Monthly Archives: May 2016

Why you should care about Guelph Hydro risking your money to finance a flawed energy project

By Gerry Barker

May 30, 2016

The former Dalton McGuinty government launched into a misguided and costly program to move power generation away from fossil fuels to sustainable sources including wind and sun. Oh yes, then we still have a natural gas power plant generating 2,100 megawatts. Question, did it not cost more than a billion dollars to decommission the partially constructed gas generation plants in Oakville and Mississauga? Because the incoming Liberals wanted to save three seats in the area, including that of current Minister of Finance, Charles Sousa.

The first step to fulfill the McGuinty strategy of shutting down the coal-fired generating plants, was to dismantle Ontario Hydro and create three corporations: Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation Corporation (OPG) and the Ontario Power Authority.

Since that move was made, there was the small item of the $35 billion debt left behind by the former Ontario Hydro. Today, paying that charge down for the past 13 years, it was recently removed from your Hydro power bills. Regardless, during that time, we were all charged the HST on our bill. To my mind, I have never seen an accounting of the status of that old Hydro debt or what remains to be repaid?

According to the OPG since 2003, some 13 years ago, the Hydro trio of corporations has spent $16 billion on transmission and distribution. More than $21 billion has been spent on cleaner generation, read that eliminating coal fired- generation.

Since then, The Liberal governments of McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have never balanced the books, creating an annual Ontario deficits ranging from $7 billion up to $13 billion. They did it because they could.

Let’s look at Guelph Hydro that in the past five years has seen hydro bills increase by an estimated 25 per cent. Part of this was passed through by OPG because of the aforementioned costs of converting from coal to wind, sun and natural gas.

An ignoble effort that has driven Ontario’s electricity costs to one of the highest in North America. The record shows that, there is so much power being generated 24-7 in Ontario that the surplus is sold at much less than cost, to neighbouring U.S. states. You can’t store electricity so the province has failed miserably to plan power development to match the needs of Ontario consumers. Instead, we end up subsidizing U.S. power users.

This has resulted in providing cheap Ontario power to competitors below the border, rebuilding the manufacturing base of those jurisdictions, while Ontario’s manufacturing base declines.

It is important to know that part of the high cost of power in Ontario were the deals made with private organizations, to build wind farms and solar arrays. The payoffs were juicy giving 20-year contracts to organizations that were guaranteed a kilowatt per hour rate of 20 cents, about 13 cents higher than what it cost to produce power. So the result was an enormous increase in the cost of retail power to Ontarians.

What does all this have to do with Guelph’s power customers?

Shortly following the 2010 civic election, Mayor Karen Farbridge organized Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. (GMHI), naming herself as board chairman; four of her most trusted councillors plus two independent members were also added to the board. In 2011 Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert was named Chief Executive Officer of GMHI.

The mayor believed that Guelph needed to adopt alternative energy systems to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Her problem was she could not use the financial resources of the City of Guelph because they were tapped out and it would affect the city’s credit rating.

So, she decided to bring the city-owned Guelph Hydro Inc (GHI) into GMHI. Her intent was to use it as the financial source to develop district energy plants and geo-thermal underground heating and cooling. The heat of the two current natural gas district energy pumps would heat the water distributed to select customers. The system was on a closed loop so it required a refrigeration unit to cool the circulated water during the warmer months.

This underground piping has already been installed.

I know, it sounds very complicated and I apologize for using the alphabet soup of acronyms. As it turned out, it has cost the citizens $26,637,244 and the current GMHI CEO/CFO, Pankj Sardana, says there is no hope that the money will ever be recovered. He further said the project should never have been started in the first place.

So, who put up the $26 million? We know that Guelph Hydro separate corporation, Electric Services Inc. (GHESI), inherited Envida Corporation; the organization charged with implementing the failed Community Energy Initiative passed by the Farbridge controlled council in 2007.

And where did GHESI get the money for this energy adventure? They got it from every Guelph Hydro customer in the city. And that’s why Guelph has one of the highest Hydro rates in the country.

In her eight years in office, the former mayor drove up property tax rates by some 38 per cent compounded. Now we learn the truth of her willful use of using Guelph Hydro to finance a thoroughly mismanaged and badly planned project without any regard for risk. She did it in secret, without public consultation or an environmental study.

The final question is why did the Guelph Hydro board of directors never object or question the GMHI operation? They knew what was happening because the GHI leadership was part of the GMHI.

The solution is to abolish the appointed board of Guelph Hydro and elect three Hydro Commissioner in the 2018 civic election. Only this way, the people may get some accountability.

All the players in this from the former mayor and GHI management should share the complicity and blame in the planning and execution of the geo-thermal project. There was no assessment of the number of thermal customers who were ready to sign up. This reminds us of that famous line: “If we build it, they will come.”

CEO Sardana was blunt when he said there was not sufficient number of thermal customers to pay the capital costs or operation of the district energy plants.

It is incredible that senior staff making eye-popping salaries and benefits failed to intervene and prevent this from occurring. Equally, why did Councillors Karl Wettstein, Leanne Piper and June Hofland fail to speak when they were involved? Why did they not question the decisions surrounding the development that cost more than $26 million?

They can achieve a measure of redemption by recommending the whole system be shut down and the equipment moth-balled.

Then, council should order an independent investigation into how this project failed and identify the mistakes that were made, resulting in this enormous financial loss of public money.

It was recently revealed that the originator of this debacle was the former mayor, Karen Farbridge. Today she is operating a consultancy to provide a “tool-kit for local elected leaders to build more resilient, sustainable and prosperous communities for all Canadians by taking action on climate change.”

With respect, any potential clients should check Ms. Farbridge’s track record in eight years as mayor of the City of Guelph.

In another post on her blog she said: “It’s the low-carbon economy, stupid.” I guess anyone who doesn’t like her tools are, well: Stupid.

That would include the 20,000 voters who defeated her in 2014.





Filed under Between the Lines

There are still questions remaining about the Pappert legacy

By Gerry Barker

Post #778 – May 28, 2016

When GuelphSpeaks broke the news Thursday afternoon that Ann Pappert was leaving her senior post as Chief Administrative Officer, the GS blog lit up like a Christmas tree.

The decision was a wise one on Ms. Pappert’s part because of the many questions about her stewardship that are still resonating. Council’s secret awarding of the $37,581 salary increase December 9, was the beginning of the end. More astonishing is they didn’t tell the public until the 2015 Provincial Sunshine List was published in March, 2016.

What were they thinking? By burying the increase for almost three months, did they think it would go away? The seven pro-Farbridge councillors who voted for the increase, betrayed Ms. Pappert by hiding the issue and then not apologizing to the public. We still don’t know who decided the amount of the 17.11 per cent increase.

It has been suggested that the increase was a planned political move to ensure that Ms.Pappert would remain CAO, manage the staff and do the Bloc of Seven’s bidding.

The five-year performance analysis of Ms. Pappert, emailed to Guelph residents, produced more public protest. The email documented performance failures by the CAO. It attracted a threat of legal action by Mayor Guthrie, who said council agreed with his decision. It resulted in a concentrated protest of Ms. Pappert’s record, as additional leaks of the closed meetings emerged and accelerated the public rejection of the CAO.

Why did her own supporters on council agree to threaten the author? They are either terminally stupid or they did it on purpose because the Pappert ‘Salary-Gate” issue was a threat to the Bloc of Seven. The mayor did not pursue his threat but why did he continue to support Ms. Pappert?

Just the other night, May 24, the Bloc of Seven council majority forced approval of a new program called the Guelph Energy Efficiency Retrofit Strategy (GEERS) to permit city funding of retrofitting private buildings. It included new windows, insulation, high efficiency furnaces fired by natural gas, solar panels to reduce dependence on the provincial power grid, and, a partridge in a pear tree.

As an aside, the acronym GEERS root description seems an unfortunate choice of words.

Here’s how it works. A citizen calls in a registered contractor to price installing new windows, insulation and a new furnace. The bid comes in at $22,000. Now a new team of city employees must vet the bid, make any changes deemed not applicable and instruct the owner that the city will finance the project. This step requires the applicant to establish ownership and provide a net worth statement, to back up the ability to repay the loan over 20 years, through the GEERS applicant’s property taxes.

Imagine that the city receiving 1.000 applications over the next two years. Where does the money come from? How does this program achieve a balanced financing without affecting capital spending on infrastructure or affordable housing?

The principal payments alone on this theoretical project amounts to $1,100 annually and does not include interest or other carrying charges, on top of the owner’s regular property tax increases.

The questions remain:

* Who is eligible for the program?

* What additional costs are factored in such as insurance, HST, legal costs?

* What happens if the house is sold before the loan is repaid?

* What is the interest rate charged on the retrofit loans?

* What happens when the homeowner cannot repay the loan?

* Does the city register its interest on the property title?

