Introducing a No Frills blueprint to change and control the people’s business

By Gerry Barker

July 16, 2018

The following is a detailed Action Plan to return power to the people that has been denied, covered up and mismanaged by successive councils and administrative staff.

Guelph Tomorrow is an organization created by concerned citizens to return democracy and accountability to the civic administration of the City of Guelph.

The people’s hope and expectation, following the election of Mayor Guthrie in October 2014, have been drowned in hypocrisy, blatant cover-ups, secrecy and disdain for the public trust.

The Guthrie record is clear. He capitulated authority of the public trust to the professional senior staff that perpetuated the failed policies of the two previous administrations.

Are you better off today after four years of this Guthrie administration? His record in just two instances, escalated property taxes by more than 3 per cent annually plus 2 per cent special levies. He gave Guelph Hydro, worth $228 million, away for peanuts. The value contained in the 2016 Guelph Hydro financial statement, is just the tangible assets, not including cash on hand or goodwill.

Now we learn of his “action plan” to elect friendly supporters to councillors positions to gain control of council and continue more of the same.

In my opinion, Cam Guthrie was like the month of March; “in like a lion and out like a lamb.” Don’t be deceived any longer. The city council needs an election enema to stop the political wrangling, control by individuals whose performance has been dismal.

Now it’s our chance to change the administration to serve the needs of ALL the people not the few who have controlled our city for 12 years. It’s a situation that mirrors the recent demise of the Ontario Liberal Party in the provincial election.

In Guelph, the disenchanted Liberals, disdained their own candidate and turned to electing a candidate with no election experience representing a Green party with no power. Mike Schreiner espoused the same policies that drove up the debt in Guelph under the previous administrations. Mike Shriener ran as the Green Party’s Ontario Leader. He is now the boss of a party of one, Mike Schreiner, MPP.

Small guess: Mike will be wooed by the Liberal seven-member cause that needs an eighth member to be recognized as an official party in the Ontario Legislature. That will make all those Guelph Liberals happier than Doug Ford cutting the gas tax.

Here’s’ the people’s No Frills Action Plan developed by a team of fellow citizens familiar with the tawdry history of 12 years of administrations.

Guelph Tomorrow

Presents

The No Frills Action Plan

No Frills means leadership, transparency, accountability and responsibility to all the people p

No Frills Priorities

No Frills means that the city auditor will complete a full audit of city finances before submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

No Frills means halting capital spending until an audit of the city’s finances is completed

No Frills proposes a new senior management structure change to have a City Manager heading the staff, with directors leading the major departments

No Frills recommends that the he city administrative structure will include an Executive Management team composed of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and Department Directors. The City Manager will act as chair

No Frills means making every effort to kill the Guelph Hydro-Alectra merger

No Frills means using common sense, arresting spending and encouraging public participation

No Frills means reviewing the status of all reserves and clarify each for its purpose

No Frills means evaluating policies involving all subsidies, donations, and employment contracts

No Frills means eliminating the Committee of the Whole system of conducting public meetings

No Frills on the advice of the city manager, restores the committees of council with appropriate honourariums for councillors serving on committees based on attendance.

No Frills means no closed-sessions council meetings unless there are legitimate legal reasons to do so

No Frills means a complete review by the Director of Finance and the internal auditor of purchasing and procurement systems

No Frills means freezing all salary and benefit increases pending review of pay systems

No Frills means ordering a staff rationalization review by an independent authority

No Frills means reviewing all bylaws to update and remove those not applicable

No Frills means Investigating areas of increasing revenue including the University of Guelph’s ‘bed tax’ deal in lieu of property taxes.

 

No Frills Proposed Communications Plan

No Frills means reporting a summary of the financial state of the city every three months

No Frills means freezing and reviewing all communications contracts and systems

No Frills means the general manager of communications will conduct a regular media briefing weekly

No Frills pledges publishing a monthly report of the administration’s hits and misses and introducing personality profiles of council members and staff using the Guelph Hydro mailing list to distribute

No Frills means that the mayor or designate following a closed-session must release a summary following the meeting within 24 hours

 

No Frills proposed fixes of Property Taxes & User fees

No Frills means limiting property taxes to a 3 per cent increase for 2019

No Frills means an immediate elimination of the 2 per cent infrastructure levy on property owners

No Frills means eliminating the storm water levy on hydro bills

No Frills means freezing all user fees until the financial review is completed

No Frills means closing down Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc.

