Tag Archives: Colleen Clack

The more we dig, the deeper the hole and truth is stranger than fiction

By Gerry Barker

August 18, 2016

Post #803

The enduring grip of the former administration lingers on but the awakening of the silent majority is catching on. There is growing evidence to reject the direction that the Farbridge dominated Bloc of Seven on council is attempting to take us.

Three general managers, Peter Busatto, in charge of the Waterworks; Colleen Clack of Culture and Tourism and Peter Cartwright, of Economic Development, all took significant salary reductions in 2014 following large increases in 2013.

In the three years 2012 through to 2014, it appears there were serious errors in paying the staff, made by the finance department calculating annual salaries for the three managers in the random sample taken from ontariosunshinelist.com. All three in 2013 received substantial increases from 2012 to 2013. Then, in 2014, their salaries and taxable benefits were greatly reduced.

It is important to follow the numbers in these examples. They are taken from the ontariosunshinelist.com website. The source for the figures is the city of Guelph.

Why do we have water restrictions while sitting on two aquifers?

Peter Busatto, General Manager of Waterwork

2012 salary and taxable benefits – $122,509 plus $851

2013 salary and taxable benefits – $168,739 plus $1,081 – Increase was $46,239 (37.74 per cent)

2014 salary and taxable benefit – $134,585 plus $614 – Decrease was $34,154 (-20.24 per cent)

2015 salary and taxable benefit – $152,188 plus $699 – Increase $17,603 ((13.08 per cent)

Mr. Busatto was given an increase of $46,239 or 37.74 per cent in 2013. How did those responsible for his performance review ever determine that increase? Was he being rewarded for increased responsibilities? Isn’t it odd that the next year, 2014, his salary was reduced by $34,154 or 20.24 per cent? Then, last year Mr. Busatto’s salary increased by $17,603. This is best described as yo-yo management of the Machiavellian employment payment system used by an administration out of control.

Even stranger, why did these managers agree to take it on the chin for a year? If anything, they had a solid case for constructive dismissal. So, why didn’t they quit and move on. Who, in their right mind, would stand for an arbitrary pay cut particularly as senior managers? How many others on staff in management positions experienced the same thing?

It’s time for the administration to explain in detail, name by name, of those staff people who were affected by this salary reduction scheme in the very year there was a civic election. If an explanation is not forthcoming, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing should order an investigation to seek the truth of what happened. Is it any surprise why the lower ranked staff have such low morale?

We’ll never know who else was available

Colleen Clack, General Manager of Culture and Tourism

2012 salary and taxable benefit – $127,121 plus $2,529

2013 salary and taxable benefit – $149,422 plus $2,521 – Increase was $22,301 (17.5 per cent)

2014 salary and taxable benefit – $140,798 plus $1,900 – Decrease was $8,624 (-5.77) per cent

2015 salary and taxable benefit – $142,017 plus $1,599 – Increase was $1,219 (.86 per cent)

This year, Ms. Clack has had a meteoric rise in the senior management ranks as GM of Culture and Tourism. During her four years, she was in charge of the Sleeman Centre and RiverRun Theatre. She has reported annual operational losses for both city owned centres of $780,000 a year. Her most recent triumph was to be lead negotiator in completing a new ten-year agreement with the privately owned Guelph Storm Hockey Club The city agreed to lower its portion of the revenue. Then, Ms. Clack was promoted to DCAO of City Operations at an undisclosed salary.

How do you measure performance?

Peter Cartwright, General Manager of Economic development

2012 salary and taxable benefit – $144,381 plus $6,238

2013 salary and taxable benefit – $157.200 plus $6,180 – Increase was $12,825 (8.88 per cent)

2014 salary and taxable benefit – $150,977 plus $4,742 – Decrease was $6,329 (-3.98) per cent)

2015 salary and taxable benefit – $153,997 plus $3,467 – Increase $3,020 (2 per cent)

This is inexplicable. For his entire career with the City of Guelph, Mr. Cartwright has been responsible for Business and Economic Development. The problem is since 2006, the ratio of assessment between residential (84 percent) and commercial/industrial (16 per cent), has not changed. This is one example of why residential property taxes increase exponentially each year. The city is dependent on the annual assessment increases that affect the size of the annual tax increase. By now property owners have received their assessment projections for the next four years. It’s not good news.

