Apparently, to land a good job with the city it helps whom you know in the administration

By Gerry Barker

September 9, 2019

Opinion

The city announced last week that a former member of the Cam Guthrie re-election team has been hired to be manager of corporate communications and government relations.

Jodie Sales comes to Guelph from the Town of Milton where she has held a similar position for three and a half years.

On the surface it appears she is qualified for the job.

However, was the position advertised? Were other candidates applying for the position? Was Ms. Sales or other candidates interviewed for the posted position?

Tell us, was the job posted and where?

Before accusing me of nit picking, this is a job serving the public interests. It entails that there is opportunity for qualified citizens to apply. The city release did not mention the salary or benefits for the position.

Further, I am not criticizing Ms. Sales but the methods used by the administration to hire anyone for a staff position, especially one described as an “executive position.”

Perhaps in hiring employees over the years, the administration must focus on being careful to ensure that the recommended candidate will not be disruptive or offend other employees. Recommendations by a friend or relative of an employee should always be part of the hiring process.

Prior to being appointed to the management job, was Ms. Sales interviewed by senior management? Recruiting is 50 percent performance knowledge and 50 per cent having a gut feeling.

In this case, the perception is that she had the inside track on getting the job because of her work on the Mayor’s campaign.

Mayor Guthrie was asked if he had recommended her and denied he had any part in the process. Judging from that I would surmise that he was consulted but politically, he denied it.

Maybe he did not have to say anything. One thing we do know is that she did a bang-up job handling communities for the Guthrie campaign.

The most interesting part of this announcement is, what is the role of council, including the Mayor who is the only member elected across the whole city?

That email sent by the Mayor stated: “All city administration hiring is done through the CAO or other city management.”

Former DCAO Mark Amorosi who stated that council did not approve staff increases they are approved in the annual budgets. He confirmed this during a recent sworn testimony. That would indicate that council does approve salary increases because it must approve the annual city budget.

Those increases, according to the Mayor and Mr. Amorosi, are set in December for the upcoming calendar year. But the increases are not publicly released until 15 months later.

In formulating the 2015 city budget, did council have the right to approve or disapprove staff salary increases? If true, why didn’t council tell anyone? The salary increases were only reported annually each March in the provincial Sunshine List.

It lists every public employee in Ontario who earned more than $100,000 annually.

That data names the employee, the salary and taxable benefits. That list is the only record available to the public.

In recent years, the administration has published its own list prior to the Sunshine list. It is incomplete when compared to the previous provincial list to illustrate changes in salary or job responsibiliyies.

Case in Point; In 2015, the public did not learn about the three senior staff manager’s increases until Match 2016.

The 2015 budget was approved in January boosting property taxes by 3.96 per cent, including adjustments reported later.

I will be reporting more details of this and other tactics used by the administration to suppress information of concern and what is in the public interest.

I also recognize that our new CAO, Scott Stewart, is not responsible for these tactics that were created by a previous administration. Instead I am hopeful that all bylaws covering procedures and operational details be reviewed and open for the administration to open government, to accountability.

I personally wish Ms. Sales success and fulfillment in her new position.

The administration leadership has markedly changed in the past year and the opportunity exists to return our city into one of progress, financial responsibility, transparency and accountability.

A good first step is to reintroduce online voting in 2022.

 

Advertisement

How Guelph Hydro was given away attempting to solve the GMHI debacle

By Gerry Barker

Augurs 8, 2019 – Updated 8/7/19

Opinion

Part Five of Seven Parts

Note to viewers: Part Six of this series is delayed pending some new information. Thanks for your support and interest. GB

Why did Guelph Hydro’s merging with Alectra Utilities Inc. with ignoring the questions raised by the public before council approved it December 13, 2017? Why did council approve spending $2.6 million to finance the campaign to merge with Alectra? Why didn’t the city inform the 55,000 power customers of the details of the merger with Alectra Utilities?

Just prior to council approving the Guelph Hydro merger with Alectra Utilities, I was lying in bed November 2, 2017, contemplating my day and trying to absorb the Trump Twitter follies and its effect on Canada.

I received a call from a councillor and we talked about the proposed Guelph Hydro merger with Alectra Utilities Inc. I was advised to send my question to a website “energizingtomorrow.ca and the questions would be answered.” I discovered that the website rationed questions and the number of characters. In my opinion, this was suppression of public information.

On that basis, I went to work and prepared some 50 questions that I felt the Hydro customers and residents, of which I was one, needed to know about this proposal and its consequences.

Here’s a snapshot of a portion of the website that was recommended:

The committee’s (SOC) education and community engagement efforts will continue through all phases of the process.

If Council decides to pursue merger negotiations, the community will be invited to comment on any proposed merger before Council makes its final decision.

Learn more. Ask us anything.

energizingtomorrow.ca

Well, city council had already signed a memorandum of agreement with Alectra Utilities; the corporation was ready to merge Guelph Hydro. The merger would give away Guelph Hydro without any immediate compensation for the $228.4 million city investment. Hydro’s customer’s investment in poles, wires, substations, equipment, technical staff and Hydro headquarters would be sucked into the Alectra network.

Because the public was not told the details of the memorandum of agreement already signed, it is safe to say there was no consideration for the following: asset valuation, goodwill, operating surpluses, investments or the wonderful culture of the organization. It was one described by knowledgeable experts as well run and profitable. In fact, it is one of the top performing Local Community Distribution operations in the province.

The city puts a No Sale sign on Guelph Hydro

Let’s start from the beginning when the city council in the fall of 2017, formed the Strategic Options Committee (SOC) co-chaired by CAO Derrick Thomson and Hydro Chief Administrative Officer, Pankaj Sardana, There were four non-elected individuals named, two from Hydro and two ratepayers.

The SOC was charged with disposing of Guelph Hydro.

Why, one may ask? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

From the start all options were on the table although the SOC meetings were held in closed-sessions with only members of council being informed of discussions and developments.

In February, the SOC reinvented its purpose. First Panaj Sardana was removed as co-chair and replaced by Jane Armstrong, chair if Guelph Hydro. Two members of the committee were replaced including Richard Puccini.

Something else occurred that month and was only reported later, the option of selling Guelph Hydro was no longer considered by the SOC, despite interest from unnamed persons to make an offer.

The source of this development was one of the SOC members who were no longer on the committee.

In my opinion, this triggered speculation that the SOC had selected Alectra Utilities to merge with Guelph Hydro. But it became increasingly clear that disposing of Guelph Hydro was an antidote to clean up the Guelph Municipal holdings Inc’s losses of $66 million.

While Mayor Cam Guthrie cheer-leaded the merger message, it turned out the city spent $2.6 million on a campaign to convince the public this was a good deal. It was an attempt to change the spots on a leopard.

Approved by council that few understood the deal

In my opinion, it was a fluffy campaign with little attendance at town hall meetings. The administration’s communications strategy using the energizetommorrow.ca website as its conduit for merger information. It included city staff time to turn out a thick report justifying the merger just a few days before the council made its decision. This report was only available online with a small number of hard copies available to key individuals.

It reminds me of the tactic: Paralysis by Analysis

It’s ironic that prior to this last minute presentation less that 12 days before this December 13 2017 council meeting to hear citizen delegates. They didn’t listen to the 22 delegates who have reasoned argument to delay approval and to review and allow more public information.