No Frills means freezing all residential planning until a full review is completed

 

No Frills action to fix procedures, bylaws and protocols

No Frills abolishes the Integrity Commissioner, cancels the Closed Session investigators, Amberlea Gravel of London

No Frills means freezing all consultant contracts until proven justified

No Frills means a complete review of the Council Code of Conduct

No Frills means banning any closed sessions involving political strategy issues

No Frills means staff accountability

No Frills means rewarding and encouraging staff performance and efficiency

No Frills means reporting regular financial performance with a clearly defined base line

No Frills means public accessibility to the people’s house and its services

Join the crusade for change at Guelph Tomorrow.ca.

 

 

 

Advertisement

Sis, Boom Bah! Mayor enlists the Cam-ettes to help take control of council

By Gerry Barker

July 11, 2018

Recently, I have been pressed to run for Mayor of the City of Guelph

Supporters want to prevent another four-year term of Mayor Guthrie who, they feel, has failed to meet his promises made when elected in 2014.

I am still considering making a decision to tackle the job of changing and reforming the administration’s spending on failed projects. This has painted a political picture of the Mayor whose trust of the city staff is suffocating the public trust.

My wife and I voted for him in 2014, as did most people who voted in record numbers.

We all had such high hopes for the energetic new mayor to clean up the fiscal debris of the previous administration.

But that did not happen. Instead, in the first four months in office, his election promise of keeping property taxes pegged to the Consumer Price Index (1.99 per cent in 2014) failed. The 2015 property tax approved by the Guthrie Council in March 2015, peaked at 3.96 per cent.

I’m not going to pursue the mismanagement, pandering to the staff, giving away Guelph Hydro, and holding all those closed-session meetings to prevent the public knowing the conduct of its business.

No, I’ve exposed much of it and picked up a lawsuit, still not concluded, for my trouble.

Instead, it’s time to end Guelph’s reality show. The attempt by the Mayor and his supporters to stage a well-planned coup to take control of council has now been exposed.

Introducing the Cam-ettes

It started early this week with a meeting between two councillors and me.

The only thing I can reveal, as the meeting was off the record, was the enthusiasm expressed in describing the new candidates for council. One of the councillors said he had been working hard to recruit and consult with a group that he predicted would change the composition of council and get rid of the controlling socialist majority.

I was excited at the prospect of new, bright candidates to finally start the process of reform and the reduction of overhead of city operations.

What I did not tell them at the time, concerned a meeting the next night of folks wanting me to take on Mr. Guthrie. At that meeting, we discussed the pros and cons of my candidacy.

Then I told them of my meeting, the night before, and the proposal to introduce qualified candidates to eliminate the socialist majority on council. As much as I have been critical of this “Gang of Seven,” politically, all that was needed was to defeat just two, Coun. Wettstein and Coun. Hofland.

But then things don’t always work as planned.

Both these councillors were on the Board of Directors of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. for four years. In my opinion, both failed to carry out their sworn fiduciary responsibilities by not revealing the failed operations of GMHI that cost the citizens millions.

Now here is the Guthrie team plan

So far there are four Cam-ettes running: In Ward 6, Stacy Cooper and Dominique O’Rourke; in Ward 4 Indu Arora, friend of the Mayor’s wife; in Ward 1 Charlene Downey. All of these women were nominated May1^st along with the Mayor. Fact checking indicates none have been elected to a municipal council.

Coincidence? Perhaps, but remains a strong indicates collusion. There’s nothing wrong with that except that these four have been groomed to support Cam Guthrie as dedicated councillors voting for the Guthrie agenda.

Here’s the rub. Any attempt to elect a majority to gain control results, in this case, of Cam Guthrie gaining a majority of councillors for the next four years.

I find that undemocratic and manipulative. No surprise there, considering Mayor Guthrie’s penchant to use people then discarding them when they are no longer useful.

The political world of Cam Guthrie

Here’s a sample of how the Mayor says one thing and conceals his real intent. In the recent provincial election, the Mayor denied he was a candidate representing the P.C.’s. Guelphspeaks announced in August 2017, he was the chosen candidate to represent Guelph throwing the P.C riding association into administrative chaos.