This performance cannot be described as a success story in a key management position. So why did his salary grow by $12,825 in 2013 by an astounding 8.88 per cent?

Why were these three general managers named in the sample, all of whom are still working for the city, having their salary and taxable benefits reduced in 2014? How many other employees experienced these incredible salary reductions in which increases are awarded in one year and portions taken away the next year?

But read on, it gets better.

Now, Let’s look at how the 2014 staff salary reductions affected the top senior managers

Ann Pappert, Chief Administrative Officer

2012 salary and taxable benefit – $199,860 plus $6,539

2013 salary and taxable benefit – $214,605 plus $6,317 – Increase $14,745 (7.38 per cent)

2014 salary and taxable benefit – $219,657 plus $6,403 – Increase $5,052 (2.35 per cent)

2015 salary and taxable benefit – $ 257,248 plus $6,508 – Increase $37,591 (17.11 per cent)

Oh! There weren’t any reductions?

Ms. Pappert resigned in May after five years as CAO. In March this year, the Ontario Sunshine list published the salaries of every public employee earning $100,000 or more. Guelph citizens were shocked to learn of the excessive salary increases that the Guthrie council awarded in a closed meeting, December 9, 2015. It was three months later when the truth was known. The public was never told the circumstances of the increases, who voted for them or why not one councillor revealed the increases. Their excuse was they were prevented from revealing details of discussions conducted in closed sessions. Otherwise the Integrity Commission would investigate the “leak.” Whoa! Scary. What do you think? What’s more scary, being sanctioned for breaking the code of conduct or, fulfilling your responsibility of serving your electors?

It was a shameful deportment by 13 councillors who deliberately tried to keep it quiet. This betrayal of the public trust, that all members of councillors are sworn to uphold, will reverberate among citizens well into the 2018 civic election. Trust me, people won’t forget and the minutes of that meeting will be revealed. Those who voted for it will pay the price at the polls.

The result of Ms. Pappert’s leaving presented a serious senior management problem. DCAO Derrick Thomson was persuaded not to leave the city for a job in Caledon, was appointed to succeed Ms. Pappert. Thomson has been with the city only just over 2 years. Again this appointment was discussed in closed session. One has to wonder what planning went into the public confidence fallout that occurred, unsurprisingly. In three months did they not figure out what would happen if Ms. Pappert resigned?

There was no secret that she had lost the confidence of the citizens. Subsequently, according to the bylaws covering the powers of the CAO, Mr. Thomson appointed Ms. Clack, who formerly reported to him as GM of culture and Tourism becoming DCAO of Operations. It was a responsibility, that frankly, Ms. Clack had no experience as head of Culture and Tourism.

In the community there is uneasiness about the latest direction of the city administration. The recent attack by Coun. James Gordon on a citizen questioning the council’s performance is a harbinger of where we are headed for the next two years.

In my opinion, there are two staffs running our city, the haves and the have-nots. The examples stated here shows that the three senior managers helped themselves to substantial salary increases but left department leaders with decreases in 2014.

I regret that this city administration is broken. In addition, our finances are also so messed up and closing in on being broke. There is little attempt to stop the mindless spending that is leading to eventual disaster.

The man who helped himself

Mark Amorosi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services and Human Recourses

2012 salary and taxable benefit – $175,464 plus $6,396 –

2013 salary and taxable benefit – $176,400 plus $6,333 – Increase $936 (.53 per cent)

2014 salary and taxable benefit – $182,761 plus $6,238 – Increase $6,361 (3.61 per cent)

2015 salary and taxable benefit – $209,629 plus $6,432 – Increase $26,868 (14.7 per cent

In my opinion, Mark Amorosi’s performance has created the ugliest failure of financial management control since he took over the job of managing the city’s finances in November 2014. He has hired two General Managers of Finance and Treasurer and both have left. He advertised for a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and employed a headhunting firm to vet the applicants.

