|
I'm feeling seriously ripped off and here's why.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| b4k-oz |
I feel seriously ripped to shreds from all this news. It feels hopeless in Canada. Read these 2 articles and tell me how you feel.
Head of eHealth Ontario to receive $317K after being removed amid scandal
Sun Jun 7, 5:32 PM
What's this By Maria Babbage, The Canadian Press
TORONTO - EHealth Ontario's top executive will receive nearly $317,000 in compensation after being removed from her position amid a scandal over $5 million in untendered contracts and questionable spending, sources confirmed Sunday.
Sarah Kramer, whose appointment as president and CEO of the agency was revoked Sunday, will receive the equivalent of 10 months' salary under an agreement reached with eHealth's board, the sources said.
That's less than what she was entitled to under her contract, which would have included 15 months' severance, an unspecified bonus and benefits, they said.
Health Minister David Caplan defended the compensation package Sunday as a necessary step to avoid any legal entanglements.
When former Hydro One CEO Eleanor Clitheroe was fired in 2002 amid allegations of lavish spending, she launched a $30-million lawsuit against the province, he pointed out.
"I can understand the difficulty in addressing it, but I think what I'm focused on is ensuring that we do get the corporation moving, get the momentum back on delivering the eHealth products and the infrastructure that are going to be important to transforming health care," he said.
Both Caplan and Kramer have been dogged for weeks over questionable spending at eHealth, which included allowing consultants who were paid up to $2,700 a day to bill taxpayers extra for minor purchases like tea and snacks.
Opposition parties have repeatedly called for Caplan and Kramer's resignations, accusing Kramer and eHealth board chairman Alan Hudson of giving Liberal-friendly firms lucrative contracts without taking competitive bids.
One consulting firm that received an untendered contract charged eHealth for such tasks as reading newspaper articles, reviewing voicemail messages and talking shop during a subway ride.
Outrage grew after it was discovered that Kramer was paid a $114,000 bonus on top of her $380,000 salary after just a few months on the job.
Caplan at first defended the bonus, saying it's what Kramer would have received at her previous job at Cancer Care Ontario. But he quickly changed his tune after the provincial agency said Kramer's bonus would have been about $40,000 had she stayed.
Kramer and the eHealth board came to a "mutual agreement" over the weekend that she would leave the organization - an important step toward restoring public confidence in the agency, Caplan said Sunday.
"Valid questions" have been raised about eHealth, which has led to "distraction and uncertainty," he added.
"The uncertainty has threatened to delay important projects and put taxpayer dollars at risk of delivering poor results. So I think that is why the board - and I fully concur - that a leadership change is needed at this time."
But the province's opposition parties say it's too little, too late.
Caplan "fumbled the ball" on eHealth and should be fired, said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.
"We're glad she's gone," she said. "It took far too long to see the back of Ms. Kramer."
But awarding her a generous compensation package just adds insult to injury for taxpayers who've seen millions of dollars squandered in tough economic times, Howarth added.
"It's very apparent that she was removed for a reason, and I think that people will be outraged if they see yet another golden handshake," she said.
Progressive Conservative and former health minister Elizabeth Witmer also renewed her call for Caplan's resignation, saying Kramer's departure isn't enough to restore public confidence in the Ministry of Health.
The public is already seething over Kramer's $114,000 bonus, which is more than many even imagine earning in a year, she said.
"There has been misuse and abuse of public money - the minister refused to acknowledge that this was inappropriate," she said.
"Now that she's going to receive a severance, they will be further outraged to see their hard-earned dollars going to anybody who has been involved in this type of flagrant abuse of taxpayer money."
The board recommended late Saturday that Kramer be removed - a decision Caplan said he was not involved in.
"Both the board and Ms. Kramer feel that a change in leadership is required to restore public confidence in the organization's ability to move our important mandate forward," Hudson said in a letter to Caplan.
"Therefore, Ms. Kramer has decided to leave the organization."
Deputy Health Minister Ron Sapsford will be the temporary CEO of eHealth, which was set up last fall.
