Well now that's a fine idea! Let's get the experts in here and maybe they can set us straight. It is possible that we're worrying ourselves for nothing and that these investment strategies are making the members a pile!
Will the trustees take MFD up on its fair-minded offer? What do you all think? What are your predictions?
A scary proposal for CCWIPP trustees?
A scary proposal for CCWIPP trustees?
It's Halloween at MFD and as always we're busy raising hell, scaring business unionists and waking complacent labor movement types out of their sound slumber. Last year on this date, we featured an article that explored various issues connected with UFCW Canada's Canadian Commerical Workers Industry Pension Plan and its investments in the accommodation industry. Titled - in the spirit of the season - Haunted Houses of Labour, the article raised questions about the prudence of this kind of investing, the relationships that it's creating between union leaders and the business community and among union leaders themselves and asked "Whose interests are being served?"
A whole year has passed and the subject of union members' pensions is appearing on our radar screen more and more frequently. The involvement of top US labor leaders in the ULLICO-Global Crossing scandal and the US Department of Labor's recent lawsuit against trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund underscore why union members need to understand what's happening with their money.
In MFD forum this past week, there has been considerable discussion about the CCWIPP's investments in businesses in Canada and in exotic places. Are these significant investments of union members' pension money a strategy that's leading edge or bleeding edge? We're making it our mission to find out.
We recently got our busy hands on a copy of the financial statement that CCWIPP filed with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario for 2001. We're going to post it in the very near future for analysis and discussion.
We've invited CCWIPP trustees to join us in MFD forum to respond to questions and shed a some light on how these investments work and how they benefit the plan's members. We think this would be especially beneficial for CCWIPP members and informative for working people in general.
Will the CCWIPP trustees dare enter MFD forum? We shall see…
What do I think? I think all the CCWIPP guys are pulling all the blinds and closing all the shutters.
(ed=removed irritating halloween gifs)
Someone else try and send an email to this address:
ccwipp_at_pbas-toronto@mail.pbas.ca and let me know what you get in return.
It's the only one listed on the CCWIPP site and I keep getting "message undelivered" errors in response.
Here's the CCWIPP financial statements:
It's a two-parter, heavy download,
http://www.ufcw.net/files/pdf/ccwipp-financials-12-31-01.pdf
http://www.ufcw.net/files/pdf/ccwipp-financials-supplement-12-31-01.pdf
The CCWIPP financial statement reports Benchmark Decision Ltd receiving consulting fee payments for 2001 of $773,998.
The report also lists Benchmark Decisions Inc as an employer contributor for 2001 $10,494.
Isn't it against the rules (law) for these funds to do business with a contributor? Is that a conflict of interest or does the Inc. and Ltd. take care of that little problem? 
In 2000 and 2001 combined, CCWIPP paid close to $8 million to Prudent Benefits Administration Services Inc. (PBAS) and its wholly owned subsidiary Benchmark Decisions Ltd. CCWIPP reports that it owns 30% of PBAS. The big quesion is who owns the other 70%.
PBAS shows up as an employer/contributor. PBAS employees are UFCW members represented accross Canada by UFCW Local 1977. That in itself is odd because Local 1977 is not considered a union outside of Ontario.
However, if you look closely, you'll see all sorts of links between companies.
World Heart Corporation ($4 million) is linked to the Terrace Corporation ($17 million). You'd shake and shudder if you knew what World Heart is worth today.
CCWIPP reports that it owns 30% of Sea King Fisheries for an investment of just under $5 million. However, a 1998 media release by Brian Tobin reports that "RHK Capital Inc. will invest $1.5 million to initiate the renovations for the shellfish operation in exchange for a 50 per cent interest in Sea King Fisheries. Did RHK get a substantial chunk for much less than CCWIPP?
Dynamic Venture Opportunities Fund Ltd. is registered as a labour sponsored investment fund corporation under the Ontario Small Business Investment Funds Act (Ontario).
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Canadian Region, is one of the sponsors of the fund.
Mike Fraser's uncle Clifford Evans is Chairman of the fund, and Clifford is also the Investment Committee Chair for CCWIPP.