Then he announced that he appointed Tara Baker, a financial analyst in the Finance Department as CFO, General Manager of Finance and Treasurer. Ms. Baker is on maternity leave and will not report until next year. She has no experience as a CFO.

Unfortunately, Mr. Amorosi is in complete control of the staff through his Human Resources responsibility and the city finances. Between he, CAO Thomson, DCAO Scott Stewart and DCAO Colleen Clack, the job of preparing the 2017 budget will be a daunting prospect.

Already there is noise emanating from the Bloc of Seven that there must be a two per cent, ten- year special levy on property owners to pay for the years of neglect by the Farbridge administration to repair and maintain the city’s infrastructure. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), a provincial government sponsored organization with representatives from municipalities across the province, has estimated Guelph has a $225 million infrastructure deficit. Coun. Cathy Downer has been appointed to the 41-member board of AMO.

Hiring the man who wanted to leave

Derrick Thomson, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services, Operations

2014 salary and taxable benefit – $173,720 plus $6,190

2015 salary and taxable benefit – $207,554 plus $6,472 – Increase $33,834 (19.48 per cent).

Mr. Thomson brings his experience as a CAO of the Town of West Lincoln joining the staff in 2013. His responsibilities are vastly different than those he may have experienced in his former job. He has inherited an administrative disaster the remnants of the previous administration. How he handles it will be his test because he knows what happened to his predecessor.

The completion of the 2017 budget will be the watershed of the direction this administration will go in the next two years.

It’s not going to be easy or pretty.

The previous post regarding Coun. James Gordon can be read in the GS archives.

 

 

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines

What were they thinking when they cut a new deal with the Guelph Srorm?

By Gerry Barker

July 27, 2016 (revised)

This week Mayor Guthrie announced that the Guelph Storm junior hockey club would remain in Guelph for another ten years.

I’m a hockey fan but this deal has the strong odour of an inside deal.

Here’s the financial skinny.

Deputy Chief Administration Officer (DCAO) Colleen Clack told a citizen recently that between 2011 and 2015, the taxpayers subsidized the Sleeman Centre averaging $249,000 a year.

Why under her responsibility as General Manager of Tourism and Culture, was she responsible for managing these two facilities? According to her own figures, the River Run Theatre is losing more than $531,000 annually and the Sleeman Centre is losing $249,000 each year. That’s $780,000 a year! Now that was under the old contract signed by the previous owners of the team and was honoured by the new owners. Now remember, this building is owned and managed by the city.

We the public have no idea of the terms of the old Storm contract or details of the new one. We can tell you that three individuals own the team with the chairman, Rick Gaetz, who also is chairman of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) executive committee.

It would appear that Ms. Clack, as lead negotiator for the city, agreed to lower the percentage of the city’s share of receipts. This was because the team owners said that the financial arrangement with the city was one of the costliest in the 20-team OHL. Was this a case of the lambs being led to the slaughter?

Again, no figures were produced to confirm this claim. There was no business plan presented to council, just a request to lower the city’s share of the revenues. Council approved the new deal. Again, the public was not informed of the details.

Why are we in business with a hockey team?

Why is this a shared revenue deal at all? As Mayor Guthrie said “We are the landlord and the Storm is a tenant.” Under that definition, the Storm should pay a negotiated lease payment amount for use of the Arena. The city has no business participating in the operation of a privately-owned major junior hockey club.

Why should the citizens be expected to subsidize the hockey club through this sharing of receipts or revenue? Because under the sketchy details of this deal, we are subsidizing the team.

Bottom line, if the Sleeman was losing $249,000 under the former agreement and has agreed to take a lesser part of the revenue pie, doesn’t this increase the amount of losses the Sleeman generates each year?

This is one of the oldest ploys in the book. Threaten to move the team and everyone on council goes into a funk. It went from a business decision to an emotional one in a nano second. Once again, the city comes out the loser. But do members of council get complimentary seats and VIP perks? Just wondering.