By a vote of 10 to 3, council approved the merger.

Isn’t it strange that this same council killed online voting in the 2018 civic election but used online not to reveal the details of the merger?

This was a planned expensive project that turned over our electric distribution system for 4.86 per cent of 60 percent of Alectra utilities profit. It remains an exercise in deliberately disguising or covering up the truth, and the people are the real victims.

In agreeing to this deal, the Guthrie administration was had by experts from team Alectra. Further, they indirectly denigrated Guelph Hydro as failing to respond to the rapidly changing power technology,

The accounting labyrinth created by this so-called Community Energy Innovation has done irreparable financial damage that has resulted in annual property tax increases of averaging more than 3 per cent.

Remember in the 2014 civic election campaign, mayoralty candidate Guthrie promised he would keep the property tax rate to that of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that was 1.11 per cent in 2014.

Then, last year our Mayor undermined the Progressive Conservation Guelph Riding Association in charge of selecting a candidate. Guthrie attempted to obtain an unopposed nomination to run for the PC’s. He was maintaining, at the time, that he would be running for Mayor. Good thing he had a card in his hand.

Of the 50 questions submitted to council, none answered except the Mayor, the last three remain a mystery.

“ Why is Guelph Hydro involved in Green Energy technology when a mismanaged sustainable energy project by GMHI has cost the citizens $66 million in loss of shareholder equity?

“Is Alectra agreeing to take the $93 million long-term debt of Guelph hydro?

“Who is representing the citizens’ interests negotiating the merger details?

Oh! There is one question I’d like the Mayor to answer: Who received the two TESLA home power storage systems that he said were installed in Guelph?

The citizens of Guelph were the big losers in this episode involving mismanagement of city business and resources.

And the winners are:

Mayor Guthrie re-elected in October 2018,

Former CAO Ann Pappert who walked away from her job May 16, 2016 receiving $263,000 for five months work,

Former CAO Derrick Thomson received a $57,000 performance bonus for his role in the Guelph Hydro/Alectra merger in 2018. He left the city in March 2019,

Former Hydro Chair, Jane Armstrong, was appointed by council to represent the city for five years on the Alectra Utilities Board of Directors. She is being paid $25,000 a year plus expenses.

Finally, Alectra Utilities who received a gift worth $228.4 million, the book value of Guelph Hydro.

Think about this. Even if Alectra pays a $1.500 annual dividend to the city it would take an estimated 153 years to even repay the $228.4 million 2016 book value of Guelph Hydro.

Was this a great deal or what?

The stealthy shadow of civic corruption that hangs over Guelph

By Gerry Barker

December 17, 2018

Opinion

In a recent letter to the media by Kevin Bowman, we learned there are three levels of denial employed by the administration to suppress public access to view the reason and results of all closed-council meetings.

Mr. Bowman expressed concern about the administration’s shutting down a complaint about the Clair Maltby Secondary Plan that was discussed in closed-session by council in June 2018.

A decision was made five months later in November, made by the inner sanctum of the outgoing city council, absolved itself and the staff of any wrong doing citing conformity with the Ontario Municipal Act rules concerning closed-session meetings.

The excuse supplied said the city’s procedural bylaw laid out the rules of conducting a closed-session meeting.

Let’s stop for a minute. How many of you out there are familiar with the city’s “procedural bylaw?”

Mr. Bowman did his homework and his following comment is clear and right: “Everything done in the name of the public … should be public.”

Otherwise, denying the right of the public to be able to access closed-sessions conducted by council, elected to represent the people of its business, could well be described a cover-up or, worse still, civic corruption?

Reading this post there is a number that will popup throughout the piece, 84, that’s the number of closed meetings conducted by council in the first two years un office by the Guthrie administration.

As it has now turned out, these 13 councillors were all complicit denying the right of legal public participation in the business of the city. But we’ll never know the result of those 84 votes.

One of the most important aspects of this denial, not only the purpose of the meeting, the discussion or the result of the vote, it’s today the blatant disrespect of the people’s interests in such a disgraceful undemocratic manner. Remember, there were 84 closed-session meetings in 24 months.

Now here’s where this council tramples on your rights

Attempting to obtain the results of Clair Maltby close-session meeting, Mr. Bowman revealed there were two levels of special investigation committees to determine if the information denied to the public could be revealed.

The first was to advise the staff, called the Technical Advisory Group or TAG. The second committee was the Community Working Group or CWG for the Clair Maltby Plan. The identity of the two committee’s personnel, their expertise, their pay or how they were selected is not known.

So instead of involving the public, two faceless, unelected committees with no authority, are deciding whether to allow a citizen’s complaint to be made public.

But wait! There’s more. Super-imposed over this issue are the real hired guns to have the final say in whether you allow the results of a closed-session meeting of council to be made public. It’s called Amberlea Gravel that is on retainer with the city to investigate closed-session meetings of council.

This outfit, retained by the city since 2008, had investigated just four complaints by Guelph citizens. The record to date is just four, all denied. I was one of the four and it took four months to learn of their decision denying the minutes of the December 10, 2015 closed-session meeting.

Thanks to Mr. Bowman, I no longer feel alone.

Pretend you are a judge. Would you accept the argument that the people are not entitled to closed-session meeting details?  Remember those 84 closed-session meetings in 24 months.

Is there reasonable doubt that council is using closed-session meetings to suppress public interests?

The evidence is clear that the Closed-Session Investigator, Amberlea Gravel, only received four requests for information about specific meetings in 10 years tells me there are a lot of secret meetings going on. With respect, that thwarts the meaning of the Ontario Municipal Act. I believe that it is a deliberate policy to deny the public‘s business to, well be public about it.

In my opinion, it’s a corruptive practice and should be investigated by the authorities.

I refuse to believe that the Municipal Act intended to allow municipalities to wander off the reservation rules for conducting closed-session meetings and set up the so-called procedural bylaws serving only the interest of the administrations.

Let’s consider the second greatest cover-up of all

I take you back to December 10, 2015. It is close to approving the 2016 city budget. Council went into a closed-session to discuss, as it turned out, salary increases for four senior staff. There were never any details of that meeting revealed by the Guthrie Administration.

Fast forward to March 21, 2016 when the 2015 provincial Sunshine List was published. It identified every public servant in Ontario earning a salary of $100,000 or more.

Remember, the public was never told about the closed session meeting. So, like any reporter, I pulled up the 2014 Sunshine List and checked it against the 2015 figures for those four top staff managers. I discovered that the four, CAO Ann Pappert, Deputy Chief Administration Officers (DCAO) Derrick Thomson, Mark Amorosi, and Albert Horsman collectively split $98,202.

The dollars and percentages allotted of that pie were:

CAO Pappert, $37,591 (17.11 percent);

DCAO Thomson, $33,834 (19.48 per cent);

DCAO Mark Amorosi, $26,826, (14.7 per cent)

DCAO Albert Horsman. He left the city in August 2015 before the closed-session meeting of Dec. 10. The 2015 Sunshine list shows he was paid some $157,000. His share was never revealed.

Another revelation of Ms. Pappert’s departure

Here’s a wrinkle that has never been revealed in the media. When the 2016 Sunshine List was published the Former CAO was paid $263,000 and worked only five months of the year. Dividing the 263,000 by 12 equals a monthly payment of $21,916.