EHealth was established after the first provincial agency tasked with creating electronic health records, Smart Systems for Health, spent about $650 million but failed to produce anything of value before it was quietly shut down.
Ontario's auditor general is looking into eHealth and is expected to report back to the government on his findings as early as the fall.
MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits
Ugh...I feel sick after readying this. |
|
|
| d-form |
Why? She got less than her contract entitled her to. If anything we got a deal. Sounds like she didn't even do anything wrong as most of the contracts were awarded before she even got there.
The bonus she gave herself was a little suspect. How she was able to approve her own bonus is beyond me. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-form
Why? She got less than her contract entitled her to. If anything we got a deal. Sounds like she didn't even do anything wrong as most of the contracts were awarded before she even got there.
The bonus she gave herself was a little suspect. How she was able to approve her own bonus is beyond me. |
Lack of governance in government I guess? Regular CEOs have their salaries approved by the board.
Playing at the top of any organization, public or private, has its risks along with the responsibilities. Golden parachutes are part of almost every exec contract. If you're not willing to offer one, don't expect to be able to attract people to lead your organization. Plain and simple. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Another Liberal boondoggle a la adscam.
She should get the bonus as prescribed in her contract. Who ever approved the contract should be fired and possibly investigated. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-form
The bonus she gave herself was a little suspect. How she was able to approve her own bonus is beyond me. |
She gave herself the bonus???
If this is legal then its time to seriously change the protocol in the public sector. If not, she should be charged with fraud |
|
|
| d-form |
it would be nice if she'd explain what she had accomplished after 5 months on the job that deserved a 30% bonus. Does that mean if she had waited a full year she could award herself a 100% bonus? but bonuses and severance packages will always seem outrageous to us common folk. instead of bitching about it i'd rather do something to put myself in line for a similar package. :)
to me it was more outrageous to read of the consultant billing $2750 per day and then expensing his tea and biscuit on top of that. what a douche! if i'm making $2750 a day i'm not taking the time to expense tea and cookies. given that his time is worth about $350/hr the 20 mins it probly took to do his expense report means that $3 expense really cost over $100. |
|
|
| Skipper |
You'd REALLY feel ripped off if you were a Chesapeake shareholder, or a teacher:
From today's ROB:
| quote: |
One of Canada's largest pension funds is leading the charge in an escalating battle against the board of U.S. gas giant Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK-N22.92-0.36-1.55%) , which is accused of paying a $75-million (U.S.) bonus to its chief executive officer last year to help bail him out following enormous margin calls on his personal investments.
The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan has taken the lead role in a multi-shareholder legal action filed against the company in Oklahoma court, arguing the compensation and governance problems at the company are too serious for investors to ignore. Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon earned $112.5-million from Chesapeake last year, making him the highest-paid CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 index company for the year.
Wayne Kozun, Teachers' senior vice-president of public equities, said Monday the Toronto-based pension fund has a stake in Chesapeake worth about $35-million, and is angered that the company's board negotiated a new and far more lucrative employment agreement with Mr. McClendon just two months after he was forced to sell 31 million shares of Chesapeake to cover his personal margin loans.
“We think that this is such an egregious case of poor corporate governance that someone has to stand up for what's right,” Mr. Kozun said in an interview.
The legal action alleges Mr. McClendon monetized almost his whole position in Chesapeake stock – worth $2-billion at its peak last year – and used the shares as collateral for “hundreds of millions, if not billions, of personal loans.” Last fall, as the company's shares were plunging from a high of $74 each last July to an eventual low of $9.84 in December, Mr. McClendon faced three margin loan calls, and was forced to sell 94 per cent of his shares, or nearly 6 per cent of the company, worth more than $640-million.
Shareholders allege the board then agreed to renegotiate Mr. McClendon's employment contract to help him “dig himself out of his financial hole.” The new contract included a “staggering” $75-million bonus for 2008, the legal action says, compared to a $1.83-million bonus in 2007 when the company had performed far better. Shareholders are also angered that Chesapeake agreed to buy $12.1-million of historical maps from Mr. McClendon's personal collection last year.