* When did the citizens vote to adopt this plan?

* Where is the city going to find the funding to implement this plan?

* Is this another Fbridger inspired plan to invoke her environmental polices?

* Why should property owners have to finance this plan?

* Did the staff, directed by Ms. Pappert prepare a business plan for the project?

* If so, was that plan approved by the finance department?

* Did the Bloc of Seven know those two days after approving the plan, that Ms. Pappert was leaving her job?

The overhanging drive to establish GEERS rests with former mayor Karen Farbrdge who remains a ghostly political force influencing the city government.

It’s another money-losing scheme done in the name of sustainability and fossil fueled use resulting in reducing Guelph’s contribution to climate change. A lofty goal but the Province of Ontario’s contribution of gases affecting climate change is 1 per cent of the total world carbon emissions.

Guelph’s portion of the Ontario carbon emission total is less than .00016 per cent.

It is yet another example of environmental projects that are adopted without an up-front analytical business plan to justify the cost. Most of these measures were adopted in by the Farbridge administration behind closed doors without public input.

So why is council turning the civic corporation into a bank to finance retrofitting a select number of properties? It ‘s another example of a misguided adventure orchestrated by a determined group of progressive adherents. In eight years, Farbridge managed to spend millions on energy-based projects, waste management and geo-thermal heating and cooling for a select number of office buildings and condos.

Don’t forget those bicycle lanes that have caused growing traffic congestion because vehicle lanes were reduced on major roads to permit wider bike lanes. The tiny minority of adults using bicycles for basic transportation does not contribute money for the road changes and maintenance. The irony is that cyclists do not pay for these road changes or contribute to the maintenance. In fact, Guelph’s cost of maintaining roads in the municipality is $28,000 per kilometer. The provincial average is $11,000 per kilometer. When it is suggested that cyclists should be licensed there is uproar from their lobbyists.

Their sponsor progressives regard these projects as investments. Trouble is, any investment has to have a return in order to qualify. We’ve already experienced that these so-called investments are great users of the public’s capital without the payback.

In their misguided view, the payback is reducing climate change that benefits all citizens. It’s a mindless theory for reasons we have already mentioned. Guelph is a miniscule contributor to global warming. When the progressives fail to build a new downtown library, a needed south end recreational centre or provide affordable housing or rebuild an ailing infrastructure, their version of investments pales by comparison.

Instead, starting with the 2017 budget, the staff wants to levy more capital to pay for badly needed, often critical, infrastructure retrofitting that affects all citizens. The proposal calls for two per cent special levy over ten years to rebuild the infrastructure. It is estimated that the contribution will net more than $250 million. That figure comes from the Associated Municipalities of Ontario (AMO).

One member of Council who attends the AMO meetings mentioned the cost of fixing our infrastructure. It is peculiar that Leanne Piper, a stalwart supporter of the former mayor, would bring this up to council and staff. She voted to support GEERS two days before Ms. Pappert quit. Her supporting vote contradicted her admonishing fixing the infrastructure that has been mostly neglected in the past eight years.

The people have reacted twice in the past 17 months and were successful in removing senior progressive leaders.

It is a lesson, that the people do have the power and are not afraid to use it.


Filed under Between the Lines

Questions Guelph citizens should be asking about Salary-Gate

By Gerry Barker

Posting #776 – May 26, 2016



CAO Ann Pappert is leaving her Chief Administrative Officer position

Ann Pappert tendered her resignation today in the wake of performance issues and public reaction. She is prepared to stay on to facilitate a smooth turn over of her responsibilities to her successor. Her contract ends in October.

It is not known at this time what her plans are.

She is the second senior officer of the city staff to leave in the past few days. Deputy Chief Administration Officer(DCAI), Derrick Thomson, resigned and that leaves just DCAO Mark Amorosi, remaining of the senior staff members hired by the former Farbridge administration. DCAO Scott Stewart, was only hired last December.

To replace Ms. Pappert will take some months as the city restructures its senior management..

The current post continous

We recently learned that in a closed-session last October 13, members of council were asked to rate the performance of Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert. An independent consultant tallied the responses of the 13-member council. It was reported that the CAO’s performance failed to have the support of council. The result, according to the consultant, did not warrant any increase in salary for the CAO. It is important to note that Ms. Pappert was not present at the meeting.

What allegedly followed was a series of recriminations by certain councillors over what they had just collectively stated, therefore there should be no raise. Expressions of remorse including “maybe we were too tough on her” were made, again in closed session.

On December 9, in closed-session, council voted to increase the CAO’s salary by $37,581 for 2015.

Now we learn that the CAO has hired a lawyer, a specialist in human resources cases who will only negotiate with city lawyers. Negotiate what? Ms. Pappert’s exit?

This has become known as “Salary-Gate,” the abuse of power by the administration. It is a clear example of a council exhibiting its arrogance and lack of resolve by supporting this outrageous increase. The thought of renewing this individual’s more than $257,000 contract is a chilling prospect in view of her well documented performance over five years.

Some unanswered questions

QUESTION: Who voted for this increase conducted in closed session?

QUESTION: Did the Mayor vote to pay Ms. Pappert the $37,581 salary increase December 9?

QUESTION: Why was the CAO’s 2015 salary increase stalled until December 9, 2015?

QUESTION: Who determined the amount of the increase?

QUESTION: When and how was that amount calculated?

The Human Resources department, headed by Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO), Mark Amorosi, normally recommends salary increases based on research comparing rates for similar jobs in other municipalities. His boss is CAO Pappert.

QUESTION: Is this not a conflict of interest?

QUESTION: What about the increases given to the three DCAO’s, Mark Amorosi, Al Horsman and Derrick Thomson? The latter two have left the city.

QUESTION: When were they approved and who decided the amount of their substantial increases?

QUESTION: Why is the senior staff involved at all setting their own salary increases?

QUESTION: Why are these details conducted in closed-session?

These four senior managers of the corporation are public servants and the public has the right to know the details of negotiations.

QUESTION: Why has Mayor Cam Guthrie gone to great lengths to support his CAO despite the outcome of the council rejection of any increase for Ms. Pappert, October 13, 2015?

QUESTION: Why did DCAO Mark Amorosi state that the reason the CAO got the raise was because she did not get one in 2014 and she did not request one?

QUESTION: Was the CAO told not to request an increase in the 2014 election year?

QUESTION: Is it possible that former Mayor Karen Farbridge is advising the seven members of the Orange Crush on council to block reform of her failed policies, including awarding excessive executive salary increases?

QUESTION: Were there promises made in the dying days of the Farbridge term to reward her trusted senior staff?

QUESTION: Is there any recourse by citizens to stop the waste of public money and deliberate obstructionism by the Orange Crush majority on council?

In Ontario, there is little citizens can do to recall errant public servants and elected officials, short of being convicted of robbing a bank. In this case, the four executives were in charge of the bank.

This action by the majority of council is reprehensible and a dereliction of their sworn duty toward the citizens of the city.

Why did council not tell us about the salary increases?

In particular, it was a secretive, duplicitous action that only came to light when the provincial Sunshine List of public employees earning more than $100,000 was released in March this year, almost four months after the fact.

Most disturbing is the action of Mayor Guthrie, who has repeatedly avoided involvement in confrontational events requiring his leadership. Earning a resounding victory in October 2014, Mayor Guthrie has failed to follow through on his promises to make a “Better Guelph.” Instead he has squandered obvious opportunities to fulfill his mandate.

His ability to provide leadership of this city is needed more than ever. As time goes by, it is making him less relevant as a mayor and politician. It didn’t have to be that way because there were resources to assist him to overcome the Farbridge stranglehold on city operations.

Instead, he denigrated citizens who objected to the performance of his CAO by summarily dismissing any suggestion that she lacked the ability to do the job. He even threatened one citizen with legal action. That threat disappeared quickly due to the public reaction.

He has been quoted saying that he is receiving calls from mayors and reporters from all over Canada asking how does he do it, what was his secret?

Do what?

This isn’t about selling insurance, big guy; it’s about integrity, toughness and keeping your word. All three of those attributes of your Posting #776leadership are MIA – Missing in Action.

In the meantime, contact your councillor to let them know of you displeasure over this salary case and other serious mismanagement of city finances and operations. There is no shortage of material.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Here is the Council contact list:

Mayor            Cam Guthrie                             519 837 4643


Coun. Dan Gibson                                   519 822 1260 Ext 2502

Coun. Bob Bell                                               519 803 5543


Coun. Andy Van Hellemond   519 822 1260 Ext 2503

Coun. James Gordon                        519 822 1260 Ext 2504


Coun. Phil Allt                                              519 822 1260 Ext 2510

Coun. June Hofland                          519 822 1260 Ext 2505


Coun. Christine Billings              519 826 0567

Coun. Mike Salisbury                       519 822 1260 Ext 2512


Coun. Leanne Piper                             519 822 1260 Ext 2295

Coun. Cathy Downer                         519 822 1260 Ext 2294


Coun. Mark MacKinnon              519 822 1260 Ext 2296

Coun. Karl Wettstein                          519 763 5105












Filed under Between the Lines

Who were the enablers and what did they do to lose $26 million?

