EPCOR and The Block’s Big Lie

The Big LieFor all their evils and their wrongs, the Soviets did some things very well: propaganda and disinformation. As one writer commented in the Spectator, “Communist ideology dismissed the idea of truth as a bourgeois construct. What mattered was power; and you baptised as truth those doctrines which provided it.” Stalin defined truth as what he said it was.

The Soviets were such masters at it from an early stage that George Orwell declared that history stopped in 1936; after that there was only propaganda. So good were they at it that their methods and techniques were copied by other states and are still in play in the West, today. And they’re not just in what comes from the Trump administration: both are in play right here in Collingwood, alive and active this very week.

Yes, Collingwood has been subject to the sort of propaganda and deception that has its historic roots in Soviet propaganda.

Continue reading “EPCOR and The Block’s Big Lie”

Alectra says no: The Block screwed us again

ShameThe headline on the media release reads, “Alectra selling its shares in Collus PowerStream to Collingwood.” What it should add is that Collingwood residents and taxpayers were betrayed by members of their own council and administration. After a three-year campaign to screw us, The Block have won a major victory in abhorrent behaviour. They are privatizing our electrical utility and next year will do the same to our water/wastewater utility, to the same corporation.

Our publicly-owned utility will be sold to EPCOR, an out-of-province, for-profit corporation that pays a dividend to the city of Edmonton only, and that will raise our electricity rates as soon as they are allowed. Our utility will be privatized within a year, with no local control, no local representation, no local input. And it’s all been done to us behind closed doors.

What will Collingwood get from the sale? Basically nothing, once all the legal fees, consultant fees, taxes and kickbacks are paid. We will have lost everything just to satisfy some personal vendettas.

In fact, with the changes made to staff, to departments and the termination of the shared services agreement, and the skyrocketing legal and consulting costs approved by The Block and this administration, operating costs are already escalating. Your taxes will be raised significantly to pay for their vile acts.

It is a devastating blow to the hardworking staff in Collus-PowerStream. It will be devastating and extremely costly to residents once the deal is finalized. This is the lowest moment in our town’s history. It goes way beyond merely being unethical and immoral: it has the stench of corruption about it.

Continue reading “Alectra says no: The Block screwed us again”

Open vs secret at Collingwood Council part 2

ScamIn the previous part of this story, I provided dates of meetings and events in the terms of the previous council (on which I sat) and the current council. I documented how last term, the sale of one half the share of our electrical utility (Collus) was sold to the municipally-owned PowerStream (now Alectra) through a very well-documented, open and transparent process. I compared it to the secretive, deceptive process used by The Block on Collingwood Council, and the administration.

Last term, residents and stakeholders were engaged and informed. This term we have been ignored, avoided and lied to. Last term, there was a single in-camera meeting during the 18 month-long process, and that was to open sealed bids.

This term there have been at least 37 closed door meetings about the utility in three years to date, and perhaps more than 40. Last term, everything about the process and the public discussions was covered in the local media (even the number of proposals received was reported last term). This term, only the barest coverage exists, in part because the process has been so secretive that there has been little to report (this term even the number of bids received from the RFP has been kept secret).

Keep in mind, too that in July 11, 2016: Council voted 7-2 (The Block vs Mayor Cooper and Councillor Lloyd) to “explore” selling its share in Collus-PowerStream, even though by then they had already, secretly appointed a sole-sourced lawyer to oversee the share sale. At that meeting, Councillor Madigan disingenuously said, “I will assure you, no decisions have been made, we are just exploring our options with any interested parties.” He also said, “You can never be in control if you own 50% of anything,” then voted to sell 100% of the utility! Deputy Mayor Brian Saunderson said, “By bringing it out in the public, we’re just letting all parties know that we’re kicking the tires and seeing what’s available.” The hypocrisy and deception was – and remains – rampant among The Block.

In this post I will cover the final year for the process in both terms: 2012 compared to 2017. Since this is still ongoing, and likely will continue until the end of this term (Nov. 2018), I will report on the subsequent events in later posts. But even a to-date comparison shows clearly how much the public has been misled and deceived this term.

There were also public discussions about how to spend the money from the sale last term, and a meeting where public suggestions were invited and received. The council discussion about the sale money continued until mid-2013, when the final decision was made. I have listed those dates, below.