Candidates who indicated they would run had to be put aside while P.C. headquarters told the riding association that they had a candidate and not to pursue a nomination meeting. This all occurred following the Patrick Brown dismissal.

Bob Coole, the Guelph P.C. Association president, received a call from Cam Guthrie inviting him to lunch at a pizzeria on Stone Road. At that meeting, Guthrie said he was the P.C. headquarter’s choice as the candidate. Coole was told not to agree holding a nomination convention, as Guthrie wanted an acclamation. There were more delays and finally Doug Ford named Ray Ferraro the Guelph candidate.

The mayor’s back door interference created an organization nightmare of which the Association did not recover.

The irony is the Guthrie interference in the process was accompanied by the Mayor’s crocodile tears that he loved Guelph and would be a candidate for re-election in October.

There is no nice way to put this but Cam Guthrie’s behind the scenes duplicity in sabotaging the Guelph P.C. campaign reflects the blind ambition and self-absorbed character of our mayor.

Let’s move on

Don’t you think that 12 years of the domination of council, by the extremist left that controlled our city administration could deter re-election of some of the incumbents? Social engineering projects wasted millions on waste management, staff salaries and benefits, the new city hall complex, GMHI failure to impose energy policies that didn’t work and now the giveaway of Guelph Hydro.

If all four of the Cam-ette newbie’s are elected, they will join incumbent Guthrie councillors, Dan Gibson, Andy Van Hellemond, Christine Billings and the Mayor. That would give the Mayor complete control of council.

Then there are the wild cards

In Ward 6, Mark MacKinnon has the advantage of being an incumbent. I would be the last to support him as he stated that paying taxes is the price of living in Guelph. He further opined that because your house increased in value, you should borrow money to pay your property taxes.

Bob Bell, the veteran councillor in Ward 1 has yet to declare. I’m told that his business of building bicycle accessories has created opportunities in China and The Czech Republic.

Incumbent members of the “Gang of Seven” who are running again include James Gordon, Phil Allt, June Hofland, Mike Salisbury, Cathy Downer, and Leanne Piper. Karl Wettstein, the seventh member, has not filed his papers. In Ward 6, former Farbridge councillor, Lise Burcher ,is attempting a comeback.

Who is vulnerable in this group? In my opinion, I’d pick June Hofland, Mike Salisbury, James Gordon. Mark MacKinnon and Karl Wettstein if he runs.

On paper it looks that Mayor Guthrie, so far unopposed, will have a comfortable majority in the next council.

As for me, I have the support of a seasoned campaign team, plus a platform that is extensive and is described in detail in the No Frills Action Plan to be published next week.

My inclination is to run but the task is great and there are serious mitigating facts to be considered.

Predicted surprises will occur before the close of nominations July 27 at 2 p.m.

In the meantime, pencil me in.

 

 

 

 

Guelph Speaks achieves a record 30,579 viewers

By Gerry Barker

June 19, 2017

Last week Guelph Speaks experienced the largest number of viewers in its seven-year history. From Sunday June 11 to Saturday June 17, there were 30,579 views of the blog. Most were from the following post made September 3, 2015. We were frankly stunned at this huge response to a Guelph Speaks posting especially concerning a column that was posted 22 months ago.

The analysis of what occurred was that a number of the Internet search engines found the piece in the GS Archives containing 880 postings, resulting in the unprecedented response. The views came from all over the province with some beyond our borders. It tells us that the Liberal government and its leader Kathleen Wynne are facing widespread disapproval of the Premier and her administration. In fact, her current approval rating has shrunk to just 12 per cent across the province according to the latest poll.

In my opinion, even though the provincial election is a year away, moving a government to attain a 40 per cent vote majority of the result or even managing winning enough ridings for a minority government, is highly unlikely. The ABW (Anyone But Wynne) syndrome is now fully engaged. No amount of throwing the people’s money at fake promises will save the day.

Two events may affect the result next June. The Premier may resign but it’s highly unlikely as calling a leadership convention to replace her takes time and resources. The other is Ms. Wynne calls a snap election but her record leading the province is so tarnished it would backfire.

The fate of the Liberal government will affect the outcome of the vote in several Liberal ridings including Guelph. Currently held by Liz Sandals, President of the Treasury Board, in the Liberal dominated legislature and close friend of the Premier, the Guelph seat will be difficult to retain under present circumstances.