By Gerry Barker

May 22, 2016

It isn’t too difficult to figure out now that the former Farbridge administration, on its misguided zeal to impose a radical and expensive underground energy system, was enabled by an assortment of civic staff and elected officials.

Official written statements released by the Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert, and co-signed by Pankaj Sardana, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc (GMHI); Chief Executive Officer of Guelph Hydro Electric Services Inc. (GHESI) and Envida Corporation.

Their statement included the following admissions. There is $17,937,244 in “tax losses” being carried on the books of GMHI. If you do your own income taxes you know that a tax loss is generated only by a real loss. It can only be used to offset capital gains. Thinking about this, don’t hold your breath.

Then the two district energy pumps and equipment cost another $8.7 million. The total loss is $26,631,224. It was revealed that some $3 million reduced the cost of the two district energy units. Where did that money come from? And the cost of those pumps was some $12 million, not $8.7 million as the Mayor stated.

Folks, the CAO told council that district energy is still in play. How can that be? The Godmother of GMHI must know that the company has no money and has consistently lost money for five years. Is the CAO expecting a financial resurrection of a dead dream of the former mayor, her friend and mentor?

A day of reckoning is reaching warp speed

During the presentation by Mr. Sardana to the members of council who represent the citizens as shareholders of GMHI, he was frank. Essentially, the concept of the Community Energy Initiative (CEI) and the two district energy units was poorly planned and executed.

Asked about what analysis was done before the plan was launched; the CEO replied, “If we now had done it again, we would never have embarked on it.” Mr. Sardana replied. He was not involved with the original planning of the CEI and the two district generating units.

His knowledge and expertise paints a picture of careless planning, sloppy execution, record keeping, and lack of oversight. Most of the execution of the plan was done in secret and off the city books. You didn’t have to read between the lines to understand how this happened over such a long time.

I contend that there were enablers that force-fed this now discredited and costly exercise down the public’s throats.

The path leading to a failed initiative was enabled by a segment of councillors and staff who were bound by secrecy.

Let’s take the present city council. Three members of the Bloc of Seven were supporters of the CEI along with the former mayor, Karl Wettstein, Leanne Piper and June Hofland. They not only knew what was happening but also as members of the GMHI board, enabled the process. For example; they had to know about the millions in so-called dividends paid to the city by GMHI. Did they not realize that those dividends came from borrowed money from GHESI and its start-up donation of more than $20 million paid to Envida Inc?

Did these three councillors deliberately neglect their fiduciary responsibility to their constituents? Of course they did, in the name of misguided political expediency.

The other four members of the present council’s Bloc of Seven, were all rookies including James Gordon, Phil Allt, Mike Salisbury and Cathy Downer; the last two had previous experience on council. They were not involved in this debacle that started in 2011. Also newcomers Dan Gibson, Mark MacKinnon and Christine Billings were not aware of the GMHI financial disaster. None of these councillors were involved when GMHI was started up in 2011.

But, the members of the Bloc of Seven, all supporters of the policies of the former mayor, are now caught between the rock and a hard place … support or shut up?

It remains that one of the chief enablers of this operation is CAO Ann Pappert. She had to oversee the operation as the first CEO of the city-owned GMHI. It’s her job to track the money and ensure that it is properly budgeted and accounted.

Another major enabler was the former Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman. he was there when the CEI went south in terms of financial disaster, He was shifted in November 2014 when the suffen reorganization of the senior staff management occurred in the final days of the Farbridge administration. He took over environmental services including waste management, planning and engineering. It is now obvious he realized that finances were in disarray due to the Urbacon fiasco and the raiding of reserves to pay for the lawsuit settlement. He had to also know what was gong on over at GMHI.

Mr. Horsman left in August 2015 to take over as CAO in Sault Ste Marie.

The enabler superstructure began to crumble

After Horsman’s transfer, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Mark Amorosi, took the city financial department under his Corporate Services responsibilities. Since November 2014, the City of Guelph has not employed a qualified Chief Financial Officer. Since then, two general managers of finance, hired by Amorosi, left the city.

The last one, Janice Sheehy, also figured out what was happening under Amorosi’s leadership. She left last March after a year on the job. The Region of Peel hired her.

It is easy to understand that Amorosi was in on the failed GMHI experiment and enabled it to continue losing money for five years. He was a Farbridge loyalist who supported her CEI baby, no matter what the cost, as it now turns out.

Then there were the minor league enablers who were believers in energy sustainability, reduction of the use of fossil fuels and pedaling your way around the city on your bicycle.

Their beliefs have some foundation. The problem on this case, is blind ambition, which is not matched by the ability to pay for it. Under the eight-year leadership of Ms. Farbridge, it’s the reason why Guelph’s property taxes and electricity rates are among the highest in the country.

The operating and capital costs of Kitchener and Cambridge are 50 per cent less than Guelph. That difference comes out of every Guelph citizen’s pocket either through property taxes, user fees e.g., excessive charges for electricity, water, and storm drainage, even parking on major streets.

Now, the staff is proposing a ten-year special levy to finance acutely needed renovation of the city’s aging infrastructure. They propose, to place a surcharge on property owners of two per cent, in addition to the regular tax liability each year, starting in 2017 … if council dares to approve it..

With losing millions in mismanagement, the property tax levels have reached the breaking point. There is no evidence that the present CAO-led management team is unwilling to reduce operating and capital costs. The costs of operating the city are way out of line with a bloated staff that is demoralized and in some cases inefficient.

Only a change of staff leadership will bring true reform. Its byproduct will reduce the suffocating multitude of tax burdens prevailing on the citizens. There is a dire need to conduct an independent review of the governance rules installed by the previous administration. These rules are stifling the work of council including accountability to the taxpayers.

The staff management people that floated this tax levy plan are the same bunch who enabled the failed CEI debacle.

As for Karen Farbridge, she knew full well that her grandiose CEI would stall the needed work to fix the city’s proven infrastructure shortfall. That wasn’t glamourous enough for her ego and legacy.

But her legacy remains in tatters and is still being propped up by seven members of council who disregard their sworn duty to the people who elected them.

Karen would be proud.

As a public service, GS is listing the members of council and their contact points including their city-supplied phones, fixed and cell, email address and fax number. The more people contacting their representative the more they will become awarw of your concerns about mismanagement and financial losses sustained in the past five years..

Between Urbacon and CEI, those loseses are more than $49 million.

email                                    Office                   Cell            Fax

Mayor Cam Guthrie 519-837-5643 519-822-8277
Ward 1
Councillor Dan Gibson 519-822-1260 x 2502 519-827-6407 519-822-8277
Councillor Bob Bell 519-803-5543 519-803-5543 519-822-6152
Ward 2
Councillor Andy Van Hellemond 519-822-1260 x 2503 226-820-5073 519-822-8277
Councillor James Gordon 519-822-1260 x 2504 519-827-6481 519-822-8277
Ward 3
Councillor Phil Allt 519-822-1260 x 2510 519-827-6579 519-822-8277
Councillor June Hofland 519-822-1260 x 2505 519-822-8277
Ward 4
Councillor Christine Billings 519-826-0567 519-822-8277
Councillor Mike Salisbury 519-822-1260 x 2512 519-827-7398 519-822-8277
Ward 5
Councillor Leanne Piper 519-822-1260 x 2295 519-835-1136 519-822-8277
Councillor Cathy Downer 519-822-1260 x 2294 519-827-8390 519-822-8277
Ward 6
Councillor Mark MacKinnon 519-822-1260 x 2296 519-829-6285 519-822-8277
Councillor Karl Wettstein 519-763-5105 519-822-8277







Filed under Between the Lines

How a flawed Community Energy Initiative wasted $26 million with no material environmental benefit

By Gerry Barker

May 18, 2016

The Chief Executive Officer of the Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. (GMHI), Pankaj Sardana, CFO, GMHI, CEO, Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc (GHESI). and Envida Community Energy Inc., spent almost two hours explaining how the previous administration pushed to develop district energy units costing $8.7 million without having a comprehensive business plan.

Mr. Sardana pulled no punches except one. He did not name the political author who was pushing a failed multi-million dollar community energy initiative that resulted in a massive loss of some $26, 637, 244 million, provided the audit does not establish the same figure.

Former Mayor Karen Farbridge was determined to establish a Community Energy Initiative (CEI) that Mr. Sardana described as flawed from its inception in 2011.