CCWIPP invested close to $58 million with Goodman & Company Investment counsel. Both Dundee Mutual Funds and Goodman & Company, Investment Counsel are divisions of Dundee Investment Management & Research Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dundee Bancorp Inc., an investment management firm. They are the same people who run Dynamic Mutual Funds of which Cliff Evans is the Chairman. If the money went to Dynamic, would that be a conflict of interest for Evans or the CCWIPP Investment Committee?
PRK (Propco Ron Kelly) Holdings Ltd. has over $130 million of CCWIPP money in some Bahamas properties and perhaps a Haliburton golf course. Even though CCWIPP has some direct control over the owners, all the companies involved report neither a loss nor a gain on the loan amounts. The auditors claim that because some entries deal with private companies, that accurate valuations are not possible to get. In an instance where Propcos are in so deep, that is odd. In one instance what started out as a $10 million loan ballooned into a $70 million loan.
What about the UFCW represented MGI Meat Packers Inc. The CCWIPP financials show the loan value at $5 million even though MGI went bankrupt in 2001 with only about $600 thousand in assets.
There's more, but maybe the CCWIPP Trustees like Safeway's, George Weston's and A&P's can comment on some of these deals.
Maybe the trusty Trustees can hip us to the jive about the following:
The financial statement reports that over $91 million was contributed to the fund in 2001. Even so, the fund wound up with over $2 million less net assets available for benefits by the end of the year.
Does that mean that at least $93 million went down the drain in 2001?
I say at least because the near $5 million loss from MGI doesn't seem to show on the 2001 accounts. Neither does the actual value of the Bahamas hotels show up on the statements.
Do the trusty Trustees know whether the golf course at the South Ocean Golf and Resort has been reclaimed by the leasor? If it has wouldn't that drastically affect the worth of that property?
I'm sure that if the FSCO comes to each of them and asks some very pointed questions about investments, each of the Trustees will be able to give detailed accounts of what was invested and under what terms. Gee, if they couldn't then they might not have acted as prudent investors.
Maybe Safeway's Gord Cannady or George Weston's Lucy Paglione can tell us who owns Land Securities Corporation. We are advised that it not the same outfit as the famous Land Securities PLC of Great Britain. What is the company that CCWIPP sunk over $27 million into all about? Yup, we want to know who owns it and who has a financial stake in the company.
Why, if Land Securities Corporation owns nine residential building lots in Ladysmith BC (just south of Nanaimo Vancouver Island), would CCWIPP through one of its I.F. Propcos petition the Ladysmith City Council to waive a penalty for late payment of taxes? Minutes from the Ladysmith Council Meeting report that they told Propco 4 to hit the road:
quote:
That the request from I.F. Propco Holdings (B.C.) 4 Ltd. to waive the penalty for late payment of property taxes for 9 lots at 245 Oyster Cove be not approved.
I thought Propcos were money lenders, not real estate managers.
Here's a great article in today's National Post Business Magazine it's called Tricks of the Trade.
quote:
WARNING SIGNS HOW CAN YOU TELL IF A COMPANY IS BEING STRAIGHT WITH ITS NUMBERS? HERE ARE FOUR QUESTIONS EVERY INVESTOR NEEDS TO ASK
In unguarded moments, accountants concede that the average shareholder who picks up an annual report is a naïf who is about to be led down the garden path. What scarcely needs adding is that things investors don't understand will hurt them -- since many companies bend accounting rules and, in rare cases, indulge in outright fraud to create the illusion of false profits. How can you tell if you're being hoodwinked? While some bookkeeping tricks are so sophisticated you'd need a CA to spot them, there are a few basic questions anyone should ask about a company and the way it does its books. And if the answers aren't satisfactory, look out.
1. Do you understand what the company does?
The legendary investor Warren Buffett thinks comprehensibility is one of the essential elements in deciding to buy a company's stock. The same should be true of accounting presentation, says Patricia O'Brien, professor of accounting at the University of Waterloo. "If I look at the statistics and have a hard time getting my mind around what they're saying and doing, then probably this is a company that's trying to be unclear. That should set off alarms."