When Ms. Pappert resigned May 16, 2016, why was she paid $153,416 for the seven months when not employed?

Who authorized that excessive payout? Further, why didn’t the Guthrie Administration inform the public? The public never knew until 10 months later, after she resigned, when the 2016 Sunshine List was published in Match 2017.

Ask yourself; did you believe these increases were justified? Do you believe the drizzle of explanation from the administration was appropriate and responsible?

If so, why did they cover it up?

It was a concerted effort between a needy council and powerful senior staff.

The strangest part of this cover-up was that didn’t council approve these increases not realizing it would be reported when the 2015 Sunshine List was published? This was an ill-informed and awkward decision by the very people elected to represent the people.

In my opinion it is a perfect example of civic corruption.

Of the four senior staffers or beneficiaries, only Mr. Thomson remains as Chief Administrative Officer of the city. One remains unconvinced that this party is still in play and operating with impunity and rare public scrutiny.

Here’s an example. When appointed CAO in June 2016, Mr. Thomson announced he would reveal his salary. The figure he used was that he signed a three-year contract of $230,00 plus an $11,000 taxable benefit. Well the 2017 Sunshine List reported him earning $263,000 plus taxable benefit.

He did not announce that but it was in the Sunshine List reporting the salaries for 2017.

Do we need to keep supporting these senior manager’s practices without recourse or accountability?

The recent re-election of city council returned the same individuals who participated in all those closed-session meetings. The only tool the public can rely on for accuracy are the provincial Sunshine Lists.

Is this anyway to run a railroad? Or, are we the people getting railroaded?

Oscar Wilde was once quoted: “The only way to get rid of temptation is to give in.”

Unfortunately, given the result of the recent civic election it epitomizes that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Breaking news

The Guelph Mercury tribune is asking readers to register to obtain the stories and features online.

Having operated a controlled distribution newspaper in my career, I know what’s going on.

First, the advertisers want proof of the circulation numbers, where the paper is being delivered and confirmation of delivery.

Second, it is an apparent innocent appeal to invite folks to register that is a potential prelude to converting to paid circulation.

In my opinion, if the management decides to go that route, they will have to beef up their editorial coverage to not be reliant on city press releases puff pieces and the police incident records.

I am reminded of a comment made by Tribune Editor Doug Coxson in a Globe and Mail feature on the Guelph media two years ago. He was quoted as saying that the Tribune was planning to do more investigative reporting.

I’ve been covering the Guelph political beat for 12 years and have yet to read one investigative story in the paper.

 

 

 

After four years Karen Farbridge is alive and well on the city’s website

By Gerry Barker

August 5, 2018

Contained in a new glossy addition labeled “Working Together” that can be found on the city’s website, we discover the omnipotent presence of the former mayor circa 2007 to 2014.

The following outlines some of the projects and policies of the former mayor. In fact there is a large presence on this new section of the city’s website. Today, we only address some of the topics of interest and concern of citizens in Guelph. There will be more coverage in the next few weeks, exclusively in guelphspeaks.ca.

So you thought when Karen Farbridge was defeated in 2014 the voters rejected her and her policies.

Nope. She’s still present and on the record according to the Guelph city website’s “Working Together” a new remake featuring the Guthrie years as Mayor

Any presumption in early 2015, that new Mayor, Cam Guthrie, would keep his word to end the so-called “Guelph Factor” and keep property tax increase no greater than to the Consumer Price Index. That flew out the window March 2015 when city council passed a property tax increase of 3.96 per cent. The CPI rate at the time was reported to be 1.99 per cent.

It was the beginning of an administration headed by a Mayor who is now described as Farbridge ‘Lite’, and with good reason.

In December 2015, the administration’s greatest test however fell upon the administrative professional staff. Four top city managers were granted, in closed session, huge increases totaling $98,202. Within four months, CAO Ann Pappert, Al Horsman and Derrick Thomson had resigned. Only Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Mark Amorosi remained.

The senior management was gutted and the city council struggled to maintain some form of leadership. CAO Pappert left May 26, 2016. Former senior manager Derrick Thomson resigned in January 2016 to take a job in his town of residence. He was recalled and took command of the professional staff in June 2016. Former Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman left in August 2015 for the CAO’s job in Sault Ste Marie.

The Sunshine List showed that Ms. Pappert received $263,000 for five months work and Mr. Horsman received $181,000 for his eight months tenure in 2015.

The lady remains a featured player in the Grand Royal City Opera

After reading the details on the city website, one would believe that former Mayor Karen Farbridge was still in charge. Even though she has been gone for almost four years, her imprint remains on the official city website. Yikes!

This can only be described as the current city councillors giving the middle finger salute to the people they work for and are responsible to.

The following is on the city’s website today:

“In November 2008, Mayor Karen Farbridge and Guelph City Council committed to the development of a new ten-year Economic Development and Tourism Strategy for Guelph — Prosperity 2020.

Prosperity 2020 will support the City of Guelph’s vision of being “the city that makes a difference”, and the strategic goal of having “a diverse and prosperous local economy.”

The Phase 2 Economic Development & Tourism Strategy will provide direction, priorities and performance measures for the transformation of Guelph’s economy over the next decade and beyond.

Here are the members of the Mayor’s Prosperity 2020 task force.

Karen Farbridge, Mayor, City of Guelph
Frank Valeriote, Member of Parliament, Guelph
Liz Sandals, Member of Provincial Parliament, Guelph
Dr. Alastair Summerlee, President, University of Guelph
Mark Goldberg, President, GlobalTox International Consultants Inc.
Mike Bouk, Executive Director, Ag-Energy Co-operative
Lloyd Longfield, President, Guelph Chamber of Commerce
Kevin Hall, Vice President (Research), University of Guelph
Dave Smardon, President/Director, BioEnterprise Corporation
Don Drone, Director of Education & CEO, Wellington Catholic District School Board
Kathy Bardswick, President & CEO, The Co-operators Group Limited
Michael Annable, Industry Representative.”

 

Let’s update the ten-year program titled “Prosperity 2020.”

What did the task force accomplish in those ten years? Also where are most of them now? Are we better off today?

Well, it’s what they didn’t accomplish is the real question. It’s fair game for citizens to question why this is still posted on the city website’s new feature presentation ‘Working Together.’

So let’s review how ‘Prosperity 2020’ has affected the quality of life in our city in the past ten years.

First, economic development means creating jobs, increasing industrial and business assessment and creating a balance of property tax revenue between residential, industrial and commercial expansion.

That has not changed in 12 years under two Farbridge and one Guthrie Administration. At a ratio of 84 per cent residential and only 16 for industrial and commercial assessment, it has not altered since 2001 when Karen Farbridge was first elected Mayor.

By any measure that does not mirror economic development. Instead, the load keeps falling on the shoulders of those property-taxed owners who have experienced huge increase in taxes on their properties.

The average assessment ratio in Ontario is 60 per cent residential and 40 per cent industrial and commercial.

Think about this: If the ratio increased from the present industrial/commercial figure of 16 per cent to 30 per cent, the effect would be less dependence on the residential assessment. But three administrations, in 18 years, failed to accomplish anything to correct the imbalance.