There is the old expression that old governments along with old soldiers never die, they just fade away.

On a personal note: This expression was an adaption of the widely quoted comment by General Douglas MacArthur, in 1951 to the U.S. Congress following his firing as Commander in Chief of the United Nations forces fighting in Korea. I was a young Lieutenant completing my training as a Royal Canadian Amoured Corps officer listening to the General on a rickety radio. I am now just another old soldier but not quite ready to fade away. GB

 

Ontario Liberals now tax you after you die

By Gerry Barker

Originally Posted September 3, 2015

Here’s a new, not so nice tax called the Estate Administration Tax (EAT) that the Wynne Liberals slipped through, effective Jan. 1, 2015 and no one (in 2015) is talking about it!   The EAT was originally introduced by the Mike Harris government but the Wynne Liberals have drastically modified it to make it more difficult and onerous for the survivors of any deceased Ontarian.

Basically, your survivors and executors have to report the value of all your stuff, valuables, cars and trucks, second homes, boats, RV’s, right down to the exercise bicycle in the basement.

It is yet another roadblock to discourage real growth in Ontario joining the other job killers and evaporating prosperity. Here are some examples of how the Ontario Liberals have mismanaged the Ontario economy: We have the most expensive electricity rates in North America; a new jobs- killing Ontario pension plan; the most expensive alcoholic beverages in North America; sky-high gasoline taxes; supply management agriculture boards that have driven basic food prices to excessive levels; an integrated sales tax of 13 per cent on all goods and services with minor exceptions.

Yes the province even charges the HST on the cost of your funeral.

The province charges the HST on the electricity you use.

The HST is charged on a number of consumables including vehicles, non-prescription drugs, clothing, and items that most people would describe as food or a derivative.

When does the Premier stop her relentless quest to bail out a province she and her predecessor created that is now carrying an $8 billion deficit? Her finance minister claims the Ontario budget will be balanced by 2017.

That runs counter to what her federal Liberal leader is saying. He wants to remove the Harper government’s balanced budget legislation and go to deficit financing to fix the country’s infrastructure.

These two leaders are currently working together to elect federal Liberals in Ontario, but don’t seem to be playing from the same page. Update: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won the 2015 Federal Election winning 183 seats in Parliament.

For all the details of this new tax grab, go to the link below where the government explains it or you can read the comments from funeral directors printed out below in layman’s terms, or both. But be forewarned, it’s scary stuff.

Our Wynne Liberal Government presumably has to find a way to repay the billion dollars they gave the construction companies not to build the gas-fired hydro plants and subsidizing wind/solar power projects, the Orange air ambulance fiasco, the E-health record keeping program that cost millions, and other boondoggles they created.  The aptly named EAT even has local Funeral Directors seeing red.

Here’s the skinny of Kathleen Wynne’s latest play to extract more money from taxpayers, even after they’re dead.

The current EAT tax rates

• $5 for each $1,000, or part thereof, of the first $50,000 of the value of the estate, and
• $15 for each $1,000, or part thereof, of the value of the estate exceeding $50,000.

Note: There is no estate administration tax payable if the value of the estate is $1,000 or less.

The estate administration tax is calculated on the total value of the estate. For example, for an estate valued at $240,000 the tax would be calculated as follows:

1. $5 per thousand for the first $50,000 of the estate = $250
2. Plus $15 per thousand for the remaining $190,000 of the estate
   • $240,000 – $50,000 = $190,000
   • $190,000 X $15 = $2,850
3. For a total of $3,100 ($250 + $2,850) payable to the Minister of Finance. The EAT act demands that the executors or appointed representatives must complete the EAT return within 90 days.

This does not include estate probate fees on the $240,000 estate value, used in this example or any taxes due on capital gains on investments owned by the deceased

In order to comply with this new death tax, the estate appointed representatives are forced to consult with the following professionals: Financial advisor, registered appraiser, lawyer, funeral director, insurance broker, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the estate banker. Most of whom charge a fee for service in preparing the Estate Administration Tax returns. Those fees alone, depending on the size of the estate, could run into the thousands.

Yes, and the return, when filed, must be accompanied with payment in full.