But there were Storm supporters claiming the economic advantages that the Storm allegedly brings to the city. It’s an interesting take with no measurement of the actual economic affect on the actual cost of running a city of this size.

For every dollar of revenue that is removed there has to be a truthful explanation as to how it affects the citizens. Does this deal benefit the majority of residents? Or is it just the owners of the team? The players are reported to be paid less than minimum wage

The fact that the building is shut down for three months in the summer adds more cost to the taxpayers. Why should the Storm occupation of the Sleeman Centre receive a 12-month deal when it is used, depending on reaching the OHL playoffs, for just some nine months?

In five years, there has been no attempt by the city administration to seek other users of the facility to help pay for maintenance, staff and operational costs. Why doesn’t the administration tell us how much the taxpayers must now pay to keep the Storm in town?

We’re already subsidizing the River Run Theatre across the street to the tune of $531,000 each year. Or take Guelph Transit that is subsidized by the taxpayers of some $15 million a year.

Is this what Coun. James Gordon refers to as an investment? He should understand the difference between capital costs and operational cost. These are only two examples of bad decisions that reduce revenues and reflect emotion rather than practicality.

You cannot run a city by spending money that has little or no benefit to the majority of citizens. This is one reason how the city has got itself in such a financial mess.

Reserves have been drastically depleted due to bad judgment and responsibility. The Community Energy Initiative cannot service in its present configuration without further investment. The administration has acknowledged it will require another $60 million to upgrade the two District Energy Nodes to meet future financial and performance obligations.

Coincidence or did they place an order before the deal was approved?

Yet eight members of city council voted to run the money-losing District Energy Nodes “as is” without further investment for another eight months to prove, what?

The same day, July 18, council approved the “as is” option of an eight-month extension of District Energy, Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc (GMHI) and advertised for a “Business Advisor” on a one-year contract to work for GMHI.

This council vote was held close to midnight, July 18, so the ad for the Business Advisor had to be placed before council approved the extension.

This is an outrageous and deliberate attempt to keep the District Energy Nodes alive despite the findings of the Deloitte consultant’s three recommendation options. Council voted earlier in the session not to proceed with Option three which was to continue operating the District Energy Nodes with more financing to make it viable.

This runs counter to the terms of the District Energy proposal “as is” option that stated there would be no further investment in the project. One would presume that includes adding to the staff.

It is now apparent that these two deals were cooked up behind closed-doors, without any public input or consideration.

We have a Frankenstein council, with the majority obsessed with holding power, controlling us, with most of the majority not understanding for that of which they are responsible. So they depend on the judgment of senior staff. Shades of Urbacon and generally most councillors vote as they are told!

An atmosphere of incompetence pervades our city leadership. It acts like a boil that we keep picking at until it festers.

The mother of all leaks

Mayor Cam Guthrie is chairman of GMHI. Yet the advertisement for a GMHI Business Advisor was posted during the day, hours before the council decision to accept the “as is” option around midnight.

But here is the question: Mayor Guthrie voted against the motion to accept the “as is” option. Is it not strange that the chair of GMHI was unaware of the staff posting to add another GMHI employee, hours before council approved it?

The action by staff illustrates why city council is disfunctional. That decision to post for another GMHI employee was apparently made without the knowledge of the Mayor. Someone in the administration, staff or elected members made that decision knowing full well the council would vote for it that night.

There were three votes that night. The first was to receive the staff report based on the findings of the Deloitte consultants containing three options, 13-0. The second was to continue the “as is” option, 13-0.

The third vote was 8 to 5 with all members of the Bloc of Seven plus Coun. Bob Bell voting to include a city-wide CEI and District Energy strategy presentation no later than Q1 of 2017. Only Mayor Cam Guthrie, Councillors Christine Billings, Dan Gibson, Andy Van Hellemond and Mark MacKinnon voted against the motion. The fact remains that this vote confirmed extending the DE operations for another eight months.

There will be more on this later. It is a complete breakdown of the public trust and the person or persons who perpetrated it should be fired or resign.

But hey! We have a junior hockey team for another ten years but we’ll never know the cost

8 Comments

Filed under Between the Lines