Her name was never mentioned during the shareholder’s meeting. But following the GMHI CEO’s remarks, it was clear that there was no doubt who was pushing to adopt the flawed CEI and the district energy plants.

At the beginning of the meeting Coun. Karl Wettstein, out of the blue, made an unrelated comment: “I don’t believe the Urbacon decision (to fire the general contractor building the new city hall), was an error.”

Where does he get this stuff?

Well, Karl, describe to us why it cost an additional $23 million over the contract price? It is clear that Justice Donald Mackenzie ruled there was an error and it cost the citizens big time.

Wettstein’s comment clearly illustrates why the city is in such dire financial shape. There is slavish support of councillors such as Wettstein, Leanne Piper and June Hofland of their former leader. It demonstrates their lack of basic financial understanding and denial of serious mistakes in judgment.

If they don’t understand it, how do they expect us to understand it?

This became shockingly apparent Monday night at a meeting of the GMHI shareholders, aka city council; Mr. Sardana carefully walked the shareholders through the labyrinth of corporate involvement that had been established by GMHI.

The more he spoke, the more it became apparent that this whole GMHI partnership with GHESI was a rogue operation. GMHI activities were shrouded in secrecy. It is now apparent that senior managers in both the city and Guelph Hydro knew what was going on. They are complicit because they received quarterly GMHI financial statements. This multi-million dollar operation functioned not only in secret but also off the city and Guelph Hydro books. Hydro used GHESI to be the conduit for financing the project.

In order to accomplish that, there were a number of people in on the deal. The result is there are more total loss numbers flying around about how much money was wasted.

GuelphSpeaks uses the figure $26, 637, 244 already announced and signed off by the CAO and Mr. Sardana. However, there have been other numbers bandied about ranging from a loss of $11 million to $40 million.

The Sardana presentation detailed an accounting of the mish-mash of corporations involved in the operation of establishing the real loss figures. On June 13 there is another shareholder’s meeting to receive the audit of the whole operation.

Will the audit of this affair reveal the truth about the losses?

Hopefully this will confirm the loss plus the causes of it. Make no mistake, there was substantial loss but we don’t yet know how much.

There are two important points to be made. Mr. Sardana was not involved in the creation or subsequent errors in judgment made by the former Farbridge led GMHI board. Second, the meeting, while open to the public, was not televised. Wonder why not?

Coun. Christine Billings asked the CEO about what analysis was done before the plan was launched.

“If we had done it again, we would never have embarked on it,” he replied. He went on to say that if the there were a full rollout of the planned district energy operation, the required base of thermal customers would not support the cost of the project.

He said the CEI drove the project from the beginning.

“We paid $5.5 million on the Hanlon district energy system with no environmental benefit? Coun. Billings asked.

“We understand now what we didn’t know before,” The CEO replied. He added that GMHI is cleaning up the finances and moving on. He referenced the $18 milliohm in tax losses but there was no equity in GMHI to support those losses. He said there is an outstanding loan made by the Royal Bank of Canada that must be paid off.

One of the accounting moves was to convert debt into equity. That may have the effect of making the books look good, but the money that created those debts has been spent. That’s why they are on the books as tax losses. But there is little or no revenue to offset them.

Wettstein said the GMHI consortium understood the role of CEI

Coun Wettstein said the board members of GMHI, GHESI and Guelph Hydro Inc (GHI), understood the role of the CEI. He added that some of those involved in making the decisions were “no longer with us.” Is it any wonder?

“Cam and I had little to do with the 2015 budget,” he said. Excuse me, both of you were on the council that initiated this GMHI sponsored scheme. You had to receive quarterly financial reports on the activities of GMHI and its holding corporations, including GHESI and GHI.

Tell us Karl, where did you think the financing for this preposterous adventure was sourced? As a councillor, one would believe that you were on top of the city’s overall finances, including the abortive creation of GMHI.

Coun. Phil Allt, who was not part of this CEI plan commented: “I hope this doesn’t turn out to be Guelph’s “Avro Arrow”. The Hanlon/downtown (district energy units) was not a good decision.”

Coun. Dan Gibson commented that the data was flawed and administrative interference pressure made things happen. But he never mentioned the name of the person exerting the pressure.

Coun. Billings said it has cost $14 million and it should have been no more than $1 million.

Coun. Leanne Piper, who was involved in the GMHI board and its operations, said the people in Guelph wanted the CEI. She failed to explain why more than $26 million has been spent. Nor why with flawed planning, spending $8.7 million on two district energy plants will never produce adequate funding to replace the original costs.

We still don’t officially know the source of the CEI funding

During his presentation, the CEO never explained the sources of funding the CEI project. It is apparent that it did not come from city property tax revenues. The whole project was maneuvered off the city books.

It is obvious, that it came from Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc, allied with GHI. It appears that some $23 million was transferred to GMHI from GHESI in the period following absorbing GHI into GMHI.

This is an alarming revelation of total misuse of publicly owned assets to foster a poorly planned scheme to establish an alternative community energy plan.

It is becoming more evident that there should be an investigation by the OPP to determine if this is fraud, perpetrated in secret by elected officials, on Guelph Hydro’s more than 50,000 customers.

The opportunity for public participation and independent investigation is fast approaching, as there will be an audited statement presented June 7. This statement will be the subject of a public shareholders meeting Monday, June 13, 2016.

I urge citizens to attend this meeting and judge for themselves what has occurred to affect their costs of electricity, since 2011, today and in the future. This was a deliberate attempt to use GMI to pay for a poorly planned and executed plan that has already cost citizens more than $26 million.

Remember there is one person in the administration who has been intimate with the details of this financial disaster, she is the one who council gave a 2015, $37,581 salary increase, December 9, in closed session before the discussion on the 2016 budget began.

The CAO knows more than she is letting on

CAO Ann Pappert was there from the beginning in 2011. In my opinion, she knows more than she is prepared to reveal.

We repeat, there is now ample evidence that, if a project of this magnitude occurred in private corporations, the evidence points to dismissal of those responsible and closing down of a gravely failed operation.

Trying to pinpoint those responsible is difficult due to the absence of those who made the decisions that led to this. But, the CAO knew, Ann Pappert, and with respect, so did the DCAO, Mark Amorosi. The new board has flushed out those former board members and staff members who were involved.

Regardless, the buck stops with Ann Pappert and Mark Amorosi, and the CEO of GMHI from 2011 to 2014, all of whom received quarterly financial reports of the status of GMHI and GHESI.

The only remnants of this raiding of the public purse are those councillors who were on the original GMHI Board of Directors. There were five councillors on that board plus the mayor.

The buck(s) stop with all of them.




Filed under Between the Lines

How your Hydro bills were used to finance a failed plan to push sustainable energy

By Gerry Barker

May 16, 2016

Documents released Friday night reveal how, starting in 2011, the Karen Farbridge administration created an off-the-city books corporate rabbit warren to deceive and push up your Guelph Hydro bills.

And it happened right under our noses.

Here’s a snapshot of the convoluted corporate tangle that was created by Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. by Mayor Farbridge. It happened after her defeat to sell Guelph Hydro in 2009 to a consortium composed of Hamilton’s and St. Catharine’s Hydro systems. It was a rare occasion when her own supporters refused to support her proposal.

Why? She needed the money to pay for the city’s share of the 2009 federal/provincial shared infrastructure program in which the city was to pay a third of the approved $66 million cost. Unfortunately, reason failed again and the city’s share grew to $28 million with added projects. These included $2 million for bicycle lanes on Stone Road and a new $750,000 time clock in the Sleeman centre.

So, Ms. Farbridge tapped into Guelph Hydro Inc (GHI), for $30 million that was owed to the city through another convoluted scheme that turned over ownership of GHI to the city. She redeemed a $30 million note to bail out the city of a serious financial bind.

In 2011, Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. (GMHI) was incorporated with then mayor Farbridge as chair and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Ann Pappert, as Chief Executive Officer. The board was loaded with her fellow council supporters, plus a couple of friendly outsiders.

There was a series of corporate changes that resulted in GMHI taking full control of GHI and its subsidiary Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc (GHESI). This corporate body was the revenue producer of GHI. Why GHI management did not balk at this take-over, remains a mystery.

Just days after delivering his “state of the city” address last week, Mayor Cam Guthrie now says there is an $8.7 “write down” of the costs of building the two natural gas-fired district energy systems. One was built in the Hanlon Business Park and the other in the Sleeman Centre downtown. Both provide heated water to businesses and two new high-rise condos built by Tricar downtown.

So while the mayor says in that this is not a charge to taxpayers such as occurred with the Urbacon settlement, it was taxpayer money spent on building these gas-fired plants. Using the term “write-down” really means write-off. We presume the $8.7 million was posted to the GHI balance sheet.

The word is we the people will never recover those costs. Poof! They are gone along with the means to repay it.