“What has happened here is simply a bailout of the company's CEO who had borrowed money against his shares,” Mr. Kozun said. “He was in the first year of a five-year employment contract, and this came along and they totally rewrote the contract.”
Mr. McClendon co-founded Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake in 1989, building it into the largest U.S. independent gas producer with a current market value of $14-billion.
The legal action, which was filed May 20 but only disclosed publicly Monday, is known as a derivative action, which means shareholders are suing on behalf of the corporation itself. It asks the court to require Mr. McClendon to pay back his compensation from last year and cancel his new employment agreement with the company.
Teachers is taking the lead in the case, but five other public funds have also agreed to work on the case, including the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System, the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System and the New Orleans Employees Retirement System.
A Chesapeake spokesman said Monday the company had no comment on the Teachers legal action, but pointed to several recent filings by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In one document, the company's general counsel, Henry Hood, said the bonus payment was intended to reward Mr. McClendon for completing four major deals last year, and includes a commitment on his part that he will not leave the company for at least five years.
Chesapeake said Mr. McClendon will invest the money he received in a special participation program that allows him to personally co-invest in the company's well drilling projects.
“The board tailored a specific award that aligned Aubrey's interests with the company and put him at risk if the company drilled poor wells,” Mr. Hood said.
However, shareholders have dismissed the explanations in their recent legal action, alleging the payment was neither a reward for performance nor an incentive for the future, arguing directors were only motivated to help Mr. McClendon after the forced liquidation of his shares.
In addition to the legal case, Teachers said Monday it also plans to withhold its votes for “conflicted” directors on the board at Chesapeake's annual meeting on Friday, and says it will vote in favour of two shareholder proposals this year.
One proposal calls on the company adopt a practice known as “majority voting” so that any directors who do not receive a majority of “for” votes will be required to tender their resignations. Another proposal is a call to change the director voting system to require that all directors be elected annually instead of staggered over a three-year period.
|
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| As dirty as this is at least its not government money that was used in this case. Maybe the pension fund shouldnt be taking such high risks with pension money? |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
As dirty as this is at least its not government money that was used in this case. Maybe the pension fund shouldnt be taking such high risks with pension money? |
High risks? A large cap US energy company is not a high risk investment compared to some of teacher's other holdings. It's just an example of poor corporate governance, plain and simple.
My point is that $317K is nothing to cry about.
I'm surprised you wouldn't consider a teachers' investment government money. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
High risks? A large cap US energy company is not a high risk investment compared to some of teacher's other holdings. It's just an example of poor corporate governance, plain and simple.
My point is that $317K is nothing to cry about.
I'm surprised you wouldn't consider a teachers' investment government money. |
Any investment in stocks is a high risk. I dont consider the payout he got to be government money like ehealth was. Pension money is government money. Thats why i think its time to reconsider how this money is used as there is risk involved in how they are using it. Government bonds are the most secure way to invest cash for example.
317K is something to cry about. Considering how the government freaked out on me a few years ago over 5 grand i shouldnt have had to pay them i think 317 G is worth looking into when part of it is my money.
The company on the other hand is accountable to the shareholders and thats it (unless there is something illegal going on). And i dont like how we are forced shareholders through government investment in companies like this |
|
|
| Sentinal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
She gave herself the bonus???
If this is legal then its time to seriously change the protocol in the public sector. If not, she should be charged with fraud |
The opposition is looking at pointing some blame to the Minister of Health, but as per Dalton politics, they are being completely stonewalled. There needs to be more solid opposition to this liberal party in Ontario or this will continue to happen. That can be Tory, NDP, whatever, but nothing will change at least until the next election when hopefully Ontario will wake the up!!!! |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-form
to me it was more outrageous to read of the consultant billing $2750 per day and then expensing his tea and biscuit on top of that. what a douche! if i'm making $2750 a day i'm not taking the time to expense tea and cookies. given that his time is worth about $350/hr the 20 mins it probly took to do his expense report means that $3 expense really cost over $100. |
umm, that's how much consultants make. the bulk goes to the consulting company and they have to expense all the extras. |
|
|
|
|