Licensed Funeral Directors Tim Baragar and Jeff Neuman are sounding the alarm bells over a tax program that they say will make life difficult for estate representatives in Ontario.  Baragar makes it clear that his service does not end at the cemetery.

He and Jeff Neuman do their best to help families obtain pertinent documents and ensure that a loved one’s affairs are in order.

Sounding the Alarm

And that’s why Baragar and Neuman are sounding the alarm bells over the newly changed tax that took effect on Jan. 1, 2015. Its timelines and penalties are something these Funeral Directors think everyone needs to be aware of.

The newly changed tax program that Baragar finds frightening requires an executor to assess, appraise and value any and all property owned at the time of death on a tight timeline. This EAT appraisal includes anything that is not passed directly to a spouse or passed through joint ownership. Assets that are being gifted to charities also need to be included in the valuation. The tax is then calculated and needs to be paid immediately to the Province of Ontario as a deposit.

Baragar explains it this way – when a loved one dies and you are named as the executor of the estate, you apply for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee and then you have only 90 days to file your Estate Information Return. As soon as you file you have to pay the tax as a deposit. And if you don’t file, there are serious consequences.

According to the Ministry of Finance, “estate representatives who fail to file an Estate Information Return as required, or who make false or misleading statements on the return, may be found guilty of an offense and, on conviction, are liable to a fine of at least $1,000 and up to twice the tax payable by the estate or, imprisonment of not more than two years or both.”

Has Ontario become a police state?

This is aconcern to Mr. Baragar.  “It is completely unreasonable for the Ministry of Finance to expect this reporting within 90 days of the trustee beginning their role,” Baragar says. “Just getting print outs and information from banks and investment companies takes a lot of time. My biggest concern is that quite typically the trustees are often family members or close friends of the person who has died. So this simply isn’t a matter of completing a task that the Ministry of Finance merely views as a new source of income, it is a very emotionally demanding and time-consuming job. Couple that with the added stress of dealing with the loss as a family member or close friend, and it can make this role very upsetting and emotionally draining.”

And to be clear – the valuation can’t be a guess. The Province requires that you be able to back-up what you’re filing so if you’re not sure what the current market value is of taxable posessions, for example, it’s up to the executor to hire someone to do an appraisal.  There is even a link on the Ministry’s website to the Appraisal Institute of Canada.

And once you appraise, value and file you still have to be sure that nothing changes. If you made a mistake or if you missed something you have to immediately contact the Ministry (within 30 calendar days) and make all the necessary corrections.

“For our Government to threaten these individuals with charges and penalties is absurd,” Baragar says. “We pay tax when we earn our living. We pay tax when it generates income within an investment. We pay tax when we pull it from that investment, so this same money certainly shouldn’t be taxed again within the boundaries of someone’s estate.”

Enough is enough.

 

Why Guelph’s bureaucratic costs are crippling our city, because staff won’t listen

By Gerry Barker

September 12, 2016

On August 22, My wife and I sent an open letter to the Hon. Bill Mauro, Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the letter, the details of mismanagement of our city were outlined and we asked a reply to our request for an investigation of city operations.

That was three weeks ago and we are still waiting.

Premier Kathleen Wynne appointed Mr. Mauro in her recent cabinet shake-up. He has experience on this file as he served in the job before. Our MPP Liz Sandals was moved in that shake-up from Minister of Education to President of the Provincial Treasury Board, a less onerous cabinet job with little or no public exposure or consequence. That’s the equivalent of a “D” in politics.

Meanwhile Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO) Mark Amorosi disagreed with his new boss, Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Derrick Thomson, about the state of city finances. His statement claiming the city was in “sound financial condition” contrasted with the CAO’s statement that the nine-year capital expense plan was underfunded by $170 million after just one year in operation.

Believing today that this city can afford a new Downtown Library, South End recreation Centre, the Wilson Street parking garage and redevelopment of the Baker Street parking lot, is pixie dust and impossible.

It is now open and transparent about how public money has been wasted by a staff in concert with council in the past nine years.

It is not Mayor Cam Guthrie’s fault. He, unknowingly in taking office December 1, 2014, inherited a financial cesspool of millions spent and wasted on self-serving policies of the previous Farbridge administration. You remember them and all their self-promoted awards. To read a recent column written by one of her supporters, the writer painted her as Saint Karen, the revered leader of Guelph. Yikes! Is there no limit to their arrogance?