2. Does a large proportion of revenues and earnings come from businesses that didn't exist five years ago?
A subset of Question 1. Anyone who bought Enron Corp. stock can tell you they probably should have paid more attention to the corporation's creativity. Innovative new business activities aren't inherently bad, but deceitful managements like Enron's will set up operations that seem to produce surprisingly healthy results overnight. When this happens, beware.
3. Is the company engaging in unusual business activities?
James Hunter, a partner with KPMG, says he gets suspicious when a company deviates from its traditional lines of business and gets involved with "special mechanisms to drive revenues." These include using derivatives extensively or suddenly peddling the company's name for use on a theatre or an arena. They way companies account for such activities can make shareholders think they're performing much better than they actually are, he says. "Very often, these things involve revenues that will flow over 10 or 20 years. In fact, they'll book them all as income in year one."
4. How stable is management, and how contentious is its relationship with the auditors?
"I always come back to things like, how long has management been there?" says Kroll Lindquist Avey partner Ross Hamilton. "Have they been there a long time and have they had a good track record of earnings and performance? On the other hand, maybe the CFO has resigned and the CEO has left, and maybe they've changed auditors this year because they had an accounting dispute." If you're looking for red flags, this is a good place to start.
I read a book a while ago called How Companies Lie - Why Enron is just the tip of the iceberg (A. Larry Elliott & Richard J. Schroth). They refer to some of Buffet's advice and provide some of their own on what investors should be looking for to get an idea of whether companies they're considering putting their money into are playing it straight or lying through their teeth. Among some of the early warning signs:
1. (Methods of accounting) that allow companies to book profits based on the estimated future profitabilty of trades made today.
2. A large amount of insider trading.
3. Projections about market potential that run counter to broad market research.
4. Trouble with customers, poor press relations and bad press.
5. Human capital flight, (abrupt resignation of top executives).
6. The creation of special purpose entities and partnerships (for the primary purpose of hiding debt and generating fake revenue).
Remote, those are excellent. Here's a good site that explains all about money transactions: Wizards of Money.
Geez weiser, do you know how many suggested sites I already have on my desk top waiting to browse? But this one looks like fun and informative. Only 3 pages in. 
quote:
Part of this is the funding of the "Wizards of Money", which is an attempt at providing financial education as a public service, which is what it should be. The desire to keep it as a free public service also means that I avoid asking for donations or for anyone else to fund it. Presently, I do not need any such support.
I like the way this guys thinks. "Financial education as a public service." absolutely positutely great idea. 
I notice that a whole whack of dough goes out to actuaries, but the CCWIPP financials don't have an Actuaries' Oppinion contained in the report.
Why is that?
Yes, that's right. The financial statement is just a statement of where the money is. It doesn't say anything about the financial health of the plan. I believe that is called an "actuarial valuation". Members may want to ask for one of those. They may also want to ask for their own copy of the ccwipp "plan text". This ought to provide a lot of additional information about how ccwipp is governed and administered.
Y'know, here's something that I find troubling….
In the CCWIPP 'Managed Investments' column, Sissu Onni Inc. apparently either manages or owns two properties: I.F. Propco (Ont.) 3 Ltd. invested $4.4 million into 'development' land in Darlington that's listed on the books as now being worth about 10% of the initial investment price. I.F. Propco (Ontario) 6 Ltd. invested $2.5 million into 'development' land 'Bloor/Salina' that's listed on the books as now being worth about 10% of that initial investment price too.
How the heck can two pieces of land lose 90% of their value? Land goes up and down a bit, but 90%! 
Who owns this Sissu Onni Inc.?
Now don't get me wrong, all the development land investments didn't lose 90%. I.F. Propco (Ontario) 7 Ltd. invested $6.8 million into 'development' land "Hwy 27 and Rexdale, Toronto." CCWIPP now values it on the books at $2 million. Hey, that's only a 70% loss.
I just don't get it. Did somebody pay too much for the land or did somebody find out that it used to be a toxic waste dump or what...? How could a piece of dirt lose that much? Shit, this is Toronto land, not some bombed out parcel of land in Afghanistan.
Could maybe the CCWIPP Trustees enlighten us as to the prudence of this investment? Could the Trustees tell us who exactly is on the Investment Committee? Is Eugene Fraser on the Committee? If he is, why the heck is he? Why aren't the employer Trutsees on the Committee?
