challenge the 2014, 2010 and 2006 election financial reports filed by former members of council who supported the former mayor who chose to run and request an audit of each. The grounds of which would focus on the donations each received and from whom.

The list would include mayor Farbridge, Councillors Ian Findlay, June Hofland, Maggie Laidlaw, Leanne Piper, Lise Burcher, Todd Dennis, Karl Wettstein, Mike Salisbury, and Vicki Beard.

Another step is to request the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate how the draft versions of the 2015 budget were revised upward by council without public input. This would include examination of meetings held by the majority of members, who met together privately to develop strategy and the emails exchanged between that group.

It is possible to take action to curb the excesses of this budget and future decisions.

Susan Watson, you may have awakened the dozing tiger of public protest.






Filed under Between the Lines

Comparing Guelph’s 2015 property tax increase to 13 other cities

Posted April 19, 2015

When looking at what other citys’ 2015 tax increases were in their budgets compared to Guelph, we have the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of all in the 14-city sample.

First, the research on this report employed a common benchmark of dollars per $100,000 of assessment. This allowed equalized comparisons with two-tier muncipalities such as Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge part of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The report was researched from official public sources.

Here is the list in descending order:

City                                    2015 tax increase                        Ranking             Difference

Guelph Budget                        3.55%                                      39

Guelph revised – Note A       3.96%                                    44

Hamilton – Note B                  2.70%                                    35                        Minus 1.26 %

London                                        2.50%                                    30                        Minus 1.46 %

Brampton                                    2.54%                                    24                        Minus 1.42 %

Brantford                                    1.88%                                    22                        Minus 2.08 %

Port Colborne                            1.10%                                    18                        Minus 2.86 %

Burlington                                   2.06%                                    18                        Minus 1.90 %

Oakville                                         1.70%                                    15                        Minus 2.26 %

Mississauga                                 2.20%                                   12                        Minus 1.76 %

Cambridge                                   2.72%                                    10                        Minus 1.25 %

Toronto – Note C                       3.20%                                  10                         Minus   .76 %

Waterloo                                       1.53%                                    7                          Minus    2.43 %

Kitchener                                     1.90%                                    7                          Minus    2.06 %

Windsor                                         0%                                          0                        Minus     3.96 %

Consumer Price Index            2.1%

Note A – Guelph council in 2013 and 2014 shifted the tax burden from multi- residential and industrial to residential. The revised increase does not include the mandated increase in assessment nor the 4.1 per cent increase in water services.

Note B – Hamilton’s tax increases were below the rate of inflation for the past three years.

Note C – Toronto’s increase includes a .50 per cent surcharge to fund a subway extension to Scarborough.

Comparing the Guelph revised rate of 3.96 per cent to the next highest on the list, Hamilton, at 2.70 per cent, the difference is an astounding 31.8 per cent!

What is it that all these municipalities have much lower 2015 tax increases than the City of Guelph? Collectively, what do they know that the Guelph administration doesn’t?

Reading this report, management of the City of Guelph, when compared to 13 other cities, proves there is a very serious problem in terms of performance including accountability. It is a hangover from the previous administration that manipulated the city’s treasury to suit its own projects and plans and change the way our city, in a manner that citizens rejected last October.

And now we are paying for the mistakes and mismanagement.

In eight years, we have a bloated staff of more than 2,100 employees, more than $132 million of debt, a 40 per cent compounded increase in property taxes, a 77 per cent increase in water rates, despite a reduction in usage. Plus a waste management system that has cost taxpayers more than an estimated $70 million and fails to serve 6,400 households.

Then along came the Urbacon blunder costing an estimated $21 million. If any of these figures are incorrect then why doesn’t the city administration release the true costs?

The 2015 budget was nothing more than a power move by the Farbridge supporters still on council, aided and abetted by senior staffers.

Remember, this is the budget where previously CAO Ann Pappert said the Urbacon settlement will not impact property taxes. Because the funds would come from three unrelated reserves and will be paid back in five years repaying the reserves at a rate of $900,000 a year. Well, the truth eascaped her in this pre- election statement.

Council, by a nine to four margin, voted to lower that figure to $500,000 this year and have the staff come up with a new repayment plan, These are same people, elected and some of those on staff, who were responsible for the Urbacon mess in the first place.

Which only proves they know how to spend the people’s money but fail to administer it in a responsible and productive way.

Those iving in Guelph will suffer because the soaring costs inflicted by this and previous administration’s, has already made our city one of the most expensive in which to live in the country.