Just look at why the city administration failed to increase the economic development revenue ratio. The city website remains a mortuary of the Farbridge administrations that has cost we citizens millions.

Taking a trip down memory lane

* Remember the $23 million Urbacon cost overruns?

* The $15 million GMHI? District Energy and geo-thermal plants?

* Natural gas generating plants that were never built?

* Waste management debacles including buying trucks for auto pick-up of bins??

* Spending $5 million to buy two buildings on Wyndham Street to turn the space into    enlarging the Baker Street parking lot?

* Overbuilt organic wet waste processing facility costing $34 million?

* The Detroit recyclable fiasco?

* Closing lanes on major roads to allow bicycle lanes?

* Intensification of residential complexes with little open space and parking?

* The lack of parking downtown?

* Failure to clean up the downtown possessed by druggies, drunkenness, panhandlers and the homeless?

* Failing to build affordable housing for the less fortunate working poor?

* The renovated railway bridge on Wyndham Street that had large trucks crashing into it.

And don’t forget the high increases annual taxes paid by the residential owner and user fees charged for city services. The city is so desperate for revenue that it inflicted a one per cent levy on property taxes allegedly to pay down the $500 million infrastructure deficit. Then Council approved an additional one per cent levy on properties for “City Buildings.”

Truth to tell it was a move to start funding the $63 million South-end Recreation Centre. The two counncillors sponsoring the motion were Mark MacKinnon and Karl Wettstein. Both represent Ward Six. Some $3.5 Million has already been spent on plans for the $63 million recreation  centre in Ward Six.

Until citizens realize that their 2014 vote was wasted when the new mayor capitulated to the demands of the seven-member progressive bloc who are dedicated to preserving the Farbridge legacy.

Otherwise, what more proof do you want that if anything there is a ton of Farbridge’s ill-conceived and executed action plans that have left an indelible historical imprint on the history of our city.

This study of the Farbridge unabridged legacy is far from over, more to come.

Perhaps a website content purge is in order.

Part Two: How to change our city by reducing operating costs, property taxes and user fees

By Gerry Barker

May 3, 2018

Here is a list of changes that a new council will face to effect change. For every action there is a reaction including job security, money, public services and that old standby, entitlement.

Some will say these proposed reforms are draconian and the staff service to the public will be seriously affected. Let’s look at some examples:

Bike lane expansion;

Waste management costs;

The wellbeing program;

Grants to non-governmental organizations;

Materials and service procurement checks and balances;

Subsidies to Guelph Transit and other organizations;

Cost of water and electricity;

Legal and consultant costs;

Staff reduction through rationalization;

Planning and development costs;

Debt management and costs;

Staff and council expenses;

Advertising costs;

Budget variances;

Reserves rationalization and replenishment;

Review all staff contracts.

You be the judge.

Let’s start with an action plan.

* Stop the Guelph Hydro merger with Alectra even if it means hiring an energy experienced lawyer to make our case before the Ontario Energy Board.

*   Make no specific promises about lowering property taxes until council receives a full, independent analysis of proposed budgets in 2019 and 2020.

* Review all bylaws to establish effectiveness, relavence and currency.

* Close down the recyclables’ operation of Dunlop Road and negotiate a deal with Waste Management to take our recyclable materials to its plant in Cambridge.

* Hire an Auditor General to oversee all spending and systems who reports directly to council every three months.

* Review the council Code of Conduct and dismiss the Integrity Commissioner. Also dismiss the Amberlea-Gravel special closed-session investigators. Replace A-G with the Ontario Ombudsman’s Office closed-session investigative team.

* All closed-session agenda require approval of the Mayor, and two designated councillors. The public must be informed in advance of any such meeting, the reason and outcome. The Mayor must file a separate report to briefly explain the reason, outcome without using names. Residents have the right to request the minutes based on impact and cost of a closed-session meeting. If challenged by any resident, authority to allow a closed-session council meeting will be made by an outside appointed adjudicator.

* Adopt the recommendations of the Pat Fung report that outlined how the city can reduce its overhead to save $20 million a year.

* Confine the committee of the whole system to only vote on a motion, because most of the issues have already been discussed in closed-sessions. The committee of the whole meetings are still too long and time wasting.

* Review all rules concerning public participation including notifying all citizens of council meetings. Reliance on such notices excludes many citizens who do not have access to computers.

* Restore Online voting for the 2022 civic election.

* Order the internal auditor to investigate the following.

*  Rules and regulation of procurement of supplies and services including systems’ controls, verification of work performed. Any order exceeding $1,500 must be  made by a Request For Proposal (RFP) and publicized Online and in the local      newspaper.

*  Commence a formal review of Guelph Transit operations including an audit of the last three departmental budgets.

*   Appoint a public advisory committee to work with Transit management to plan a more efficient system.

*  Freeze the bike lane budget until a thorough study is completed to ascertain future viability and usage.

* Develop a plan within 90 days to reduce full-time staff, part-time staff and contract employees by ten per cent by December 2019. The Police, Fire and EMS will be exempted.

* Cancel the ”City News” advertising pages in the Guelph Tribune. Replace with weekly online reports and supply a print copy to residents without a computer.

* Examine and redefine the role of the communications department.

* Cancel the two per cent property tax surcharge and the storm water charges added to the hydro bills.

* The finance department will send a quarterly copy of the financial status of the city as it pertains to the city budget (variances) and non-budgeted charges.

* In all new staff contracts the accumulation of unused sick leave and vacation time will be eliminated. Use it in a calendar year or lose it. An arbitration board composed of two councillors and three civilians will oversee any derivations or exceptions.

* Appoint a new accountability committee composed of three councillors and three civilians to examine and recommend reducing the amount of funding the city provides many organizations and services.

* With council and staff, prioritize budget items by October 15 each year.

* Drop all planning department work on the Reformatory lands.

* Halt the intensification emphasis on future developments and freeze all plans. Commence planning subdivisions of single-family homes in a range of price points.

* Cancel free downtown parking for all employees.

* Review all payments made to non-governmental organizations.

The city is not a bank or a lender. All such requests must be considered by the staff and approved by council. Such requests will be frozen until the state of the city finances is positively corrected and overhead is substantially reduced to lower property taxes.

The terms and results of the annual city financial audit, as required by the province, must be made public Online and in print to those requesting it.

Similarly, a summary of the Financial Information Report to the province must be available by Jan 31 the year following.

The direction of these issues has a two-fold affect. The first is to returtn the power to the people through its elected representative. Second, the staff influence will be more focused on executing the reforms and thereby restoring open government, and meeting the will of the people.

All citizens should be on guard to prevent the financial disasters of the previous and current administrations.

Next October the people have their say on how they want their city to function and seize opportunities to develop smartly and gradually lower our taxes and user fees.

 

 

 

 

 

Guthrie’s Great Wall blocks public participation using closed-sessions meetings

By Gerry Barker

March 22, 2018

Donald Trump is still trying to get his $18 billion wall proposal to be built between Mexico and the U.S. Cam Guthrie has succeeded in erecting a wall to protect his council and city staff from public participation in city business.

He does it by calling closed-sessions of council to discuss contentious subjects and make decisions that almost all of the people know any of the outcome.

Just ask the 22 delegates who opposed the merger during the open council meeting to approve the merger of Guelph Hydro and Alectra Utilities last December 10.