I really think the CCWIPP Trustees should be more open with the identies of who they are loaning money to. With all the shady people in the world looking for a way to make a quick buck, the CCWIPP Trustees wouldn't want to inadvertently get tangled up with or unsuspectingly taken to the cleaners by international money launderers.
Perhaps one or more of the Trustees could comment on what sort of risk management system they have in place, or perhaps what safeguards are in place to ensure due dilligence in every step of every transaction.
No doubt due dillegence and prudence are practiced, but CCWIPP members should have the system explained to them in greater detail. They should be able to research who money is lent to. After all, it is their money and their retirement incomes at stake.
I wonder about how many of the CCWIPP Trustees rely solely on CCWIPP for their pensions. I'll bet all of them have more than just CCWIPP to rely upon.
quote:
Now don't get me wrong, all the development land investments didn't lose 90%. I.F. Propco (Ontario) 7 Ltd. invested $6.8 million into 'development' land "Hwy 27 and Rexdale, Toronto." CCWIPP now values it on the books at $2 million. Hey, that's only a 70% loss.
Excuse me?! They took a loss of what on development land where? Let me be charitable about this: Anyone who losses that kind of money on commercial development land in Toronto is an idiot (in the least).
Hwy 27 and Rexdale Blvd. is not a toxic waste dump. It's prime commerical real estate in Canada's largest city. It's close to the airport, a number of expressways and a stone's throw from a number of large commercial, industrial areas and residential areas. It's also right next door to Woodbine Racetrack. And hey, it's also really close to 135 Queen's Plate Drive, that building where so many CCWIPP-buddies are located. Let's see, there are couple of law firms with ties to CCWIPP, an accounting firm with ties to CCWIPP, a benefits adminstration firm with ties to the UFCW and the Teamsters and who knows who else.
Now it had better not be that any of these CCWIPP pals are involved in these land deals that tanked.
I'd like to know who the Sissu Onni people are as well. We'll find out of course. And we'll find out who made these deals that went into the toilet.
I'm going to call Secret Agent and go check out these building lots. This oughta be fun. 
Bloor/Salina is the intersection of Bloor Street and Solina Road just north of a small commuter town called Newcastle (east of Toronto). I wonder what's out there?
Darlington is just south of Bloor/Solina. Everyone out this way knows what's out there: A great big ol' nuclear power plant (and that's about all) - one of the biggest in Ontario.
I wonder why anyone would buy land a stone's throw away from a nuclear reactor? Everybody just has to have one of these in their backyard? What were the CCWIPP Investment Committee fellas thinking?!
Maybe the CCWIPP is gambling on a meltdown which will initiate a government buyout of the surrounding lands at a profit? Sounds like sound investment principles to me!
The only thing that seems to be melting is the half of the pension plan that directly invests in hotels, golf courses and risky high-tech ventures, some of which UFCW and other friends of labour are involved in.
I've said it once and I'll ask again:
Hey CCWIPP Trustees (and we know you visit), did CCWIPP investments chew up close to $100 million in 2001? I mean, did CCWIPP lose more in 2001 than it received in contributions?
Are the South Ocean, Pinestone and British Colonial investments losing money? Has South Ocean had the lease on its golf course revoked? What is the true value of those properties. Is the gambling licence for the Bahamian properties a dead issue?
If the South Ocean, British Colonial and Pinestone Resorts are losing money, why aren't they being sold at a reasonable price? Are they for sale at an inflated price? Are they for sale?
So, where are our CCWIPP representatives? It's been more than a week since they were invited. Come on CCWIPP-dudes. The longer we wait, the longer the list of questions.
Darlington is one of the biggest nuke facilities in the world. It opened in 1992. It was about 10 years behind schedule so as far back as the early 80's, anyone investing in property in the area new there was going to be a nuke plant in the neighborhood.
Who did CCWIPP buy the land from? When? What was the market value of the land at the time?
I haven't yet received any reply from CCWIPPs lawyers or from Larry Martello of the FSCO. I gess the questions I asked were too hard??????
Downeaster
Larry has been off for the last six weeks. He should be back next Monday.