So the balance sheets of GMHI and and sister corporation, Envida, are really a sham. The losses are horrendous in both corporations. It’s difficult to believe that any respected Chartered Accountant would not question the finances before signing off.

But now we drill down a little deeper. l give Mayor Guthrie credit for tackling this financial disaster that has driven up Hydro bills to pay for the abortive dreams of a distrusted administration. It did not occur on his watch.

The Mayor’s ongoing support of the CAO is questionable particularly her 17.11 salary increase approved December 9, 2015 in a closed-session that he chaired. The large increases to senior management were not revealed until the provincial Sunshine List of civic employees, earning more than $100,000, was released in late March this year.

Here’s more: There is an item in the report of the GMHI operation in the past five years that reveals damage to the credibility of a number of people.

The first item in the statement to be presented Monday night is “tax losses” by both GMHI and Envida Corporation, the stepchild of GHI. The tax loss amount for GMHI is $10,595,931. In the case of Envida it’s $7,341,313. That totals $17, 937,244.

To clearly understand the implication of those “tax losses,” is that those are operational losses in the past five years. When a corporation has tax losses it is because it lost money. The only way those losses can be recovered is by making profits to reduce tax liability. Trouble is the claimed losses disappear. Under the circumstances, these losses will never be recovered.

Those are, plain and simple, real losses by the various corporate bodies set up to fulfill the ego-driven dream of the former mayor. She was determined to create the Community Energy Initiative, (CEI). She planned it to keep it off the city books.

The reason why is that under her watch, the city’s credit rating was overtaxed due to excessive spending and mismanagement of finances.

Despite her overt attempt to hide the real story from the public, the city is still liable for the losses incurred by GMHI and Envida. The Royal Bank of Canada loaned money to these organizations. The bank would never have done so without the guarantee of the city to repay the loans.

Again, it’s more of our money down the rabbit hole

Now when you toss in the “write downs” of $8.7 million building those two gas-fired generating plants, the cost of which will never be recovered, there is a total hidden liability of some $26,237,244. The chances of ever recovering that money are zero.

Despite five years of towering losses, GMHI sent a so-called $1.5 million dividend to the city. In the 2014 annual GMHI report, it stated that GMHI had sent dividends totaling $9 million since its 2011 start-up. When you add the $3 million sent in the last two years it comes to $12 million. Will someone explain how a money-losing operation can afford to send dividends to the city when it is losing millions?

Or are they just moving the deck chairs around the sinking Titanic, aka the City of Guelph?

Here’s why. The so-called dividends were used by the city to balance its books as required by law at the end of each calendar year. The trouble is that the city for the past five years has generated large negative variances each year because the administration overspent its own budgets. Instead, the city administration used the GMHI dividends plus raiding reserves to claim a balanced Financial Information Report to the province, as required by law.

Three members of the city council, Leanne Piper, June Hofland and Karl Wettstein, were part of that administration. Do they still believe that supporting GMHI was a worthwhile project? They had to know of the write-downs and tax losses but remained silent, as did their leader, Karen Farbridge and CAO Ann Pappert.

We now learn that Ann Pappert has been reappointed CEO of GMHI and is working closely with the mayor to resolve the financial morass created by the previous administration.

Mayor Guthrie should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to request an independent investigation by the OPP of this off-the-books financial situation and its management.

Is it time for an OPP investigation for fraud?

There is strong evidence that the former administration knowingly used GHI to supply the funding for this abortive plan orchestrated by the former mayor. In my opinion, it is tantamount to a criminal act to defraud the more than 50,000 retail Hydro customers by taking control of GHI and using its cash flow to finance the CEI.

Today, Guelph has one of the highest retail electricity rates in North America. Now we know why.

The first step is to ask CAO Pappert to take a leave of absence because of her connection to GMHI from its 2011 inception. Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Scott Stewart would manage the CAO responsibilities until Ms. Pappert’s return. Mr. Stewart joined the senior staff last December and is immune from any responsibility for this $25,237,244 hidden liability.

The second step is to close GMHI down before it loses more money.

From the evidence that has been made public, there is no hope for GMHI to become profitable under its existing organization.

In the end, the people will have to pay the bills. What a minute! We’ve been paying for it all along through our Hydro bills. It is just painful that GHI and GHESI were used to allow Farbridge to push a failed dream of energy sustainability. It occurred under the CEI.

Even today, the CEI is supported by the seven Farbridge supporters on council we call the Orange Crush because of their shared political ideology, rigidity and obstructionism.

This city can ill-afford another multi-million dollar financial disaster fostered by the former mayor, Karen Farbridge.






Filed under Between the Lines

Is Salary-Gate the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

By Gerry Barker

May 12, 2016

Despite attempts to block public access by doing the citizen’s business behind closed doors, the leaks keep coming. The Guelph city council’s majority Orange Crush continues to obstruct and bring a once great city to its financial knees.

Here’s a word from the plumber: Want to stop the leaks of your private, close-session meetings? Put an end to those meetings and conduct your business in open council.

First, who is part of the Orange Crush? Councillor Phil Allt appears to be the defacto leader, along with Coun. James Gordon and Coun. Leanne Piper, this is the heart of the Orange Crush. Their fellow traveling councillors include: June Hofland, Cathy Downer, Mike Salisbury, and Karl Wettstein.

Collectively, they are dedicated supporters of the previous Mayor who was defeated in the last election. The trouble arises when these seven do everything in their power to stop reform. Reform that the majority of voters in the October 27 civic election chose by electing Mayor Cam Guthrie.

It is now painfully apparent that Mayor Guthrie is not up to the job of leading the city because when important issues arise, he abandons ship.

Here are some examples.

The Mayor failed to stop the reorganization of the senior staff before he took office even though he was a member of the Farbridge council that approved the reorganization. It happened before he took office December 1, 2014.

He stood by when Farbridge loyalist Susan Watson attempted to prevent GrassRoots Guelph from donating to civic candidates. An audit based on her attack that used the election finance statement by Glen Tolhurst, was thrown out by the independent auditor. Mayor Guthrie did nothing to support the candidate. Mr. Tolhurst did nothing wrong, being victimized by a frivolous complaint. The result was the estimated $11,400 cost of the audit was absorbed by the city, not charged to Ms. Watson.

Mayor Guthrie did nothing to stop the firing of the Chief Building Inspector, Bruce Poole who complained to the CAO that the city was breaking its own and provincial bylaws. The Ontario Building code mandates building permits be issued for all construction projects. Poole said the city failed to obtain building permits for some 70 city projects.

He is now suing the city for $1 million for wrongful dismissal. The city’s track record defending wrongful dismissal cases has been dismal and expensive. The Urbacon case comes to mind. Or, remember the $500,000 it cost the city when firing the Chief Administrative Officer(CAO) and Chief Financial Officer(CFO) in 2007?

But Mayor Guthrie supported CAO Ann Pappert, who received a $37,581 salary increase, despite those same councillors giving her a failing rating on her performance. Now apparently he has ordered an investigation in Guelph’s “Salary-Gate,” involving three senior managers receiving excessive pay increases.

This is the same mayor who recently told some 200 persons at a “State of the City” address, that his council, most of the time, was not divided. This comment was made before the news broke that the bloc of seven councillors voted on December 9, in closed-session to give CAO Ann Pappert a $37,581 salary increase for 2015. It occurred October 13, in another closed-session, despite this same bloc rating her performance unworthy of any increase.

It only took 57 days to experience an Epiphany awarding her with 17.11 per cent increase. One of the choice comments made was “maybe we were too tough on her,” at the October meeting.

Is this not a great way to run a $500 million corporation?

And where was Mayor Guthrie when this 57 days of infamy took place? Stone silent. Not only after the fact, he never said a word until the Sunshine List revealed the huge senior management increases awarded December 9, were reported three months later.

Not a whisper until Mayor Guthrie threatened legal action on a citizen, Rena Akerman, for emailing a detailed negative summary of the CAO’s performance over five years.

Instead, Mayor Guthrie gushes about what a great job he’s doing to grow the city. He did mention the aging infrastructure and the cost of servicing crumbling pipes, sewers, streets and city assets needing replacement.

The staff’s solution to handle the infrastructure deficit is to charge businesses and households a 2 per cent annual fee for ten years on top of regular property taxes. The estimated total take on this scheme is $280 million in the ten years.

This staff proposal was brought up in the closed session before the open 2016 budget debate December 9. It was leaked out after the 2016 budget was completed December 10. The proposal was pushed ahead to next November when the 2017 budget is discussed. Where was the Mayor, who chairs the meetings, public or in closed-session?

Is this part of his grand design for the future of the city? Push big decisions down the rabbit hole and avoid conflict at any cost?

You can turn the insurance salesman into a mayor, but you can’t take the insurance salesman out of the mayor.