The problem today is the rigid control of council. They regularly support the senior staff that has seen a CAO and DCAO leave the city because of the revelations of mismanagement.

In his fine analysis of the bloated city operational costs, Pat Fung, CPA, CA, outlined why the city’s operating costs were growing at an unsustainable rate that lasted seven years.

Here is a telling chart of Pat Fung’s analysis

Guelph’s Operating Costs 2008 to 2015 (source: Audited financial statements)

($ thousands)	2015	2014	2008		$ ’08 to ’15	per cent
General government	27,070	25,136	18,891		8,179	+43.3%
Protection services	79,550	75,506	51,855		27,695	+53.4%
Transportation services	60,381	57,405	43,380		17,001	+39.2%
Environmental services	76,238	72,697	35,035		41,203	+117.6%
Health services	29,180	27,522	18,524		10,656	+57.5%
Social and family services	43,601	52,280	51,183		-7,582	-14.8%
Social housing	21,372	20,444	n/a		21,372
Recreation and cultural services	40,906	39,481	23,947		16,959	+70.8%
Planning and development	7,313	6,155	3,986		3,327	+83.5%
Total Expenses	385,611	376,626	246,801		138,810	+56.2%
Consumer Price Index	126.6	125.2	114.1		12.5	+11.0%

Guelph should reduce its operating expenses by $20 million and freeze taxes and fees at current levels to fund the capital/infrastructure gap. We cannot continue to increase spending on operating costs on top of increasing our spending on capital and infrastructure.

The Fung Solution: It can be done by freezing revenues at 2016 levels and reducing expenses by $20 million annually. It can be accompkised by freezing expenses at $365 million for 20 years, allowing for increases for index of inflation and assessment growth. City reserves would be built up to $200 million in 10 years. This would be reduced by whatever is spent in the interim on capital and infrastructure. This has the same financial effect as increasing taxes but is funded totally from within the current taxation, user fees and spending.

Will Guelph do the right thing and reduce staff and operating costs?

Guelph’s current financial situation is close to what the City of Brampton faced last week when it terminated 25 senior managers. Mr. Fung pulls no punches in his analysis saying in order to reduce operational expenses, the city will have to lay off staff, reduce salaries and reduce management personnel. According to the provincial Sunshine List there are 92 city staff positions with the title “ manager.” That’s one for every 22 full-time equivalent employees

Regardless, the new CAO is quoted as saying that: “One option the staff will not present to council this fall as a solution to its capital funding woes is drastic cutting of services.”

That’s the usual claptrap excuse that has enveloped thinking of both city staff and leftist members of council.

Mercy me. We can’t cut services as the runaway train of financial mismanagement plunges off the cliff? Thomson disregards the Mayor’s request to investigate funding alternatives other than another property tax increase.

With that thinking by the CAO, who heads the 2,100 member of staff, get ready for a recommendation by staff to approve a 2 per cent special levy of property taxes for more than five years. Or, perhaps a longer period. It remains a sloppy and quick fix to the deep financial problems existent today and are not hoing away. It’s just another way to extract more money from the property taxpayer.

Do these deep thinkers on staff not understand why Guelph’s operating costs on a per person basis in six active operational areas, far exceed the average of the rest of the municipalities in Ontario?

According to the independent BMA consultant report, every person in the city pays $836 for the operational costs of six defined areas. The average in Ontario is $586 per person. That’s a 42.66 per cent difference, or total excess spending by Guelph of $30 million per year.

Now let’s take the General Government’s cost comparison. Guelph spends $229 per person in this category. The Ontario average cost per person is $104. The difference is a whopping 120 per cent additional cost to every resident of the city. Further, General Government expense is not a service but overhead. It can be reduced to meet needed cost cutting measures to bring the city government costs in line with what most Ontario municipalities are currently paying, based on a per capita population.

Now current acting CFO, DCAO, Mark Amorosi, doesn’t like to talk about this per captia cost. He says it’s irrelevant. What doe he care? He lives in Hamilton.

The present senior staff management and the Bloc of Seven on council, show no signs of acknowledging the growing financial problems being foisted on the taxpayers year after year. Plainly the staff is bloated with too many managers, high salaries and benefits, plus in some cases, two high priced managers doing one job.