That doesn't mean that things aren't a hoppin', though.
Please contact sleK, so he can send you some information. You may want to ask more questions than you already have.
Hey, "There's a Little McDonalds in Everyone."
Stay tuned.
I really have a hard time understanding why CCWIPP owns 30% of PBAS, which owns Benchmark Decisions Ltd. Why doesn't CCWIPP own 100%? Who owns the other 70%?
I don't understand why CCWIPP paid PBAS and Benchmark close to $4 million last year for advice.
These fine people are on the PBAS and the Benchmark Boards:
ANTONIO FILATO
FRANCOIS LAUZON
ALAIN PICARD
JUDITH E.ROBINSON Ex-George Weston, FSCO and CCWIPP
THOMAS A.ZAKRZEWSKI
MICHAEL J.FRASER
BRIAN P. WILLIAMSON
WAYNE E. HANLEY
LUCY J. PAGLIONE George Weston
CLIFFORD R.EVANS
HOWARD G.PRESTON
BERNARD A.CHRISTOPHE
GORDY K. CANNADY
GILBERT M. WHITLOCK
The fact that Judith Robinson and ex-George Weston VP and ex-FSCO official and ex-CCWIPP Trustee still sits on these boards even though her successor at George Weston also sits on these and CWIPP Boards makes me wonder, why?
Isn't it odd that CCWIPP would have Trustees who in effect have hired themselves for advice? Am I wrong? Why do they sit on all these interrelated boards? Do they sit as representatives of Safeway, and George Weston, A&P etc. or do they sit as independent business people removed from their employers. Are they business partners with the UFCW guys? How does this work?
I just have to find out more about this.
Do you mean to tell us weiser that CCWIPP Trustees now control two businesses - one which provides benefit administration services to CCWIPP ( PBAS) and another which provides consulting services to CCWIPP ( Benchmark Decisions)?
Why are these businesses necessary? You can hire people to administer your benefits or farm the administration out to a firm that will give you the best value for your buck. Why is it necessary to pay millions of dollars to a business that your trustees control? If they want to consult with an expert, why couldn't the CCWIPP trustees just choose one and consult directly? Why set up a whole company to get the expert advice you are seeking? If you need expert advice and are willing to pay for it, how (as you rightly point out) can you get that expert advice from yourself?
Apart from all that, isn't there a somewhat glaring conflict of interest in all of this?
Yup that's what I'm saying.
What's even odder (I don't think we've got to oddest yet) is that CCWIPP gives advice and so does Benchmark decisions. In fact they give other unions advice too.
Consider the following from minutes of a UA meeting held on Saturday, June 2, 2001 at the UA Local 496 Union Hall, 5649 Burbank Rd SE, Calgary, Alberta
quote:
After the reading of the Ritual of the United Association, the Chair shall introduce Mr. Odie O'Hare from Prudent Benefits Administration Services Inc (PBAS) and Mr. Terry Crawley, also from PBAS and the Administrator for Calgary District Pipe Trades. They shall explain the recent changes to the Pension/Health & Welfare Plans, and answer any questions the members might have regarding these plans and the recent changes.
Odie is also president of Student Benefits Trust Administrators Inc.
Hey and aren't we surprised at who the directors are:
ANTONIO FILATO
FRANCOIS LAUZON
ALAIN PICARD
JUDITH EVE ROBINSON
CLIFFORD RUSSEL EVANS
THOMAS A. ZAKRZEWSKI
BRIAN PATRICK WILLIAMSON
WAYNE ELDON HANLEY
LUCY J. PAGLIONE
HOWARD GARNER PRESTON
MICHAEL JR. FRASER
BERNARD ANDRE LOUIS CHRISTOPHE
GORDY K. CANNADY
GILBERT MURRAY WHITLOCK
These university students weren't too pleased with SBPA Inc. Mysterious multi-million dollar plan may include hidden costs
I'd be very concerned if these employers are in a business partnership with the union. SPBA Inc. is registered as a business, as is PBAS and Benchmark Decisions Inc. Likewise, I'm concerned that a Union would be running businesses that seem to have no direct accountability to the Power Source or of which the Power Source has no input.