Filed under Between the Lines

How Mayor Cam Guthrie allowed huge salary increases to senior managers

By Gerry Barker

May 9, 2016

Breaking News: See details at the end of this post

It is now evident that there was a cover-up in November 2014 when CAO Ann Pappert and three executive directors were part of a reorganization of the senior management structure of the City of Guelph.

It was hatched behind closed doors by the defeated administration in its last days in office and approved before December 1, 2014, when Mayor Guthrie’s administration opened shop.

CAO Pappert announced that the executive director system of senior management would be replaced with three new Deputy Chief Administration officers, Mark Amorosi, Al Horsman and Derrick Thomson. Each was given a $6,000 salary increase.

Now this major reorganization had to be approved by council, the one that the voters had defeated just weeks before. Sitting on that council in November was Coun. Cam Guthrie now Mayor-elect Guthrie.

It is odd that in view of his position as chairman of the audit committee in the Farbridge administration, that he did not demand what was the urgency to make these changes even before his new administration took control December 1st? He was silent on the subject.

CAO Pappert said the planning for the reorganization started before the civic election was held. Why, one might ask? Because it was the beginning of a plan to increase the salaries of four senior managers, once the reorganization plan was adopted by the outgoing Farbridge administration.

It had to be done before December 1st, when the Guthrie administration took over.

Did the incoming Mayor know and vote for the senior management reorganization? As a member of the council he helped defeat, it appears logical that he was aware and voted for the change before he officially took office. We’ll probably never know the truth because of the Farbridge closed-session management system.

The bottom line is that major management change had to be approved by council before Mayor elect Guthrie took office.

The five executive director staff positions were replaced. Leaving the city was Environmental Services chief, Janet Laird who retired. Operations director Derek McCaughan left with no explanation offered to the public. New DCAO Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman, was shifted to Environmental Services, engineering and planning; DCAO Human Resources director Mark Amorosi, Corporate Services, added responsibility of all finances and personnel; DCAO Derrick Thomson took over Operations.

This is what the new mayor inherited and he accepted it without a whimper.

That is the first part of the plot. In February 2015, the blog revealed that secret talks were being held with CAO Pappert concerning her contract.

Stage One, the Mayor attacks the editor of GuelphSpeaks

The Mayor went ballistic and the witch-hunt was on to find out who leaked it because there were closed-session discussions by members of council. FYI, this is a hangover from the Farbridge administration that locked up closed-session discussions. There was the threat of discipline by the Integrity Commissioner if councillors leaked details of closed-door discussions.

It is a practice that suffocates public interest, opening the door to unbridled corruption, preventing openness and transparency of government.

The practice continues to this day despite the Open and Transparent Initiative Plan that is a Farbridge initiated head fake in order to to maintain secrecy of operations. It was all about perception not actuality.

Did I mention that so far it has cost more than $856,000, including $500,000 to a Toronto Consultant to develop the plan. Plus $92,000 to Farbridge supporter, Andy Best, hired last June by the city to be General Manager of the Open and Transparent Initiative Plan. Add in $264,000 in the 2016 budget to fund the plan. This has to be the sickest joke in the history of city governance.

Mayor Guthrie was so angry over the so-called leak that he sent out an email to an undisclosed group of recipients. Here is a copy of this email from Guthrie exactly as published. It is not known who the recipients were.

From the email entitled – Confidential – Not for blogging


I am writing to you all regarding our first interaction as this council with the writer of the Guelph Speaks blog, Gerry Barker.

The post in question is here:

Ann is our only employee. She cannot “stick up” for herself in public. Yet we can.

It is my advice that we shouldn’t contact or respond in any public way to this man or his post. When that has occurred in the past, it goes horribly sideways and only draws attention to what he writes. It gives him a spotlight and that’s the last thing anyone wants.

I am asking our HR department to look into this blog, and then to advise me of any action we can take as her employer, to protect her reputation. Preliminary advice from HR has been in agreement to mine, that we ignore.

I will not tolerate this whatsoever as mayor. These blogs distract us all and in-turn takes our collective focus off of helping this city.

I would be extremely upset if I found out any member of this council is in communication with a person who sole purpose is to belittle and disparage our CAO and our staff.

I will keep you informed of this issue and I’m willing to talk further in person about this if need be.

Thank you,


*            *            *            *

Cam: is this a criticism?

Now that the details of the great salary cover-up outed 14 months later, why was Mayor Guthrie so concerned about the secret salary negotiations with the CAO and her DCAO’s not revealed? Think about it. Nobody outside that closed-session meeting awarding the increases knew what was going on, or worse, what happened.

Imagine if those huge salary increases had been made public before the 2015 budget was struck in March? The action of the Mayor and those councillors who approved the increases is a dereliction of their sworn duty to protect and maintain their fiduciary responsibilities. This was a large-scale deception that not one elected member of council or staff broke the code of silence since February 2015.

It was the provincial Sunshine List of those public employees earning more than $100,000, published 14 months later, that the increases were revealed. By that time, the CAO and DCAO’s had received the money.

Yet not one peep from any elected official about this including the mayor, who now describes himself as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation of the City of Guelph and Chairman of the board of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc.

It only goes to show, once again, that getting elected is one thing, managing your fiduciary responsibilities in a manner that represents the people who elected you, is quite another.

Stage Two, Mayor Guthrie goes berserk, again

Recently, Guelph citizen, Rena Akerman, circulated a detailed critical analysis of the five-year performance of CAO Ann Pappert to Guelph citizens. (Details may be viewed in the archives.)

Once again, Mayor Guthrie responded sending her a letter threatening legal action and to immediately apologize to Ms. Pappert. Ms. Akerman replied that she would not and stood by her analysis.

Between the response to the Akerman email and post, repeating her Pappert performance data, many thousands of residents have read the content. The email and GS post combined have gone viral.

At this point in your term Mayor Guthrie, most people rate you as a D: Deaf, Dumb and Deceptive. Deaf to the legitimate concerns of the people; Dumb to threaten citizens who object to your administion and its shaky record; Deceptive in failing to provide an open and transparent administration. Informing people is part of the job and that includes timely senior staff salary details.

The Orange Crush Seven are always addressing the issue of Integrity. I doubt few understand the word let alone pronounce it. If they did, they would end their obstructive tactics that have created the most dysfunctional council in recent memory.

The Mayor seems immune to standing up to the Orange Crush council majority that has made him look incompetent, unsure and afraid. That’s exactly what the Orange Crush supporters are salivating over. Why doesn’t he see it?

It is astonishing that he takes the side of the senior management staff and disparages citizens who object to the actions of his administration.

There are some on city council that are using the office to which they have been elected, as a stepping stone to greater government positions. These councillors have already abandoned their constituents by using bloc-voting to achieve personal goals and the misguided agenda of a lost administration.

Is Mayor Guthrie beyond redemption? Best guess is probably. But some anger management counselling might help.

Mayor Guthrie is too dependent on a senior management staff appointed by his predecessor to function as the elected leader of the city.

Now that the salary increases are public, he fails to see the effect of deliberate deception or cover-up in which he participated as Mayor of Guelph and allowed it to occur.

The people get it. It might be a good idea to apologize, Mayor Guthrie for allowing this to occur.

A final financial note.

Since DCAO Mark Amorosi took over the financial management of the city, the former Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Al Horsman, was moved to Environmental Services and left the city last August for the position of CAO of Sault Ste Marie. Two Amorosi hires to be general manager of Finance and Treasurer have left the city. Janice Sheehy the latest holder of the office left in March to a job with Peel Region. Guelph has been without a CFO since November 2014.

What does this say about competent financial management?

Breaking News! Latest development on the CAO salary increase

It was revealed today the details of two, closed-session meetings of city council to discuss the contract of Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert.

According to the official agenda of the October 13. 2015, a closed-session meeting reviewed the performance of the CAO. The process went like this: Each member of council rated the performance of the CAO. The outside consultant received the councillor’s ratings and prepared a consolidated report.

The consultant reported that the aggregate score did not qualify the CAO for an annual salary raise because it was less than required.

Apparently, there was additional discussion by councilors that ranged from the boring to the ridiculous. These included that the CAO should be treated to an increase “out of respect” and “fairness” and “perhaps we were too tough on her.”

Disregarding the consultant’s advice, the majority of council voted to give her the $37,591 increase making her the highest paid CAO in the group of similar sized Ontario cities.

It is troubling that the identity of those councillors voting for the CAO salary increase is never revealed because of the ridiculous closed-session rules.

The CAO was not present at the October 13 meering. How about this for irony? On November 9, the meeting to determine the 2016 budget, during another closed-session before the regular meeting, the CAO was informed of her failing score but agreed to take the increase any way!

Question: Is this raise retroactive to January 2015? It now apparent that the CAO salary increase was not included in the 2015 budget, struck March 25, 2015. Is her increase part of the now approved 2016 budget?