Alectra has recently rejected a demand from the town to buy the town’s share for $12.5 million. The Block’s plan to privatize all of it to a for-profit corporation (and next year to follow through by selling that same corporation our water and wastewater services) is in motion. Under their plan, all of the utility will be owned by an out-of-province company with no local representation, no local say, no transparency or accountability, no local control over services and rates. And all done with no public discussion or consultation.

This process has gone far beyond merely unethical. It has the stench of corruption about it. Secrecy always does. Sole-sourced lawyers and consultants were brought in at great expense to taxpayers to push a one-sided agenda. Public consultation was ignored. Requests from our own utility board and from our municipal partner to make public presentations were refused. Secret deals to pay money from taxpayer funds even if the sale doesn’t go through have been signed. The former interim CAO was retained as a “consultant” at taxpayer expense after he allegedly resigned – done at another closed-door meeting. At the very least, a judicial inquiry into the process should be held, but perhaps the OPP Rackets Squad should be called, too, to determine if public money has been legally and ethically used.

Continue reading “Open vs secret at Collingwood Council part 2”

In camera, closed door meetings in Collingwood, 2015-17

SecrecyUsing the agendas posted on the town’s website, I tallied up the number of Council’s in-camera meetings for three specific topics this term: Collus-PowerStream (including the share sale, shared services agreement, advice from Mark Rodger and board appointments); the hospital redevelopment, and the airport (including the request for a letter of intent and possible sale of the airport).

There are several other items listed for in camera discussion that may be related to one or more of these, but since I could not pair them with motions or later news items, and the listed descriptions were inadequate, I did not include them. I did include three closed-door meetings that I have good reason to believe were related to Collus-PowerStream (CPS) issues. These are council meetings only, and does not include any the standing committee meetings.

Of course, I cannot list any of the numerous one-on-one or small group meetings about these issues held in the interim CAO’s office, nor meetings between the town administration and CPS staff. Note that some of these were special council meetings called specifically to discuss the subject behind closed doors:

Airport: 14 meetings:
2015: Jan 5, Feb 2, Feb 17, Apr 7, May 4, Oct 19, Nov 16;
2016: Jan 4, Mar 21, July 11;
2017: July 17, Aug 21, Sep 11, Sep 25.

Hospital redevelopment: 4 meetings
2016: Apr. 11, Aug 8;
2017: Mar 4, Mar 27.

Collus-PowerStream: 37 meetings, plus three potential
2015: 9 definite, 2 possible (of a total 28 council meetings)
Mar 16? property disposition (agenda description is inadequate);
Mar 28? legal advice (agenda description is inadequate);
Apr 7 shared services;
May 19 shared services;
May 27 shared services;
June 15 shared services;
June 22 shared services;
Aug 4 shareholder’s interest, Collus PowerStream board applications;
Aug 24, board applications;
Sep 8, board applications;
Oct 5 Hydro shareholder update review and services.

Continue reading “In camera, closed door meetings in Collingwood, 2015-17”

Open vs secret at Collingwood Council

How two Collingwood councils handled the utility sale process very differently

SecrecyLast term, Collingwood Council went through a lengthy, open and public process to sell a portion of its electrical utility, Collus. That open process – with full discussion, community involvement, consultation and public input, and local media coverage – resulted in 50% of the utility being sold to PowerStream (an Ontario-based LDC owned by three municipalities, now merged with Alectra). The shared utility is now called Collus-PowerStream. It’s about to be sold to a private, for-profit corporation based in Alberta.

This term, our town has negotiated in secret to sell our public utility and everything has been done behind closed doors without ANY community input. Compare that to Wasaga Beach where this term’s council discussed the sale of their utility publicly many times, invited comments, conducted online and telephone surveys to get residents’ opinion, help public meetings, and in the end listened to public and chose not to sell.

Our current council has used an excessively secretive, deceptive process to avoid ALL public input so it can sell our remaining share in the utility to EPCOR. without ever once telling the public why it wanted to do so.

By comparing side by side the open process from last term and that used this term, you can see just how secretive this group has been. The closed process this term has led to several investigations, ruined reputations, bad faith, broken trust and open hostility this term (local media has not fully covered this story and the process). And make no mistake: this story is about the process, not about whether selling the utility is a good or bad decision.

But it’s not simply the sale: there has been considerable collateral damage this term, including the loss of several highly-respected and provincially decorated staff members, deteriorated staff morale,  and massive expenses incurred from council and administration interference. Not to mention we lost the golden opportunity to be part of and participate in the operation of Alectra, now Ontario’s second largest and most innovative electrical utility.