Why are all these others on as directors? What the heck is Judith Robinson on all these boards for? What does Gib Whitlock have to offer?
quote:
posted by weiser:
Maybe Safeway's Gord Cannady or George Weston's Lucy Paglione can tell us who owns Land Securities Corporation. We are advised that it not the same outfit as the famous Land Securities PLC of Great Britain. What is the company that CCWIPP sunk over $27 million into all about? Yup, we want to know who owns it and who has a financial stake in the company.
Why, if Land Securities Corporation owns nine residential building lots in Ladysmith BC (just south of Nanaimo Vancouver Island), would CCWIPP through one of its I.F. Propcos petition the Ladysmith City Council to waive a penalty for late payment of taxes? Minutes from the Ladysmith Council Meeting report that they told Propco 4 to hit the road:I thought Propcos were money lenders, not real estate managers.quote:
That the request from I.F. Propco Holdings (B.C.) 4 Ltd. to waive the penalty for late payment of property taxes for 9 lots at 245 Oyster Cove be not approved.
Oh, apparently, "Land Securities" doesn't own the properties. I.F. Propco (B.C.) 4 Ltd. is the owner of six of its remaining lots. Five of them are the cheap ones. However, it's odd that the 2001 assessed values don't come near to the the CCWIPP financial's book value.
The books show that the properties may have lost up to 90% of their original value. That is highly unlikely. While the properties have been going up rather than down (even though they are next to the sewage facility) it's unlikely that they were ever worth near what CCWIPP paid for them originally. I base this assumption on CCWIPP originally buying 10 of the 27 lots.
Hey, who are the "Landmen"? Are they the same as Land Securities Corporation? Maybe Safeway's Gord Cannady or George Weston's Lucy Paglione can tell us who they are. Maybe they can tell us if Eugene Fraser is on CCWIPP's investment committee and why?
quote:
In the CCWIPP 'Managed Investments' column, Sissu Onni Inc. apparently either manages or owns two properties: I.F. Propco (Ont.) 3 Ltd. invested $4.4 million into 'development' land in Darlington that's listed on the books as now being worth about 10% of the initial investment price. I.F. Propco (Ontario) 6 Ltd. invested $2.5 million into 'development' land 'Bloor/Salina' that's listed on the books as now being worth about 10% of that initial investment price too.
How the heck can two pieces of land lose 90% of their value? Land goes up and down a bit, but 90%!
quote:
Oh, apparently, "Land Securities" doesn't own the properties. I.F. Propco (B.C.) 4 Ltd. is the owner of six of its remaining lots. Five of them are the cheap ones. However, it's odd that the 2001 assessed values don't come near to the the CCWIPP financial's book value.
The books show that the properties may have lost up to 90% of their original value. That is highly unlikely. While the properties have been going up rather than down (even though they are next to the sewage facility) it's unlikely that they were ever worth near what CCWIPP paid for them originally.[emphasis added]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be a disturbing pattern developing here. (aside from the disturbing fact that they pay themselves for their own advice).
Who the hell is responsible for making these plans responsible and why don't they?
To add to the growing list of questions:
How are the officers of these businesses (and they are businesses) selected, I wonder? How do people like Williamson and Whitlock who are presidents of UFCW Locals (1977 and 777) become officers of these companies? Why them and not other UFCW local presidents? Is there some selection process that determines which presidents get to be involved in these businesses? Do they have shares in these businesses? Do they put up a financial stake in these businesses? I certainly hope that this isn't just some patronage thing.
As far as the people who are senior officials of companies like A&P, Safeway, Weston's and so on: I'm assuming they are acting in their personal capacities (rather than as representatives of their employers - I can't imagine that these big grocery chains would want to branch out into benefit plan consulting). Are they benefitting from their role as CCWIPP Trustees through their involvement in these businesses? I can't help but be concerned about this since, all are CCWIPP Trustees and all are officers of PBAS, Benchmark Decisions and SBT. This suggests that they became officers of these companies because they are Trustees of CCWIPP or that their involvement with CCWIPP at least had something to do with their involvement in these businesses.