Each delegate outlined why this was not in the best interests of the community and many requested a deferment until all the facts were known, including the final documents pertaining to the agreement.

Council, by a 10-3 majority ignored those citizen delegates. Instead they agreed with the points raised by seven especially selected Alectra delegates who offered slanted reasons to merge or approve it as it appeared unconditionally.

The structure of Guthrie’s Wall of denial

We looked up how the wall was erected initially by the former administration, starting in 2008 when council appointed Amberlea Gravel, located in London, to investigate citizen’s complaints about closed-session meetings of council. The appointment was made when former Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government ordered all municipalities to appoint a closed-session investigator.

Since 2008, Amberlea Gravel, our Local Authority Services (LAS), has processed just three complaints, while being paid a retainer for nine years. The city has not revealed the cost of the retainer. Regardless, it has to be the best deal Amberlea Gravel made to bolster the privacy of council doing the public business.

Each complaint was denied or rejected.

A few years ago, the Ontario Ombudsman was given authority to act for municipalities in terms of special closed-session investigations. Today, more than half of Ontario’s 445 municipalotoes, have switched to the Ombudsman’s office to investigate closed-session council and local board meetings.

But not Guelph.

I was one of only three complainants requesting a closed-session investigation in early January 2016. I had plenty of reasons for obtaining the minutes of the December 10, 2015 closed council meeting that awarded $98,202 salary increases to the four senior managers of the city.

By now most people in the city know the decision was not revealed until publication of the 2015 Sunshine list which publoshed the salaries and taxable benefits of every city employee earning $100,000 or more.

Guelph Speaks published several posts that decried this blackout decision by city council. For my trouble, I was at first threatened by one of the recipients of our largess and subsequently sued for defamation. That case is before the courts and I cannot comment further.

Four months following my request for the December 10, 2015 minutes, the special closed-session investigator ruled in favour of the city to deny the minutes of that meeting.

That is just one brick in the Guthrie Great Wall to control the public’s business and rightful interest to suit the staff and council. It’s known as shaping the message to satisfy the administration’s interests.

The council code of conduct is the second barrier to open government

Here is an excerpt published on the city website under the title: “Council Code of Conduct/Integrity Commissioner:

The Code of Conduct was adopted by Council to:

• Establish a common basis for the ethical behaviour of Members of Council and Local Boards.
• Increase public confidence by making a commitment to operate with integrity, justice and courtesy.
• Note the words transparency, accountability and operating an open government are not inclded in the C of C.

I can’t make this stuff up.

In 2011, Council appointed an Integrity Commissioner to address the application of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Local Boards. The Integrity Commissioner has the power to deal with requests to investigate suspected contraventions of the Code of Conduct. The record shows that all requests referred to the Integrity Commissioner origubated with members of council. Council recommended the following penalties:

• A reprimand; or
• Suspension of the remuneration of the Council or Local Board member for a period of up to 90 days.
• In addition to conducting formal Code of Conduct investigations, the Integrity Commissioner also serves as an advisor on appropriate conduct to individual Members of Council or Council as a whole.

It’s the ultimate muzzle on the very people we trust to serve the public’s interests. It’s yet another brick in the Guthrie Wall of denying public participation in the business of stakeholders in the community.

So, now in his sixth year as Integrity Commissioner, Robert Swazey of Caledon, is judge, jury and prosecutor in cases involving elected officials who may be accused of breaking the Code of Conduct.

It is an implied threat to any councillor who reveals the contents of a closed-session meeting. It threatens their reputation for protecting the public interests.

In just a few words, this policy was approved by council in, we believe, another closed- session. The commissioner, since 2011 has investigated three cases. His annual retainer is $5,000 and he is paid an hourly fee conducting his investigation and preparing his report.

The one case involved then Coun. Cam Guthrie, who received none of the punishment listed above. It cost the citizens $10,000. The irony of this event is suffocating in tracking the performance of the Mayor and his council.

Part two of this post follows March 24: Mayor Guthrie;s Great Wall that is locking us up.

 

 

 

 

 

Rush to judgment: How the sale of Guelph Hydro leaves a trail of deception

By Gerry Barker

October 26, 2017

Citizens have just 47 days left to mobilize and protect their ownership of Guelph Hydro before council votes to accept the Strategic Options Committee’s (SOC) recommendation. A memorandum of agreement has already been signed between Mississauga-based Alectra Utilities and the City of Guelph, owners of Guelph Hydro.

That being the case, why is the SOC recommending and Chief Administrative Officer, Derrick Thomson, agreeing to hold “Town Hall” meetings to inform the public of the details of this agreement that has been crafted behind closed doors?

Well a funny thing happened on the way to cutting this deal.

Digging into the SOC’s own document presented June 2016 to council, here’s their timetable for investigating and recommending an alleged suitable partner to take over Guelph Hydro.

Here are some excerpts from that document so you can judge for yourselves whether this is a con job or just an unvarnished lie?

Here’s what the SOC told council last year

Phase 1 (Complete)

Explore options; begin community consultation, present findings and recommendations to Guelph City Council in early 2017.

Phase 2 (March to June)

Scan the industry for potential merger partners. Consider publicly owned utility companies likely to provide value to Guelph Hydro customers, the City and the community.

(June to fall) If City Council votes to explore further: Engage specific targets, develop a preliminary business case and financial analysis, outline impact on shareholder’s rate payers, discuss governance, compare to maintaining full ownership, and make recommendation to City Council.

Phase 3 (fall to winter)

If Council decides to pursue a merger: Enter into memorandum of understanding, announce the parties involved, continue community engagement, begin exclusive negotiations, conduct financial, legal, operational and regulatory due diligence, develop merger and shareholder agreements, finalize rate impact and make recommendation to City Council.

Phase 4 (late 2017 to 2018)

If City Council approves the transaction: submit a MAADs (Merger And Acquisition Document) application to the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) for approval, develop implementation plan and establish leadership and governance of the new utility. Following OEB approval the transaction would close, the parties would enter into the shareholders’ agreement, and the merger would be given full legal effect.

Recommended Next Steps

Given the potential cost of developing complete business cases with multiple parties, the SOC recommends developing preliminary business cases with the most promising candidates and making a recommendation to Council in early fall 2017. This approach is a cost effective way to provide Council with more information while being fair and respectful to potential merger partners.

The Guelph Hydro board affirmed the recommendations made at the outset of this report at its May 29, 2017 board meeting.

*         *         *         *

GS comment: This timetable has turned out to be a myth perpetrated by not only the SOC but with the support of the chair of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc., Mayor Guthrie. You see, the SOC was not directly linked to city council but to the failed GMHI operation. Here’s why:

SOC Recommendation

1. THAT the Strategies and Options Committee (the “SOC”) of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc. (“GMHI”) be directed to conduct further discussions, engage in further due diligence, and prepare preliminary business cases to assess potential mergers between Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc. (“Guelph Hydro”) and potential merger partners.
2. THAT the SOC continue its communications and community engagement to inform its work.
3. THAT the SOC report back to Council in early fall 2017 with the results of further discussions and due diligence, communications and community engagement and a preliminary business case, including recommendations regarding next steps.

The plot thickens

So the SOC lied about its timetable to dispose of Guelph Hydro.