Because this is a long piece, I will publish it in two posts. Let’s start at the beginning with an overview. I’ll open in early 2011, in the middle of the previous term, and compare it to January, 2015, barely a month into the current term.

Continue reading “Open vs secret at Collingwood Council”

It’s about the process, stupid…

Be honestMy negative comments on the impending privatization of our electrical utility (and potentially our water utility once the first deal is sealed) drew some online criticism recently. None of those critics refuted any of the facts I offered, or attempted to debunk any of the numerous documents I quoted and linked to.

Nor could they. After all, they are easily proven, well-documented facts. But still, they called me a liar and attempted to use other cheap ad hominem tactics to discredit me.* However, regardless of their like or dislike of me, the facts remain, the facts speak for themselves. Facts matter; name-calling doesn’t.

It’s not about me. It’s not even about the decision to sell the utility. It’s about the process used to get to that point. And that means it’s also about the people who chose that process over an open and transparent one. Open and transparent is honest. Anything else isn’t. If you can defend such dishonesty, then we can’t have a reasonable discussion about the process.

We elect representatives to make our decisions for us. That’s what a democracy is all about. And for the most part, the public leaves those representatives alone to do their job. But when a major issue arises, such as the sale of a publicly-owned asset, those representatives are bound by both honour and ethics to both inform and consult the public. Neither of which have been done this term.

The process this term has been appallingly secretive and deceptive. We elected people whom we trusted to accomplish their job with consideration of the basic rules or ethics and morality. And they didn’t follow them. They betrayed the public trust and they continue to do so.

Continue reading “It’s about the process, stupid…”

The secrecy and deception behind Collingwood’s utility sale

Shady dealsMeetings held behind closed doors late into the night. Personal vendettas. Kickbacks. Conspiracy theories. Scams and phony reports. Backroom deals. Unethical politicians conniving. Dubious legality. Shady characters pulling strings from the shadows. Scheming. Minions acting like thugs. Cowardice. Hidden contracts. Lies and deception. A deal they can’t refuse. A financial shell game. The betrayal of public trust.

If that sounds like the ingredients for a crime novel, to me it reads like Collingwood Council’s secretive, unethical “process” to sell our public utilities. The public was betrayed by The Block. The process has a stench of corruption about it. And don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Monday night, The Block voted to sell our electrical utility; only the remaining two ethical and honourable members of council – Mayor Cooper and Councillor Lloyd – voted against the deal. And what a “deal” it is – crafted in secret, without any public consultation or input, and giving away the keys to the candy store to a for-profit buyer. It screws Collingwood. What little we know about it only illuminates the devious scheming that went on behind it. For example:

Other terms of the sale include a 25-year lease of the Collus PowerStream property and operations centre from the Town, job and location guarantees for Collus PowerStream employees, and a contribution of $150,000 towards the Waterfront Master Plan, one of the community’s biggest priorities, as identified in the Community Based Strategic Plan.

Since when does a utility sale become contingent on a “contribution” for an unrelated project like the waterfront? When you buy a car, do you have to “contribute” to the dealership’s coffee fund? Or to the salesman’s kid’s little league uniforms? Sure sounds like blackmail to me. And who signs a 25-year lease for anything, let alone an old, outdated building without any commitment by the owner to upgrade or maintain it?

And will the OEB permit a utility sale to be contingent on a 25-year lease? Or a kickback for the waterfront? My industry sources suggest not.

Council “offered” the share sale to its partner, Alectra simply because the shareholders’ agreement (USA) required it. Alectra already offered to buy it earlier this year (outside the RFP process; the amount undisclosed, but industry contacts suggest the offer was likely $10-11 million) but The Block turned them down. Without saying why, of course. But we know they were already in bed with EPCOR.

The latest price demanded by the town is highly inflated – it includes unrelated items to bump up the asking price by $2-3 million (or more) above the actual value. Why? Because The Block want the municipally-owned, Ontario-based Alectra to refuse so the town can buy it back and then sell the whole thing to the out-of-province, for-profit EPCOR:

If Alectra opts to buy the Town’s shares at the same price as EPCOR has offered, Alectra will become the sole owner of the utility. If Alectra opts to sell its shares, EPCOR will become the sole owner of the utility.

See? It’s already decided. EPCOR wins. The deal was made behind closed doors.

