Two Sun­shine List salaries not bet­ter than one

North Bay Nugget - - OPINION -

to the ed­i­tor” on Fri­day, sept. 1, just prior to a long week­end, north bay hy­dro chose to re­lease news that there will be a new Coo at the helm.

based on that tim­ing, it ap­pears to have wanted to keep this changeover and its de­tails a se­cret from as many peo­ple as it could. there have been no de­tails com­ing from coun­cil meet­ings that this was in the works or any in­di­ca­tion that this was dis­cussed with coun­cil mem­bers who are the di­rec­tors of bay hy­dro hold­ings, the par­ent com­pany of north bay hy­dro.

It ap­pears as if a ma­jor man­age­ment change af­fect­ing a com­pany owned by tax­pay­ers was put to­gether by the man­age­ment of north bay hy­dro and a few ap­pointed di­rec­tors with­out in­put from any elected tax­pay­ers’ rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

this po­si­tion is the high­est paid po­si­tion at hy­dro and prob­a­bly the high­est paid in the city. I say prob­a­bly be­cause tax­pay­ers are kept in the dark about sun­shine List salaries at north bay hy­dro.

the most breath­tak­ing state­ment made in the ar­ti­cle was that of board chair­man John Krieg, who opined that “our mo­ti­vated, tal­ented and ded­i­cated staff has in­creased the value of north bay hy­dro and its net worth po­si­tion for the share­holder.”

this state­ment is in­cor­rect since it is the oeb, not the em­ploy­ees, who have ap­proved the in­flated de­liv­ery prices that in­crease hy­dro’s net worth on a yearly ba­sis and ex­tremely dis­cour­ag­ing be­cause it il­lus­trates the cul­ture that pre­sumes, in­cor­rectly, that the man­date of north bay hy­dro is to fat­ten the com­pany bal­ance sheet at cus­tomers’ ex­pense.

the over­rid­ing man­date of north bay hy­dro is to de­liver elec­tric­ity to cit­i­zens in the most ef­fi­cient man­ner at the low­est pos­si­ble cost. the cit­i­zens of north bay are the only cus­tomers that hy­dro has and they are also its own­ers and ben­e­fi­cial share­hold­ers. any in­crease in the value of north bay hy­dro can only be re­al­ized by tak­ing money out of cus­tomers’ pock­ets.

What mr. Krieg is sug­gest­ing is that tax­pay­ers giv­ing money to north bay hy­dro will, by some type of flawed logic, be a ben­e­fit to tax­pay­ers as own­ers. not only is it not a ben­e­fit but there is a net loss to share­hold­ers/cus­tomers, since taxes must be paid as th­ese funds pass from our pock­ets to hy­dro cof­fers.

north bay hy­dro does not pro­duce a profit. north bay hy­dro pro­duces a tax­able in­come which has cost tax­pay­ers mil­lions of dol­lars in taxes over the past 15 years.

the ar­ti­cle in­di­cated that todd Wil­cox, who is cur­rently pres­i­dent of both north bay hy­dro and north bay hy­dro ser­vices, will now be em­ployed solely as pres­i­dent of north bay hy­dro ser­vices for an­other year.

the ef­fect, of course, is in­stead of pay­ing one sun­shine List salary, there will now be two sun­shine List salaries with zero ben­e­fit to tax­pay­ers. this sounds sus­pi­ciously like the golden hand­shake the city gave its pre­vi­ous Cao.

mu­nic­i­pal elec­tions are com­ing soon; vot­ers would do well to re­mem­ber th­ese types of be­hind-the-scene agree­ments be­ing fi­nal­ized with ap­par­ently no in­put from own­ers. D. D. Ren­nick North Bay Tax­pay­ers’ As­so­ci­a­tion

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.