With all this going on without the public’s knowledge, it represents a total display of a majority of council ignoring their own opinions and the consultant’s advice. Instead, emotion prevailed to award a record salary increase to the senior employee. A decision that they themselves, voting secretly, previously failed to approve an increase.

This is yet another example of the dysfunction of our elected council to make rational decisions reflecting the will of the people.

These closed-sessions must be arrested and only held under strict guidelines.

Right now the public interests are not being served.

But Ms. Pappert still took the money.

More Breaking News!

In yet another closed-session of council tonight May 9, the matter of correspondence regarding city staff will be reviewed. This follows the threat of legal action by Mayor Cam Guthrie against Rena Akerman for emailing a critique of the CAO’s five-year performance. Based on the individual assessments of the CAO’s job by councillors, it now appears, Ms. Akerman’s information was accurate.






Filed under Between the Lines

Mayor and Council threaten legal action against citizen Rena Akerman

By Gerry Barker

Posted May 6, 2016

Mayor Cam Guthrie wrote a letter to Guelph citizen Rena Akerman for distributing an email compiling the record of Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert, in the past five years. The email was explicit, cross referenced with media reports yet the Mayor states the content was “inaccurate, disturbing and potentially defamatory.”

Well before commenting further, let’s reprint the Mayor’s letter and Ms. Akerman’s reply.

Dated April 28, 2016

From: Cam Guthrie, Mayor, the City of Guelph on city letterhead

To: Rena Akerman

Re: Correspondence received regarding the CAO – Ann Pappert.

Ms Akerman:

I am writing today to inform you that as Mayor, CEO of the Corporation of the City of Guelph and the employer of CAO Ann Pappert that the correspondence sent by you today is inaccurate, disturbing and potentially defamatory. I, along with council, take this matter very seriously.

I respect that as a citizen you are entitled to an opinion regarding the city’s operations. However, I caution you that crossing the line into publishing and distributing inaccurate and defamatory information is not acceptable.

I have already reached out to legal counsel. City council will be determining next steps which may include potential legal action that may be taken against you or others involved with this correspondence.

All employees of the City of Guelph are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. Therefore, a public apology to our CAO is in order before end of day April 29, 2016 and we ask that you cease and desist any further comments that disparage our employee.


(Signed signature)

Cam Guthrie


There you have it. It’s a first for a mayor of a major city. Try to stop criticism of your administration by threatening legal action. Even more galling is the Mayor is using city funds and staff to make his sledgehammer attempt to protect an employee whose performance record was accurately documented.

The Mayor, in his zeal to defend his CAO, may have unwittingly provided the basis of legal action by citizens for defamation against the Mayor and Council.

But let’s review Ms. Akerman’s reply to the Mayor and Council.

*            *            *            *


April 29, 2016

Mr. Guthrie:

I acknowledge your email letter dated April 28, 2016

I do agree that the contents of my email are disturbing, as it should be to ALL taxpayers in the City of Guelph. Please be advised that my primary sources are the local media reports (Guelph Tribune Guelph Mercury) and other online documents. My opinions are based on these sources which I believe are valid. If these sources were inaccurate, surely you would have requested a correction or a retraction.

Taxpayers in Guelph put their trust, as well as their tax dollars in the hands of City Hall. I believe our trust and tax dollars have been abused and according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I can say so openly.

For the record, it is a sad state of affairs when you feel you have to threaten me with legal action. This could have easily been avoided if City Hall had not ignored the letters of concern which have been written by a great many people to the editors of our local newspapers as well as the councillors. I have simply taken citizen concerns to the next level through an action that is consistent with a parliamentary democracy, i.e., asking other citizens to directly express their concerns about how poorly Guelph is managed by the current CAO to their governmental representatives.

Rena Akerman

*            *            *            *

Let’s sue the bastards – anonymous

What was Cam Guthrie thinking? That he could blunt any criticism of the public service staff when the level of competence is so patently obvious in the case of the city’s CAO? The simple responsibility of any CAO is to ensure the annual budgets are not overspent. Ms. Pappert approved millions in budgetary negative variances in her five years in office. That information is in the annual Financial Information Reports to the Province.

Yes, unbudgeted events such as an unusual weather event or encountering unanticipated legal expenses can create an unbalanced budget, a requirement by provincial law. It’s the CAO’s job to make sure the budget is not overspent.

But Ann Pappert ran up consecutive budget variances in her five years on the job. So one might ask, how did the city balance the books? They took money from the reserves. The biggie was the $8.96 million settlement cost with Urbacon Buildings Group Inc. In that case they raided three unrelated reserve funds for almost $6 million to partially pay off Urbacon.

For Mayor Guthrie and council to leap to the defense of Ann Pappert, considering the evidence, tells the story of nine years of mismanagement of our city and the millions that have been spent on an agenda controlled by former Mayor Karen Farbridge.

Now, her seven supporters, the Orange Crush, are using their council majority power to degrade public trust by ignoring the mistakes and ill-conceived concepts. Their perpetuation of the Farbridge policies has resulted in Guelph’s operating and capital spending costs to be 50 per cent higher than Cambridge and Kitchener.

That is why Guelph’s property taxes and user fees are so high because of the never-ending need to increase revenue to pay for the uncontrolled spending.

So when a citizen exposes the coruptive core of an administration gone wild, they threaten to take legal action because she had the courage to tell it like it is.

Why Mayor Guthrie does not get it, sinks him to the same level of mindless bungling of the citizens’ business. And, most of the council business is now held behind closed doors, far from the madding crowd.

When it comes to integrity, the Orange Crush represents the worst of municipal governance.

Early in 2015, there was a closed-door meeting to discuss CAO Ann Pappert’s salary and benefits. That was when the 17.11 percent salary increase was awarded for “performance.” And, Ms. Pappert was not alone in the biggest senior management salary boost in the city’s history. Three Deputy Chief Administrative Officers, Mark Amorosi, Derrick Thomson and Al Horsman all received increases ranging from 14 to 19 per cent.

An overdue apology by council is not forthcoming

Not one elected member of council, including the mayor, attending that meeting informed the public, and they still haven’t even acknowledged it. So, who should apologize for this outrageous deception?

The increase was not revealed until 14 months later when the Provincial Sunshine List of those employees earning more than $100,000 was published in March 2016.

This is a case of deliberate deception of vital public business and amounts to lying by omission. Those who approved those increase should hang their heads in shame. They cannot protest that they were bound by the code of conduct rules that prevents minutes of closed sessions be released to the public.

Now ask yourself, why would a mayor and his council, suppress knowledge of this huge increase in 2015 but have the nerve to threaten a citizen with legal action for revealing the shortcomings of the CAO?

Why? Because they could. They did not want the information to leak out because of its impact on the 2015 city budget that was completed two months later.

Another bumbling attempt to shut people up

Lets take the case of the firing of Chief Building Inspector Bruce Poole, a 30-year veteran of city staff. He dared to inform the CAO of a serious breach of provincially mandated building code policy that all building projects require a building permit. He claimed the city failed to take out building permits of its own projects and he allegedly threatened to fine the city.

That got him fired. He has sued the city for $1 million for wrongful dismissal and issued a statement of claim. The city has countered to defend its decision. Meanwhile, the city paid a $1,100 fine for failing to obtain a building permit for renovations to the West Recreation Centre. Is this the smoking gun in this case?

This week, Mr. Poole countered the city’s defence statement revealing that there are 70 city-initiated projects that failed to obtain building permits. One would assume that he knows what he is talking about.

This is yet another example of the Mayor not stepping in to mediate the situation to avoid the potential large expense to the city.

He was also silent in the case of Susan Watson’s frivolous claim that candidate Glen Tolhurst received an illegal donation from GrassRoots Guelph in the 2014 civic election. She lost and so did the citizens, as the cost of the procedure was more than $11,000.

Mayor Guthrie was silent following the walkout of a closed session by five members of the Orange Crush protesting, allegedly that they were protecting the “integrity of the corporation and the staff.”

Tell us Mayor, when do we citizens get the respect of our elected officials without the threat of legal action?

Wow! We elected a Mayor who promised to keep taxes at the CPI level and create a “Better Guelph.”

It is now clear that our Mayor has a different agenda that includes attacking a citizen who supported his candidacy in 2014 and who dares to challenge the competency of the senior staff administrator.

It seems like yesterday when Cam asked me to meet his election team in September 2014. I said at the time that he had to make sure he recruited council candidates that would work with him to carry out the necessary reforms. If he didn’t, the next four years as Mayor would be the worst of his life.

I guess as you sow, you reap.




Filed under Between the Lines

Thanks to a small group of citizens, CAO Ann Pappert has been called out

By Gerry Barker

May 4, 2016

It seems that the present council is more concerned about leaks of their management processes preparing the city budget, than fixing the problem of alleged incompetence of the Chief Administrative Officer, Ann Pappert.