Filed under Between the Lines

Are the civic worker’s unions controlling Guelph’s future?

Posted April 7, 2015

It is now clear that 80 per cent of city employees who belong to unions have ownership of the public agenda that has been politicized by the seven member majority of the new council.. Make no mistake, this column is not questioning the individual union employee’s right to participate in municipal politics but does question the leadership of those unions.

The union supported members of council approved this budget including: James Gordon and Phil Allt, two former New Democratic Party candidates, Leanne Piper, June Hofland, Mike Salisbury, Cathy Downer and Karl Wettstein were joined by Bob Bell and Mark McKinnon. Only Mayor Guthrie, Christine Billings, Dan Gibson and Andy Van Hellemond opposed approval of the budget.

Meanwhile, former Farbridge councillor, Ian Findlay, opened the door questioning the right of the citizen’s activist group, GrassRoots Guelph, (GRG) to support and donate to candidates. In his juvenile blog he rants that GRG was not non-partisan but some kind right wing conspirators. Funny, he doesn’t mention the funding received by councillors from non-profit, non-partisan civic unions that supported the Farbridge administration with thousands of dollars in the past 10 years.

This was proved March 25, a day of infamy, when the union supported majority of council voted to increase the 2015 property taxes by 3.55 per cent. It was the largest annual increase since 2010.

It was a staged defiance of what the vast majority of people voted for last October. You do not have to understand how it happened but why it happened.

It was a continuation of the policies of the previous Farbridge-led administration. The 2015 budget is arrogant and self-serving. It ignored the choice of the people to change the policies and programs of the past. It explains why such a huge tax increase was necessary, to pay for its extravagant plans and policies including adding more people to an aleady bloated staff..

Labour unions have a right to support municipally based political parties, causes and chosen candidates. But they must do it in an open and transparent manner. This has not been the case in Guelph. The public has no idea who the unions supported with cash and organization assistence in the last election or the three previous ones. They’ll never tell.

Here’s the back-story:

When the Urbacon judgment declared the city wrongfully fired its new City hall contractor a year ago, there was momentary panic in the tightly controlled Farbridge team. As the details rolled out, the fallout effect mushroomed and a strategy was put in place to discredit mayoralty candidate Cam Guthrie, guelphspeaks, and GrassRoots Guelph.

The emphasis turned to ensuring control of council by naming two NDP members to fill gaps in wards two and three. The strange one was Phil Allt entering a slate that included two Farbridge incumbents, Maggie Laidlaw and June Hofland. Someone in the Farbridge campaign team apparently decided Maggie had to go. The election result was tipped in favour of the leftist progressives when June Hofland won by five votes, not exactly a stirring endorsement.

By the end of last September, real panic set in when an independent poll had Cam Guthrie 15 points ahead of the incumbent Farbridge. Shortly afterwards the infamous ad linking Guthrie with Michael Solna, convicted of a breach of the Canada Election Act, was published in the Guelph Tribune. The fallout severely damaged a Farbridge campaign that was already foundering.

Those left progressives making decisions on the changed tactics focused their support on electing candidates who shared the Farbridge policies and points of view. In ward four there was a vacuum with the retirement of Gloria Kovach and soon to be mayor Cam Guthrie. Former city councillor, Mike Salisbury, stepped up to fill the gap. He was rejected by voters in 2010 but won last October. Christine Billings also won handily but is no fan of Farbridge.

Immediately after the election, CAO Ann Pappert announced a major senior staff reorganization that cut the number of executive directors from five to three and re-titled them as Deputy Chief Administrative Officers. Each received an increase in salary.

This was the harbinger of retaining control of the Farbridge agenda and policies.

That control was razor thin and seven leftist progressives were elected to six for the opposition including Mayor Guthrie. However, councillors Bob Bell and Mark McKinnon who were believed to be middle of the road, pragmatic members, supported this shameful budgetary exercise.

Despite the three-month budget process examining the issues and public hearings, the stage was set to pass this 2015 excuse for a responsible budget.

Time will tell whether certain members of council seek redemption for their March 25 approval of the 2015 capital and operating budgets.

It can start by demanding the hiring of a qualified and independent Chief Financial Officer. It must be a no-nonsense individual who arrests the exploding growth of staff salaries and benefits, debt and taxation.

How much longer do the citizens have to be subjected to mismanagement, major mistakes and soaring operating costs?


1 Comment

Filed under Between the Lines