Are there conflict of interest and other ethical considerations here? I wonder. I think weiser touches on this in one of his posts: If I am a senior Human Resources or Labour Relations official with a company and I get involved in a business venture with the union that I'm responsible for dealing with in the course of my job, I would imagine that this might not sit well with my employer. Heck, I am now involved in a venture with an organization whose interests are often quite opposed to those of my employer.
Now that's a partnering agreement of all partnering agreements. Hmmmm....
Who owns STUDENT BENEFITS ADMINISTRATORS INC.? Does PBAS? If PBAS owns it, CCWIPP is only a small player in the ownership. CCWIPP owns only 30%. Do CCWIPP Trustees sit on other company's boards that CCWIP owns or invests in? Exactly how much money are UFCW members paying people like Safeway's representatives?
This could be a major conflict of interest.
Gord or Lucy may want to set the record straight here on the MFD site. If they don't respond on the site, can we expect that we are right in our assumptions or....?
quote:
Exactly how much money are UFCW members paying people like Safeway's representatives?
I think you have just nailed the biggest problem with this whole damned daisy chain weiser. I'd like to hear what Mike Fraser, Doug Dority and maybe even the revered Uncle Cliffie have to say about that.
Hasn't this stuff gone just about far enough?
Sorry, we're no where near the end. There's just too much stuff to dump on the site all at once. Likewise, it has to be fed slowly to those who are interested in it, so they can fully appreciate what they are dealing with.
You have to realize that there's a lot more chatter goining on behind the scenes. We're information gathering from people in the know.
Why on earth is CCWIPP and the employers involved in a business to supply health and welfare benefits to students? I read one Manitoba university site where the students didn't even know who owns Student Benefit Plan Administrators.
I'm no expert in these matters but it seems to me that it is one thing to invest in a business and another to actually run or operate a business. While it is not unusual for pension funds to invest in businesses of various kinds, I don't know how common it is for them to actually take on a role in running a business. I'm not sure what the purpose of doing that would be or how it would benefit the plan members.
I'm no expert in these matter either but is it very cool for the son of a union leader to benefit from a merger of unions? Hey I'm not saying he did or did not, I'm just asking a question. If the ufcw could have got this building as part of the merger then shouldn't they have sold it for top buck and used the proceeds to benefit the members?
What's the Textile Processors leader doing running a business with a ufcw business agent anyway? Now that's not a hypothetical question.
I know who a few of these people are. I know who Mike Fraser is, and I know who Wayne Hanley is, but who are the rest?
Directors
Current: 14 Last Update Date: 2002/02/08
Min: 1 Last Amendment: 1999/05/07
Max: 25
Director(s) name(s) and address(es):
ANTONIO FILATO 8568 RUE CLUNY ST.LEONARD Quebec H1R 2X5 Canada
FRANCOIS LAUZON 141 AVE DU MANOIR VILLE DE LERY Quebec J6N 3N7 Canada
ALAIN PICARD 8272 PETERBOROUGH ANJOU Quebec H1X 1H2 Canada
JUDITH EVE ROBINSON 242 DUNVEGAN RD. TORONTO Ontario M5P 2P4 Canada
CLIFFORD RUSSEL EVANS 5 BEACH AVE. PORT ROWAN Ontario N0E 1M0 Canada
THOMAS A. ZAKRZEWSKI 3049 SIR JOHNS HOMESTEAD MISSISSAUGA Ontario L5L 2N4 Canada
BRIAN PATRICK WILLIAMSON 131 ELLISON LEAMINGTON Ontario N8H 5C9 Canada
WAYNE ELDON HANLEY 370 SUMMERCHASE DRIVE OAKVILLE Ontario L6H 5T7 Canada
LUCY J. PAGLIONE 3383 JUNEBERRY ROAD MISSISSAUGA Ontario L5N 7E8 Canada
HOWARD GARNER PRESTON 34 AGINCOUR DR. AGINCOURT Ontario M1S 1M3 Canada
MICHAEL JR. FRASER 3975 SEEBRING CRES. MISSISSAUGA Ontario L5L 3Y1 Canada
BERNARD ANDRE LOUIS CHRISTOPHE 380 JOHN FORSYTH RD. WINNIPEG Manitoba R2N 4E9 Canada
GORDY K. CANNADY 3 FISHERMAN'S BEND R.R. #10 CALGARY Alberta T3Z 1B2 Canada
GILBERT MURRAY WHITLOCK 1754 -137 A STREET SOUTH SURREY British Columbia V4A 9E6 Canada
I think these guys would like to know too.
ed=linkfix
ANTONIO FILATO Sec. Treas. UFCW Local 500
FRANCOIS LAUZON President UFCW Local 500
ALAIN PICARDV.P. Metro Richelieu Inc.