Mark Amorosi’s crowning triumph was getting council, in closed session, to approve a 17.11 per cent increase for his then boss Ann Pappert and his three DCAO colleagues between 14 and nine per cent increases for 2015.

The public found out about it in March this year when the provincial Sunshine List of every public employee in Ontario earning more than $100,000 is named with taxable benefits five months after the fact.

Mark Amortosi was in charge of the city finances and Human Resources when council approved those increases December 9, 2015. Why is this man still working for the City of Guelph?

We urge folks to read the complete Fung Report. It can be found in the guelphspeaks.ca archives – Part One was posted August 29, 2016 and Part Two was posted September 1, 2016. If unable to locate the report, please contact Pat at pat.fung@sympatico.ca or guelphspeaks.ca

 

Gazing into the belly button of Guelph politics

By Gerry Barker

Having written volumes about how our city functioned within the past six years, some conclusions have been reached about the future prospects of our civic society.

Guelph historically has been benign when it comes to voter participation in election campaigns.

That changed in 2006 when Karen Farbridge was returned to the mayor’s post along with a majority of councillors who accepted her leadership and proposals. It was a sweeping victory driven by a well-run and well-funded campaign, aided by professional organizers.

The defeated mayor, Kate Quarrie, ran a campaign that failed to recognize the public build-up of resentment against her and her council. Only two survived the onslaught.  Even though the Quarrie council was responsible for a new WalMart store that opened days before the election, it failed to ignite support.

The next four years saw the Farbridge majority council increase the city debt by more than $56 million with grandiose projects that played into the council’s self interests.  These included the $33 million compost plant and the new civic museum. The city’s $25 million share of the $74 million tri-government stimulus program was partially offset by calling a $30 million loan from Guelph Hydro.

These are just the tips of the crushing debt the Farbridge administration has created in five years of office. Revenues did not meet spending because of the anti-development attitude among many members of council coupled with the multi-million dollar unbudgeted costs.

These are known facts. It’s the unknown costs that voters must fear.

In 2010, Mayor Farbridge was re-elected with a reduced majority and she lost three members in her previous majority caucus. Actually it was four as re-elected Coun. Bob Bell joined the five councillors who did not support the Mayor’s policies. Getting even, the Mayor publicly lashed out at Coun. Bell for daring to challenge her authority.

Only 28 per cent of Guelph voters bothered to cast their ballot in 2010. It was the year that the two local papers shifted allegiance to the Farbridge administration. The move was subtle but nonetheless biased.  I know because my columns were the skunk at the garden party regarding the shift.

For five years I have been writing a column on the Mercury editorial page. My association became challenged just before the 2010 election when I was told I could not write a column that was biased against “you know who.” Following the election my columns, mostly critical of the Farbridge council, were regularly challenged or dropped altogether.

I wasn’t surprised when informed by e-mail that the column was finished. The added touch was that I should feel free to submit letters to the editor or the occasional guest column when the muse sparked.

That’s like putting the bull out to pasture and denying conjugal rights.

I have no regrets and my association with the Mercury editors remains amiable, as far as I’m concerned. They were only following orders,

The creation of guelphspeaks.ca has provided a platform that I can post almost daily to keep my viewers informed.  The daily growth of those viewing the blog has been phenomenal. It gives me confidence to feel that the great majority of voters is awakening and is starved for what is really going on.

The goal of guelphspeaks is to publish not only comments and opinion submissions by others, but to add more voices to build relevance to the blog.

The 2010 election remains a wake-up call for voters to ensure that competent, credible candidates are elected in 2014. Those prepared to represent all the people and return financial stability to the city hopefully will put their names forward.

Make no mistake, the city’s financial situation is crippling and will impact future councils for many years as they unravel the mindless spending of this administration.

Guelph has a great future as a bustling community with urban amenities and good paying jobs and services.  Unfortunately, the financial hole that has been dug by the Farbridge administration will delay the potential of this fine city.Step one starts today.

I urge citizens to become engaged in civic government. Question the slanted press releases from the city hall communications group. Question ward councillors about the issues and why they voted the way they did.  Express yourself through guelphspeaks.ca or letters to the editor.

Use your voice; study the issues and then we may begin to make change.

Guelphspeaks is your blog.