That’s a direct quote from the town’s own media release. This whole deal was connived in secret to sell it to EPCOR, without any public discussion, much less consultation. It’s very dirty; from my viewpoint, it’s negotiating in bad faith with our existing partner. If this isn’t corruption, then the definition has been changed since I was in office.

EPCOR will get $1 million even if Alectra buys it. That’s $1 million of YOUR money paid out as a kickback. Plus the town has agreed to pay a portion of EPCOR’s legal fees. Why? As the Connection reported, that was one of those sleazy backroom deals The Block cut:

If Alectra chooses to buy the town’s shares, $1 million would be transferred to EPCOR for their time during the process. Rodger said the town would pay a portion of the legal fees for the deal, as would the purchaser.

Continue reading “The secrecy and deception behind Collingwood’s utility sale”

Collus in purgatory

PurgatoryPurgatory is how a staff person described to me the current situation of our local electrical utility, Collus-PowerStream (CPS). It’s the result of The Block’s and the administration’s incessant interference, manipulations, contrivances and scheming over the past three years. And it was evident, Wednesday, at the meeting where CPS presented its draft Distribution System Plan, a strategic plan for future maintenance and growth.

They’re in purgatory because The Block have made the utility’s future uncertain. They cannot accurately craft business plans, strategic plans, cannot make any long-range plans for growth or sustainable development because they never know what new hurdle or attack The Block will throw at them. For three years CPS staff have weathered assaults on their revenue stream, their employees, their services, their morale, their partnership with both PowerStream and the town, their board, their integrity and their ownership. The Block have done everything in their power to make the lives and work of the employees hell. And they’ve been very effective at it. Some employees have had to take stress leave as a result of the bullying.

And now with The Block about to privatize our utility – without, of course any public discussion let along consultation – CPS is in a real quandary. The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) requires utilities to create and share with the public these system plans that reach five years into the future. But if you don’t know day-to-day what will happen with your ownership, your rates, your board, or your revenue, how can you create a realistic plan for tomorrow, let alone the future?

But CPS has to do it, and Wednesday’s presentation was part of that requirement. Which meant it, by necessity, was long on generalities but short on specifics (I believe they will be provided in subsequent public presentations). The invitation (sent to all members of council) read:

Collus PowerStream Corporation is pleased to present an overview of its draft Distribution System Plan (DSP) of planned investments in its electrical distribution infrastructure to service present and future customers from 2018 to the end of 2022. The investments are designed to provide timely value to customers by aligning reliability and service quality with customer expectations.
Customer and other stakeholder input over the years has influenced these planned investments. The draft DSP gives all stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment on it. Collus PowerStream welcomes feedback on the proposed investment plan to help Collus PowerStream maintain acceptable levels of service and ensure plan alignment with customer needs and expectations.
Collus PowerStream believes that feedback received on this consultation through two-way communication will further enhance existing relationships with our customers and other stakeholders, and help achieve positive value-added outcomes that support the Ontario Energy Board’s regulatory objectives for the electricity distribution sector.

Of nine members of council, only two had the courtesy to attend this important presentation: Councillors Edwards and Doherty.* The latter was there because she is the Blockhead on the CPS board, appointed in lieu of an actually qualified person (numerous applicants evidently proved too intimidating by their qualifications to appoint). Doherty is she of the “what’s a dividend?” comments.

The mayor and Councillor Lloyd were both out of town on previously arranged vacations. As for the rest – all of them members of The Block – what was their excuse for not attending? Disdain? Arrogance? Disrespect? Willful ignorance? Perhaps all of these. These attributes define The Block and have been expressed towards our utility and its staff (and our hospital) in the past.

It might have been their nap time, too (although at least one prefers to snooze during council meetings…). Or perhaps there were scared off by the very idea of public engagement and feedback – the bete noir that threatens their beloved culture of secrecy.

Am I being too harsh expecting our elected representatives to actually do the job we pay them for (and for which they’ve given themselves a pay raise THREE times already and are planning  fourth)? 

Continue reading “Collus in purgatory”

The secret costs of the EPCOR deal

Scheming BlockheadsWhether or not The Block sell our share of our public electrical utility to the for-profit, Edmonton-based EPCOR, it will still cost taxpayers millions. And I don’t mean just the rising costs of sole-sourced lawyers and buddy consultants the administration has hired (well over $1 million already, and the bills keep coming in). I’m talking about the hidden costs The Block won’t divulge because they don’t want taxpayers to realize how really bad a deal they’ve made with this devil.