Were the 12 potential partners that had indicated interest in merging with Guelph Hydro not considered by the SOC?

Why did the SOC speed up the decision by almost six months? Was the SOC ordered to do so and if so, by whom and why?

The SOC committee originally had five members: Co-chairs CAO Thomson and GMHI CEO Pankaj Sardana, now CEO of Guelph Hydro, plus Robert Bell, a member of the Guelph Hydro Board of Directors, and two civilian members who resigned.

The SOC committee was revamped with CAO Thomson sharing the chair’s job with Guelph Hydro Chair, Jane Armstrong. Ms. Armstrong replaced Mr. Sardana and two new civilian members were appointed, one of who was a former member of the GMHI board of directors.

This shuffle came out of the blue with no explanation as to why it was necessary.

The SOC functioned chiefly behind closed doors only reporting periodically to city council that went into closed session. Despite the SOC claims of engaging members of the community, most people had no clue of what was going on in regards to their property.

It is now apparent there is determination on the part of the Mayor to complete this deal before next year’s civic election. If he truly believes that this is a good deal for Guelph, then why won’t he release full details of the memorandum of agreement between GMHI and Alectra?

That’s all predicated on his decision to run again. He has denied that he has been approached by the Progressive Conservatives to run in the next Provincial election next June.

It is odd that the link with GMHI and the SOC even exists. Perhaps city council did not want to get its hands dirty if the bad stuff hits the fan. In my opinion, after tracking the history of all this, there is an unprecedented storm of civic discontent looming.

Note: The following is an informed comment in today’s guelphspeaks. ca written by contributor Colleen spelling out some revealing details of the Alectra proposal:

“The recently merged Alectra Company is four large provincial players – Hydro One Brampton, which was purchased by Alectra, and Powerstream, Enersource and Horizon. Remember Horizon? They are the ones that the citizens of Guelph did not want to partner with in 2007-2008. Here they are again. Guelph has been guaranteed a seat on the Alectra board, which will then have 14 board members. With a 4% share in Alectra it’s a pretty small seat. Customer service will not be local. Our general service customers already pay 37% less than the provincial average so they will not see any further savings. Residential customers thinking that they will save money are misinformed. They will not see an increase on the distribution portion of their bill only for a period of time. This amounts to about 20% of the electricity portion of their bill. So, what the “nothing but good news for Guelph” that Mr. Mayor is talking about? A bigger dividend payment to the City.”

 

Perhaps the city administration should inform the public of how much this project has cost so far. There was a consultant hired to steer this to a conclusion as evidenced by the content and words of the elected officials and the SOC members who are not elected.

At this stage, the public remains in the dark and judging from the secretive way this project has been conceived and misled the public, the responsibility lies with city council that must either approve it or just say no.

It is surprising that the Mayor was responsible for initially bringing the GMHI disaster out in the open and launching an investigation. But now, he is promoting this merger of Guelph Hydro with Alectra Utilities and the details are back in the closet.

This is the same kind of handling of important public issues that were masked by his predecessor for eight years aided and abetted by senior staff almost all of who are no longer with the city.

Mr. Mayor, please level with the people

Management on the Mayor’s level is complex and required patience, understanding, being tough and fair-minded, occasionally, being ruthless. Mayor Guthrie’s weakness is trying to be all things to all people. When he was elected in 2014, I told him to serve the people not the staff and council opponents.

This is a time for redemption and courage. Let’s hope Mayor Guthrie exercises both.

A good beginning is to level with the people and explain this agreement in detail. If the Mayor believes the deal is in the best interests of the citizens, then explain why in terms they understand. I know, it is tough to explain complicated deals but it is possible and with professional help, essential.

The evidence is mounting that’s creating doubt in the people’s minds.

In my opinion, I remain concerned about the link with GMHI and the Community Energy Initiative. Also the Alectra mission statement includes green energy technology development. Alectra’s promise is not backed up with precise information and management. This city has just experienced a costly misadventure in experiments with green power self-sufficiency. The price tag is a loss of shareholder equity in GMHI of some $63 million.

This is supposed to be an amalgamation of small to medium sized municipally owned electric distribution systems. It should not include dabbling in costly green power projects. History has shown alleged cost reductions linked to green power in the name of climate change are not achieved but instead, boost costs to the consumer.

This consolidation of local power distribution systems is a part of the Liberal government’s energy plan that so far has delivered the highest cost of electric power to Ontario consumers in the country.

Ontario’s leaders tore down gas energy generating plants in Oakvile and Mississauga to save four Liberal seats in the 2010 provincial election… it worked!

Then the Liberals awarded rich wind and solar power contracts to major corporations such TransCanada Pipelines.

In their rush to achieve green power at any cost, the Liberals sold 57 per cent of Hydro One to private enterprise allegedly to balance the books in 2017. That last one is a doozy as the privatized Hydro One just spent $4 billion to buy the electric generating and distribution system serving 375,000 Seattle and area customers. Most of its generating capability is coal-fired. That’s ironic in that we banished coal usage in Ontario some time ago.

The intention of Alectra to build a Green Power Technology Centre in Guelph is something we don’t need or want. Been there, done that.

Sorry Alectra, NO SALE

The high cost of departed senior City of Guelph managers

By Gerry Barker

May 18, 2017

We learned this week that former Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Ann Pappert is looking for a job according to an extensive online Linkedin profile. Ms. Pappert left the city last May 26 for a new position as Assistant Deputy Minister in the Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry.

That position lasted from October 2016 to February 2017. For whatever reason, she left prior to expiry of her six months probation. The 2016 Ontario Sunshine List shows Ms. Pappert received $263,757 from the city of Guelph although she only worked barely five months. The question is: What were the other benefits to which she could have been entitled? What were the terms of her contract? Such benefits could include pension, car allowance, unused vacation and/or sick time, travel expenses and insurance.

We do know that part of her package awarded in December 10, 2016, during a closed session by council, was reimbursement of unused vacation time, and a $28,000 retroactive performance bonus. Much has been written about that closed session but there has been no official acknowledgement or explanation why Ms. Pappert, Al Horseman, Derrick Thomson and Mark Amorosi were given such high increases.

The kicker is not one person in the entire Guelph administration said a word about those increases until the Sunshine List was published in March 2016.

The revelation ignited a wave of the four senior manager’s departures. Pappert left in May, Thomson resigned shortly after the Sunshine list announcement to take a job with the Town of Caledon, Al Horsman left in August 2015, and Mark Amorosi left the city last February.

These four executives were handsomely rewarded by a gob-struck city council, in secret, not having the guts to tell the people who pay the bills. To this day the minutes of that closed session are locked up. I know, I tried to get them released. Turns out the special “Closed Session Investigator,” a city paid consultant from London took four months to even reply to my request. Their opinion is that the city acted according to the rules of the Ontario Municipal Act.

The thing that citizen’s should take away from all this behind closed-door handling of the public’s business is that our Mayor, Cam Guthrie, went along with it.

Today only Mr. Thomson remains the last of four top senior managers who, after resigning, was hired last June to take over the CAO’s job. Why wouldn’t he? His first year on the job will earn him $245,000 including a $9,900 car allowance. To his credit he went public with his salary.

There were some astonishing inclusions and exclusions.