An email sent last week by a citizen, Rena Akerman, carefully documented the management record of Ms. Pappert since she was named to the post It is an indictment of her lack of responsibility as the chief of the entire city budget and staff. But it gets better.

Here is a copy of the Akerman email:

Dear Fellow Guelph Resident,

Recent letters to the editor in the Guelph Tribune from me and others show that many residents of Guelph are very concerned about the day-to-day management of our City.  Overall responsibility for the city’s operational management rests with the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Guelph.  The current CAO has been in office since 2011 and her contract is currently being renegotiated for renewal in November.  The Mayor and City Council should NOT renew the CAO’s contract.  Guelph residents need to act NOW to ensure they don’t!  Here’s why:

  1. The current CAO has consistently allowed the annual City Budget to be overspent:

2012 – $11 million overspent (budget of $331 million, spending of $342 million)

2013 – $34 million overspent (budget of $346 million, spending of $380 million)

2014 – $6 million overspent (budget of $369 million, spending of $375 million)

2015 – Not yet available

  1. She has allowed her staff to make misleading statements to the public and Council.For example:

* In September 2015, the final official statement on Urbacon was issued stating that the City Hall reconstruction project cost $65 million, well above the initial budget of $42 million and the approved increases to $55 million.  This statement proudly announced that “with the exception of legal and settlement fees, the civic administration building…was within one percent of budgeted construction costs.”  (  A Guelph Mercury editorial correctly noted that this statement amounted to “put(ting) lipstick on the Urbacon debacle pig” (Sept. 11, 2015.)

* In December 2015, despite the 2012-2014 overspending noted in point #1, the Deputy CAO claimed during the presentation of the 2016 budget to Council that Guelph’s “departmental budgets have been reduced over successive years”. (

  1. She has not required the use of proven metrics to help determine department budgets and performance.

Guelph is one of 60 municipalities across Ontario that participates in the annual BMA Municipal Competitiveness Study.  This report includes per capita spending on major common municipal services, which some municipalities use to help craft their budgets, assess performance and determine where to look for savings.  Citizen inquiries have revealed that Guelph does not do this. Furthermore, city staff have ignored citizen requests for information about the metrics they do use to set budgets. Without comparative metrics, claims made by the CAO and her staff about the operation of the City are questionable. For example, in Fall 2015, the internal auditor released a report claiming that Guelph’s waste collection is “conducted effectively and efficiently”, yet BMA report data reveals that our cost per tonne is $137 versus the Ontario municipal average of $114, and our cost per person is $29 versus the Ontario average of $10 (

  1. She has made poor project recommendations to Council while not ensuring that basic municipal needs are met.  For example:

* In 2014, Guelph embarked on a revenue-generating venture – the processing of additional recyclables from Michigan.  This project recently failed.  Council’s approval to proceed was based on staff projections that the material sent to Guelph would have a 100% capture rate and a gross profit margin of 9.81% (  A 100% capture rate is unachievable (not surprisingly, actual capture was 64%) and a 9.81% gross profit margin is unattractive by any standard because net profit margin is inevitably much lower.  The CAO should never have brought this project to Council for consideration.

* In February 2016, Council began looking at assessing residents and businesses stormwater management fees rather than continuing to cover these costs through property taxes.  Their discussions have revealed that Guelph has hundreds of kilometers of underground pipes and that “no money is now being set aside to replace them on a regular basis.” (

     5. She has not ensured that overspending has been fully covered or given proper oversight.  For example:

* In September 2014, the courts ruled that Guelph owed Urbacon $6.6 million for wrongful dismissal on the City Hall reconstruction project plus legal fees of $2.2 million.  Since the CAO maintained that “we’ve been putting some money in a reserve” for “a number of years,” Council passed a resolution that transferred only $5.9 million from 3 existing reserve accounts to cover the $8.4 million tab (;   Although city staff maintained in 2014 that the Urbacon settlement would have “no impact on taxpayers” because it would be paid entirely out of reserves, the City is currently considering taking on more debt because city reserves are insufficient to take advantage of new federal infrastructure spending (

* In December 2015, a Councillor questioned staff about waste management spending for 2015 and was advised that there would be a negative variance versus budget of $0.5 million due to the failed Michigan venture (noted in point #4).  Only 3 months later, it was revealed that the actual variance was $2.6 million and that this loss could have been avoided if there had been a signed contract with Michigan.  Mayor Guthrie has asked for an investigation into what went wrong and why it went undetected for so long. (

Despite her poor performance, Guelph’s CAO received a 17.11% salary increase in 2015, from $219, 657 to $257,248.  In comparison, the 2015 salaries of the CAO’s of Windsor, Kitchener and London were $196,056, $213,029 and $234,982 respectively (

Clearly, this CAO’s contract should not be renewed.  Guelph needs a more knowledgeable and trustworthy head administrator to manage the city’s day-to-day operations if we are to going to get spending under control and start paying down our multi-million dollar debt.

The CAO’s contract is being renegotiated right now so that she can contribute to the City’s 2017 strategic planning efforts that will begin in July.  PLEASE contact the Mayor and/or your ward councilors IMMEDIATELY and ask them to vote AGAINST renewing this contract.  For their contact information, go to:

Thank you for your efforts to help improve Guelph and its future for all residents.

Best Regards,
Rena Akerman, a concerned citizen and Guelph resident for 13 years

*            *            *            *

As you can see, the email is well documented with cross-references to the print media reports. It should also be reported that the financial data in the Akerman email was obtained from the Financial Information Reports and other data prepared by the city staff annually as mandated by the province.

So why is the council, on both sides of the aisle, including the mayor, so upset about the revelations of Ms. Pappert’s performance?

It appears they are more concerned about the information leaks that GuelpSpeaks reveals periodically as well as Ms. Akerman.

For the record, GS was not consulted, involved or engaged in the production of this damning indictment of the CAO’s performance. Although GS has addressed this situation on a number of occasions, there is absolutely no linkage between GS and the group sending out the email.

But here is some history. In January 2015, GS reported that council was reviewing Ms. Pappert’s contract. It ignited a firestorm of protest and defence of Pappert. It included the Mayor sending out a damning email telling the recipients that the editor of GS was unreliable, inaccurate and to be ignored.

Whew, I might as well have left town after the Mayor’s lynching of my character.

But now we know why there was such a damning protest by the Mayor. Yes, there was a council discussion about the future of Ms. Pappert and her remuneration. But it was held in closed session. It took more than a year to find out why the Mayor was so upset to attack the editor for revealing the contract review. His support of Pappert would amount to putting her on a pedestal and bronzing her image in perpetuity

Pappert rewarded for performance before the new council barely took over

They gave her a 17.11 per cent salary increase elevating her 2015 salary to $257.248 plus taxable benefits of more than $6.000 and contractual benefits making her the highest paid CAO in a group of peer city administrations.

Here’s how Ms. Pappert’s 2015 salary of $257,248 compares to Kingston’s CAO, Gerard Hunt, who was paid $215,764 or $41,484 less than the Guelph CAO. Or take Kitchener’s CAO Jeff Willmer, who earned $213,029 or $44,219 less than Ms. Pappert. There is more, London, Barrie, Windsor; their CAO’s pay packages don’t even come close.

So what basis was there to award Ms. Pappert with a 17.11 per cent increase in 2015? Mark Amorosi claims there was a market review, comparing salaries of CAO’s. The report must have left out the two most obvious municipal comparisons, Kingston and Kitchener.

Why wouldn’t citizens complain about this egregious increase that had no basis but political pay back. How can Pappert sleep at night in the face of this damning evidence that she was unable to control the city budget over five years?

Why does Mayor Guthrie support this employee who works under his watch?

Public employees are subject to the same scrutiny as private employees who are in key management positions.

To suggest that Ms. Akerman should apologize is ludicrous and an abdication of the part of elected members of council who are sworn to protect the interests of their constituents. When they view that their job is to protect the staff from exposure to incompetence, it is the hollowing out of our democratic system.

This has been a nine-year systemic manipulation to disregard the citizens who pay the bills and expect to be treated with the same respect that the Mayor and Council appear to ignore.

The closed door awarding of the Integrity Commission was nothing but an attempt by the seven member of the Orange Crush to silence their colleagues so the public doesn’t know what is going on.

When you want to find out who is leaking in camera data, look no further that Coun. Mike Salisbury. His off-again, on-again denial and then confessing he leaked the data to a friendly blogger. speaks highly of his character and performance as a member of council for Ward Four.

This is a wretched time for Guelph with a totally dysfunctional council wallowing through their responsibilities blaming each other for the macabre handling of the public business.

The recent MacLean’s magazine cover was about the killing of the NDP by an eco- based rigid manifesto.

It can’t happen soon enough in Guelph.

Next: The Mayor threatens legal action




Filed under Between the Lines