And it all happens behind closed doors, Monday, Oct. 23, 2017. No public input allowed on the sale of our own utility. The Block intend to privatize our utility without informing the public of the costs or the consequences.

My industry sources tell me there are many costs associated with the sale that will be built into the selling price, but paid back to the buyer after the sale. In other words: it’s a shell game. We taxpayers will pay the buyer’s costs and their fees, but these will be hidden in the contract, which will be kept secret, so you won’t know what they really are. Sneaky and underhanded – The Block’s way.

Let’s start with the transfer tax: the Ministry of Finance applies a 22% tax to sales made to out-of-province buyers. So if the sale of the town’s share is $8 million as it was in 2012, the MoF will demand a $1.76 million transfer fee. But the buyer will probably offer more, an inflated value of, say, $10 or even $12 million, and the town will repay the buyer the tax from the total. So the town doesn’t actually get the extra cash: that pays the buyer’s taxes. Did I mention the shell game?

Then there’s the “break fee” or termination fee we will pay even if the deal falls through. This happened to Innisfil when its council decided not to sell InnPower to EPCOR (as I recall from media stories, the amount was $1.2 million, but I may be incorrect). Wikipedia tells us this is:

… a penalty set in takeover agreements, to be paid if the target backs out of a deal (usually because it has decided instead to accept a more attractive offer). The breakup fee is ostensibly to compensate the original acquirer for the cost of the time and resources expended in negotiating the original agreement. A breakup fee also serves to inhibit competing bids, since such bids would have to cover the cost of the breakup fee as well.

Which my industry sources tell me has already been agreed upon – in secret of course – by The Block and the town administration. We’ll pay it even if we decide not to sell. How much will it cost us? It really depends on what sort of slimy deal The Block cut, but again my industry sources suggest it will be between 8% and 13% of the offer.

Continue reading “The secret costs of the EPCOR deal”

The Block’s worst abuse of power yet

Abuse of powerI warned you. I warned you The Block would blame others for their own evil acts, that they would scheme and connive to sell your assets behind closed doors, and they would find a way to keep the much-disliked interim CAO on, no matter what the cost to taxpayers. I warned you they would lie, scheme in secret, and behave unethically in order to get their own way. 

And I was right. They did it all, Monday night, behind closed doors.

This week, the town issued a media release that can only be described as the most flagrantly disingenuous statement this municipality has ever made. It says:

In order to ensure the process carries on uninterrupted, Council voted to direct the municipality’s legal counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, and CAO John Brown to continue negotiations with EPCOR and prepare the required draft agreements.

The Block intend to keep paying the sole-sourced lawyer (who, I understand, has already billed the town around $500,000) and its unpopular interim CAO (whose salary is higher than that of the premier of Ontario!) in order to continue the vendetta against our publicly-owned utility, Collus-PowerStream.

These are the same people who not long ago promised they were only “kicking tires” and would get public input before they made any decisions. They lied.

Continue reading “The Block’s worst abuse of power yet”

Betrayal by the Block, again

Betrayal of the public trustMonday night, The Block will engage in their favourite political activity: betraying the public trust. In fact, it’s the only political activity they’ve engaged in this term, in which the public has been concerned. Everything else they’ve done has been to further their own personal agendas or entitlement. But Monday, they’re doing it up in style. And, of course, in secret.

At the council meeting, Monday, there is what promises to be a lengthy in-camera session:

Items for Discussion: a) Hydro Share Sale; b) Committee/Board Applications; c) Sale of 70 Huron Street property; d) Proposed Land Acquisition; e) Airport Lands f) BMA Report

During this closed-door session, council will get a presentation from its sole-sourced, $700-an-hour lawyer, and from the for-profit, out-of-province corporation EPCOR, with which the town is negotiating to buy the public’s share of our electrical utility. And I expect The Block will vote to sell the utility to EPCOR, knowing full well it will end any pretense of accountability with the utility and will result in skyrocketing electrical bills in the very near future. EPCOR will have a clause in its contract GUARANTEEING them a profit. And if you conserve electricity as you should, and the usage goes down, they will be able to raise rates to get their money and the town will be forced to pay the difference (via your tax dollars). All done behind closed doors.