According to the 2016 Provincial Sunshine list, former CAO, Ann Pappert, was paid $263,757.32 in 2016. Now you would assume that was for the year but Ms. Pappert left the city May 26, 2016, Seems like a lot of money for less than five months work. Why did she earn a $28,000 performance bonus? People earning performance bonuses don’t plan to leave, so why did she leave Guelph?

Checking the 2015 Provincial Sunshine list it showed Ms. Pappert was paid $226,060.96.

The only possible conclusion was that Ann Pappert was paid $489,818.26 for 17 months work as CAO, from January 1, 2015 to May 26, 2016. That works out to a monthly salary of $28,812.

At those rates, why did she resign when the Sunshine List revealed her increase onMarch 2016?

So while her provincial government job did not pan out there are still many unanswered questions about that December 10, 2015 closed council meeting. A total of $98,202 salary increases was awarded to Ms. Pappert, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer’s (DCAO) Al Horsman, Derrick Thomson and Mark Amorosi.

But there is more:

Former Chief Financial Officer, Al Horsman, left the city in August 2015. Today his name shows up receiving $188,999 in the Sunshine 2015 report, the equivalent of a full year on the job. Not bad for eight months work … in 2015. The question is, why did Horsman leave? He was deposed as CFO in the November 2014 reorganization of the senior management and switched to the Waste Management, Environmental Services and Engineering portfolio.

Former CAO Ann Pappert supervised that reorganization, following the 2014 civic election.

Horsman discovered the debacle of the deal made with the Rizzo brothers of Detroit to recycle material shipped from the motor city. The deal fell apart and was reported to have cost Guelph some $2.5 million. In December 2015, Solid Waste General Manager Dean Wyman, who was involved in the Detroit deal, left for a similar job in Edmonton.

DCAO Scott Stewart is now engaged in a rationalization procedure to discover and fix why the Waste management operating costs are losing $270.000 a year.

With Horsman gone, it left just three Senior managers, CAO Ann Pappert, DCAO’s Mark Amorosi and Derrick Thomson.

The revelation of the large increase awarded by council to the remaining three top managers in March 2016, triggered the resignation of Mr. Thomson who said he was taking a job with the Town of Caledon. In April, Ms. Pappert announced she was resigning. But Mr. Thmson came back.

Along with her duties as CAO, Ms. Pappert was also Chief Executive Officer CEO) of Guelph Municipal Holdings Inc (GMHI), for four years. As CEO she signed off, along with her successor at GMHI, Pankaj Sardana. They jointly presented the report to council, acting as shareholders, May 16, 2016. It revealed that the city-owned GMHI was broke and had lost $26.6 million. Ten days later she left her job.

The unfolding story of GMHI leaves many questions to be answered.

Was Ann Pappert paid two salaries for her two senior responsibilities as CAO of Guelph and CEO of GMHI?

Why did two Councillors, June Hofland and Karl Wetstein, both appointed to the GMHI board, not report to council about operations? The chair, former Mayor Farbridge, appointed them. Did they not realize that appointment carried specific fiduciary responsibilities to the public?

What was the role of Guelph Hydro in the Community Energy Initiative program?

How much did Guelph Hydro invest in GMHI in four years?

Why did Guelph Hydro loan GMHI $65 million without any collateral or expectation of repayment?

How can GMHI give the city $9 million over four years in dividends and lose $26.6 million in the same period?

Were the GMHI financial books audited, if so by whom and when?

What was the impact of Guelph Hydro bills to residents during the five year period, 2011 to 2015?

Will the city reveal the total wind-up costs of GMHI and when?

How do GMHI’s financial costs and losses impact the sale of Guelph Hydro?

Is the potential Guelph Hydro sale to pay off these GMHI losses and clear the city books of the debt?

This is the result of misuse of political power and mismanagement of city resources.

The closed session meetings, regardless of what the staff says, are nothing short of secret manipulation of events and decisions. Much of it is political because the city has been held hostage for the past ten years by the political left, supported by the powerful labour movement.

If the majority of citizens don’t complain and demand answers from their elected representatives, then nothing will change. Property taxes will continue to grow exponentially annually. The same will happen with user fees.

The fall-out is that we allowed a CAO to leave this city after receiving more than a million dollars after just over five years on the job.

We can only blame ourselves for allowing it to happen.

Our only chance for electing responsible and experienced councillors next year, to clean up the financial mess the city is in to reduce the operating overhead, restore the reserves and demand performance of the professional staff.

 

 

Denial continues, aided and abetted by the “independent” closed session investigator

By Gerry Barker

March 3, 2017

You have to be amused when the lonely weekly reportedly quoted a report by the so-called “independent” closed session Investigator, chastising the council for holding its meetings past midnight because it denied public participation

The Investigator, London –based Amberley-Gravel, took four months to come up with t its decision that council acted legally December 10, 2015 when, in closed session, it awarded $98,202 to three of the top executives. Two of the three are no longer employed by the city.

There is still one of three remaining, Derrick Thomson, who, like a Phoenix, has risen from his almost job with another municipality. In the wake of the 2016 provincial Sunshine List revealing in March 2016, the $98,202 2015 increases, he became the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). His current salary plus taxable benefit is $240,000.

He had the recent distinction of firing one of his colleagues, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO), Mark Amorosi, who received a $26,000 increase for his service in 2015 taking his salary to $216,000. The day after firing on February 8, The CAO praised him for his “valuable contributions to the City of Guelph.” Mr. Amorosi had been with the city since 2007. He never explained why Mr. Amorosi was fired. Also, there was no mention of the financial package he received upon leaving.

The CAO also went out of his way to say that Mr. Amorosi would have his legal expenses paid by the city despite being summarily dismissed. He referenced the lawsuit commenced by Mr. Amorosi against me with a claim of $500,000 for alleged defamation.

Would someone explain to me just how that works?

He was apparently fired because he failed to monitor the Information Technology department of which he was responsible. This was because of the 53,000 emails contained in an external drive was sent to former Chief Building Inspector, Bruce Poole’s, lawyer. It was part of an examination for discovery regarding the $1 million lawsuit brought by Mr. Poole for wrongful dismissal.

Now follow closely because events occurred at warp speed

Tony Saxon, columnist in the online Guelph Today, revealed on Friday morning February 3, that the deluge of emails contained all kinds of private information about a large number of people and not related to the Poole case.

This information came from Mr. Poole’s lawyer and Mr. Saxon reported parts of it.

The city went into high operating mode and demanded the lawyer return the drive. It notified the Privacy Commissioner of the error and promised anyone mentioned in the emails would be notified.

That did not occur until a few days later when the Poole case was settled by mediation with the results being confidential. The drive was returned.

Once again, secrecy surrounds the outcome of this chain of events that would display incompetence, sloppiness, abuse of the public trust and yet to be known are further legal expenses by potential aggrieved victims.

In the middle of this, Donna Jaques, the City Solicitor, left her job. The city was forced to hire outside legal counsel to manage the situation.

So the city has no Chief Financial Officer, no City Solicitor. A rookie DCAO, Colleen Clack, was drafted to take over the Corporate Services department that was run by Mr. Amorosi, plus her regular responsibilities as chief of city operations.

The senior management team of CAO Thomson, DCAO’s Scott Stewart and Ms. Clack is running the city that three years ago, had six executive directors running the show.