The Block have never discussed in public why they want to sell the utility, what the town will get for it, what the benefits are to the residents, why they chose EPCOR instead of our partner PowerStream, or whether local people will still continue to have jobs after the sale. Nor do we know whether any of them, any staff members, or any of the sole-sourced lawyers and consultants involved will get a commission or any other kickback from the sale. The Block have never once reached out to the council of the 4,000-plus Collus-PowerStream customers outside Collingwood, to even inform them of the sale.

We, the public, deserve to know. It’s OUR utility. But The Block don’t give a damn about what we think. They’ve proven that over and over and over.

Compare Collingwood’s secretive, highly deceptive and unethical process with that of Wasaga Beach. The Beach council recently decided to investigate selling its electrical utility and went through a lengthy process of open public meetings, online surveys, public engagement and presentations. But then, Wasaga Beach has an ethical council – that’s the difference. Not once in the past two-and-a-half years has this council done any of that. And the local media, in collusion with The Block, have remained silent on this abuse of power.
Continue reading “Betrayal by the Block, again”

What will the secret EPCOR negotiations cost us?

Shady dealsI was reading about the failed attempt by EPCOR – an Edmonton-based, for-profit corporation – to purchase half of Innisfil’s Power utility (InnPower) last year. Back in Sept., 2015, there was a story in the
Barrie Examiner that noted:

INNISFIL — Town council has approved the sale of 50% of InnPower (formerly Innisfil Hydro) to Edmonton-based EPCOR to create a new ‘strategic partnership’.

At a public meeting to discuss the sale (remember public meetings and public engagement? Those are processes you got last term… this term it’s all about secrecy), PowerStream’s CEO, Brian Bentz commented on

…the “exclusivity clause” in the EPCOR offer, which precludes consideration of other deals for a period of six months…

EPCOR, you may recall, is currently trying to buy the town’s half of Collus-PowerStream. The administration has been negotiating behind closed doors with EPCOR for the better part of a year. Earlier this year, the administration signed a deal to start the buying process. Is there a similar clause in the agreement with Collingwood?

In Innisfil, the public was given a chance to openly comment on the proposal (an event unlikely to happen here in Secretive Collingwood under The Block). Former Innisfil mayor Barb Baguley spoke out about the process (Barrie Examiner):

During the open forum portion of Tuesday night’s meeting, former Innisfil mayor Barb Baguley took exception to the town even considering such a partnership for water and wastewater services and questioned why residents weren’t better informed about the potential partnership discussions.
“The issue of selling any part of it is something I’m really concerned about,” she said. “My question is, if you are going to sell the safety of water and the protection of Lake Simcoe with wastewater treatment, shouldn’t we be talking about that? Shouldn’t we be having a conversation with the public?
“I’m not sure if it’s good or bad. There’s not enough information for people to make a somewhat educated opinion,” she added. “It had not come out that clearly…”
“I don’t think we have to know every paragraph in a contract. We need to know the intention and why we need to do this,” she said. “I’m not saying I’m for or against (a water and wastewater services partnership). I’m saying I don’t understand.

At least the residents in Innisfil were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Nothing like that has happened in Collingwood, although the discussions here have been going on behind closed doors since January 2015.

And look the whole public engagement Wasaga Beach has gone through over the sale of its utility this term: open, active and transparent. The complete opposite of what Collingwood has done.

Continue reading “What will the secret EPCOR negotiations cost us?”

We were lied to. Again.

DeceitOn Monday, the Block chose a new representative for the town’s half of the Collus-PowerStream board. They advertised the position in the local media and accepted applications from several qualified local residents. They made it look like they were actually going to follow the proper and legal process for the first time. They went in camera to discuss the applications. And who did they appoint when they came out?

Councillor Deb “What’s a dividend?” Doherty. Yes, the same councillor who complained about not getting a dividend from the utility after she and her colleagues gutted the utility and killed its revenue stream. The same councillor who complained that in the 50% board partnership in which each side has the same number of votes, the other side “holds all the cards,” sets the rules and controlled the purse strings. The same councillor who has NEVER once this term gone to the utility to speak to its staff or find out their side of the story the administration has been spinning.

That’s right: The Block chose one of their own, and arguably the least qualified person among them to hold that position.

What a slap in the face to all those applicants who put their names forward, thinking The Block would act in good faith. Wouldn’t that have been a pleasant change? But of course they didn’t.

They blatantly ignored the public applications. They intended to do so all along. The whole public application thing was a lie. A despicable act of deception.

This is so unethical, so outright underhanded and sneaky it beggars further description.

Continue reading “We were lied to. Again.”

Collus-PowerStream responds about dividend

No dividendOn the April 24 council agenda is an addendum that includes the response from Collus-PowerStream about The Block’s questions over the lack of a dividend from the utility. I wrote about this last month in Dividends for Dummies. I’m glad to see what I wrote then has been proven correct.

The original letter from CPS back in February, stated, “The Board decision was based on the Dividend Policy of the Corporation including consideration of an appropriate capital structure and working capital levels required to continue to operate as a viable business.” Clearly none of The Block had the slightest clue what a dividend is (they aren’t a very bright lot, financially speaking), so they demanded instead a letter explaining why they didn’t get one. Hence my post Dividends for Dummies.

Before you read on, let me remind you that The Block fired its original appointees to the utility board because those appointees wouldn’t act in an unethical manner and divulge confidential, personal information about staff that is protected under Ontario’s Corporations Act. The administration and The Block had a hissy fit that they couldn’t get their way. In a tantrum, they fired the board. Illegally, of course.

The Block illegally replaced these three people with three members of the town’s administration (the interim CAO, the clerk and the treasurer – none of whom had any experience in the electricity sector). When the Ontario Energy Board slapped the town’s wrist for this unethical act, The Block removed the interim CAO and the treasurer and replaced them with two out-of-town lawyers (one from Ottawa, the other from the GTA, both recommended by the lawyer the town sole-sourced to oversee the share sale – anyone see a conflict here?).

So now all of the three town appointees live out of town, and there is no representation from anyone local who is a Collus-PowerStream customer. The whole process violated the town’s own bylaws and policies for board and committee appointments, but The Block and the administration hid behind the very Corporations Act they vilified earlier and claimed it gave them the right to break their own laws. Ain’t hypocrisy grand?

One of these later appointees is the town clerk who sits at the table every council meeting. During the whole Block bluster and blather at the table about the non-payment of a share dividend, NONE of them thought to simply turn their head and ask the clerk about it. None of them asked the board member sitting beside them. None of them were bright enough to figure out that at least one of their own appointees voted not to provide a dividend.

The town got the CPS response on April 7. It lists five points and explains in detail how and why dividends are calculated. I know what you’re thinking: it’s too much information for the Blockheads to digest. And I agree. I doubt one of them will get it even with this fulsome explanation. But you, dear reader, are smart enough to understand it, so read it now. Keep in mind while you do so that every board decision requires at least four of the six members to agree. At least one of Collingwood’s three appointees voted in favour of withholding the dividend.

You know how unlikely it is that most of The Block will actually read the whole letter from start to finish. They hate reading, hate learning things that contradict their alt-fact ideology. They had their minds made up about it before it arrived. They they will misrepresent it at the table and play the blame game. Just watch.
Continue reading “Collus-PowerStream responds about dividend”

Dividends for dummies

DividendsA dividend, as defined by the Business Dictionary, is “A share of the after-tax profit of a company, distributed to its shareholders…” This is reiterated in the description from the Oxford Dictionary: “A sum of money paid regularly (typically annually) by a company to its shareholders out of its profits (or reserves).”

So in order to pay a dividend, you need to make a profit. Otherwise all your revenue goes to operating expenses, salaries and taxes. And a dividend isn’t paid to just one person or shareholder: if one shareholder gets one, then every shareholder gets one. Dividends are NOT automatic, are NOT paycheques.

Now say you were a shareholder, and you stripped the revenue stream away from a company you own shares in, and in doing so, you reduced its profit to zero, and say you also caused it greater expenses – say by forcing it to pay more for legal advice or transportation and accommodations for out-of-town shareholders – would you still expect a dividend?

Common sense tells us no. No profit: no dividend.* But common sense is an uncommon attribute at our council table.

On March 13’s agenda, there was a letter from Collus-PowerStream saying the board had decided not to pay a dividend for 2015, and would decide about 2016 after it examined the company’s audited financial statements. (on the Rogers TV broadcast, it starts at 0:18:13, just after the lengthy, self-serving “community” announcements… go past Councillor “Sleepy” Ecclestone’s painful “moved by myself” grammatical error to 0:22:22).

This, course, sent The Block into a tizzy. At 0:22:37 Sleepy again does another “moved by myself” gaffe to introduce a motion to request “an explanation of why the board has chose (sic) not to declare a dividend…” and to “express our concern and disappointment.”
Continue reading “Dividends for dummies”