In fairness, the three top managers have their hands full and it could take months to bolster the top management team. There is talent around but the city’s reputation as being a tough place to work because of the political control and atmosphere makes the recruiting complicated. It’s not a case about the money but the work environment. Losing 12 senior managers in the last two years has not helped the city’s reputation.

I have no confidence that city council will change its reputation or direction. Mayor Guthrie, whom I voted for, has been unable to rein in the spending as he promised. Also he has not been able to convince council to conduct an independent audit along with a staff rationalization.

Mayor took action to disclose the GMHI disaster.

The evidence is there to see that mismanagement of the city continues to spiral down, due to millions lost because of a series of social engineering projects introduced by former Mayor Farbridge. To his credit, Mayor Guthrie did trigger exposure of the Guelph Municipal Holdings/Guelph Hydro financial disaster.

But then he supports the Strategic Options Committee that has no elected officials on it, by agreeing to spend $600,000 to complete it’s work.

Then, he voted to recommend the sale/merger of Guelph Hydro. That 8-5 vote by city council sounded like a rejection, but the comments of councillors negated it because many, including the Mayor, wanted more options.

For another $500,000, we may get a definitive answer: To sell or not to sell, that is the question.

There were five councillors who voted to sell/merge Guelph Hydro. They are the Mayor, Councillors Phil Allt, Mark McKinnon, Karl Wettstein and June Hofland.

By mid-year (whatever that means) the SOC is to report its findings.

Here are some predictions:

First, a lot will depend on how much pressure is brought by citizens on members of council to reject selling or merging the utility.

Next, is the timing of the SOC recommendations following a series of closed session meetings of council. It won’t be in August because council is at the beach. It might be in July when a lot of citizens are watching their lawns and gardens wither from water restrictions or they are on vacation. These could include the members of the SOC.

The only card the administration has is to convince the citizens that they have negotiated this great deal that will flood the coffers of the city with cash.

Wettstein and McKinnon will get their $65 million South End recreation centre.

The Mayor will have a good news story to get re-elected in 2018.

Phil Allt will ask for more options.

June Hofland, well, she will feel vindicated of her role as chair of finance.

Happy days are here again!

And our electricity and water bills will soar under new ownership of Hydro. Water bills go up every year regardless of a diminished use of the stuff. In the summer we can shower but cannot water the lawn when it needs it.

We can’t blame that on Nestle.

 

 

 

The day Mayor Cam Guthrie blinked and lost credibility over Salary-Gate

By Gerry Barker

October 26, 2016

There are many questions concerning that December 10, 2015 closed-session city council meeting. It was called by the Mayor to approve large 2015 salary increases for three senior staff managers, Chief Administrative Officer Ann Pappert, ($37,591) Deputy Chief Administrative Officers Mark Amorosi, ($26.868) and Derrick Thomson, ($33,814).

It’s unlikely any elected official will answer these questions because they were directly involved in that closed meeting and are covering up to protect their standing under the council’s “Code of Conduct.” This was created by the former Farbridge administration when it hired an Integrity Commissioner to adjudicate any breaches of the Code and recommend sanctions if necessary.

Its real purpose was to shut down the closed-door council leaks that were occurring. Ask yourself, why would the Farbridge administration, with a solid majority of council, need to spend your money to stop information that they didn’t want you know or understand? They made it official by hiring an Integrity Commissioner to police and deal with suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Guthrie administration recently renewed this contract.

Funny, the Commissioner must have missed Coun. Mike Salisbury’s confessed leaking to a friendly blogger of confidential information as to why five members of his caucus walked out of another closed-door meeting last January. It appears there is a double standard when it comes to investigating alleged breaking of the code of conduct by city councillors.

Here are some questions citizens should ask their councillors about that Salary-Gate issue and why was it kept a secret for almost four months?

* Why did the Mayor believe it was necessary to convene a closed session to approve the 2015 top management increases when the fiscal year was almost over?

* Did the Mayor receive information about the senior staff increases prior to the meeting?

* Were these increases included in the 2015 budget, approved by council in March 2015?

* Besides the Mayor, who initiated this closed meeting and why on the 12^th month of the year, approved the 2016 city budget?

*   Is it not Provincial policy to reveal the name, salary, taxable benefits and job title for every public employee earning $100,000 or more in Ontario?

* What were the substantive reasons causing council to award these increases that took each of the three staffers’ salaries to well over $200,000, knowing full well the Provincial Sunshine List would publish the salaries in March 2016?

*   When the minutes of that closed meeting were requested, did the city clerk reply that closed-session meetings are “not on the public record and therefore not available?”

* Does this mean that whenever the Mayor convenes a closed session, for any reason, the public is denied access, forever?

*   What was the legal reason for calling a closed session under the Ontario Municipal Act rules, governing such meetings?

*   Did city council understand that by conducting the public’s business in closed session they were, in effect, concealing these senior staff increases, in direct violation of Provincial policy?

*   Which councillors voted for approving the increases in the closed session?

Did Mayor Guthrie vote to approve the increases

*   Did councillorrs realize that they shut down any possible public objection because the results wouldn’t be known until three months into 2016?

*   Was council informed of the rationale that determined how much each of the senior managers was to receive?

*   Were any of the three senior managers involved in conducting performance and market reviews of their peers to determine who gets how much and when?

*   Who informed council of the request for the increases?

*   Did the three managers hire a consultant to advise how much they should receive? If so, who was the consultant and the cost of his/her involvement?

*   Did Mayor Guthrie consult the city solicitor about the legality of conducting the closed-session meeting and was it in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Act guidelines?

*   How many, and which staff people were involved in this closed-session and were they sworn to secrecy?

*   Is it true that this meeting was held so as not to interfere with the final approval of the 2016 budget?

*   Did Corporate Services DCAO Mark Amorosi mislead Coun. Mike Salisbury, who asked for the reason for the $37,581 increase to CAO Ann Pappert? Was it because she did not request an increase in 2014 from the Human Resources department, according to Mr. Amorosi?

*   Is it not true that Ms. Pappert received a $5,005 increase according to the 2014 Sunshine List?

Conclusion

Council, including the Mayor, duped the public by concealing these three senior staff increases to avoid public reaction that would have stalled the conclusion of the 2016 budget.

Ms. Pappert resigned in May 2016 following more than five years on the job.

Al Horsman, the last Chief Financial Officer the city employed, resigned in August 2015 before council approved the 2015 salary increases. He is now CAO of the city of Sault Ste Marie.

Derrick Thomson resigned last April to take a job with the Town of Caledon. He was later persuaded to return to Guelph and was named CAO.

Janice Sheehy, former General Manager of Finance and City Treasurer, resigned last March to take a job with the Region of Peel.

Colleen Clack, General Manager of Tourism and Culture, was promoted to DCAO in charge of Operations, formally held by Mr. Thomson.

DCAO Mark Amorosi, following a three-month search using a professional headhunting firm to replace Ms. Sheehy, appointed Tara Baker, an analyst in the Finance Department. She was named Chief Financial Officer, General Manager of Finance and Treasurer. Ms. Baker is currently on maternity leave and will not be available until next year.

What do you think? Was all this a calm transition of power that has lead to a “Better Guelph?”

Or, is it a contrived attempt to retain power by the Bloc of Seven?