JUDITH EVE ROBINSON Ex-FSCO official and Ex-VP George Weston
CLIFFORD RUSSEL EVANS Ex-Canadian Director and Mike Fraser's uncle
THOMAS A. ZAKRZEWSKI VP A&P
BRIAN PATRICK WILLIAMSON President UFCW Local 1977
WAYNE ELDON HANLEY President UFCW Local 175
LUCY J. PAGLIONE VP George Weston
HOWARD GARNER PRESTON Appointed Representative for the hundreds of small CCWIPP employers. Why him? Who knows?
MICHAEL JR. FRASER Head Honcho UFCW Canada
BERNARD ANDRE LOUIS CHRISTOPHE recently retired UFCW Local 832, but still hanging in as Executive to the President
GORDY K. CANNADYVP Canada Safeway
GILBERT MURRAY WHITLOCK UFCW Local 247 (777)
Now the big question is: Do these fine business people get paid for all the trouble of running this business? If they do, because it isn't a "UNION", none of them would have to report the income as union pay.
In case anyone is wondering about the addresses posted in Excuse Me's post, these are available to the public on the Internet via a Government of Canada web site that allows you to search for information (including the names and registered addresses of Directors) of federally incorporated businesses.
A search for Student Benefit Trust Administrators brings up this list of Directors.
A search for Prudent Benefits Administration Services Inc. brings up this list.
A search for Benchmark Decisions Ltd. generates this list.
So CCWIPP-folk, don't whine that we're posting your home addresses (if that's what those are). The Feds posted them, based on info your businesses submitted with their corporate filings. Take your beefs to Ottawa.
Please give credit where credit is due. I posted who employs them in their day jobs. If you look up Ranger had the link and it looks like Excuse Me copied from the link.
That being said, why wouldn't these fine people have their business addresses listed instead of their home addresses? Are they free agents when they sit on UFCW-connected businesses, or are they still placed there by their employers?
Sorry weiser, I was momentarily confused by the heaping pile of information.
My guess is that the employer trustees who are directors of PBAS and SBTA must be acting in their personal capacity. I can't fathom why companies like Safeway or A&P or George Weston would want their senior human resources staffers involving their corporations in business ventures with union guys.
I just don't understand all this. It's beyond me, and the CCWIPP Trustees, though invited, have not bothered to give their explanations here in this forum.
I'm going to see if the Alberta Pensions Branch, Quebec pensions branch, FSCO pensions branch and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency have an explanation on how pension plans work and the duties and responsibilities of CCWIPP Trustees and officers.
All this business partnering stuff could be normal.
I'm off on a mission, I'll report what I find.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
In case anyone is wondering about the addresses posted in Excuse Me's post, these are available to the public on the Internet via a Government of Canada web site that allows you to search for information (including the names and registered addresses of Directors) of federally incorporated businesses.
A search for Student Benefit Trust Administrators brings up this list of Directors.
A search for Prudent Benefits Administration Services Inc. brings up this list.
A search for Benchmark Decisions Ltd. generates this list.
So CCWIPP-folk, don't whine that we're posting your home addresses (if that's what those are). The Feds posted them, based on info your businesses submitted with their corporate filings. Take your beefs to Ottawa.
What I don't understand as well, is why all the extra bodies on these companies? If only CCWIPP Trustees were on them, I'd still quesion the company people, that might explain some things, but why purpose does Robinson, whitlock and williamson and other non-CCWIPP people have on these companies? Robinson used to be a CCWIPP Trustee. Does that mean that she is an owner as well as director? Is there money involved; like do they get paid or share in the profits? What expenses do the directors incur?
Robinson was a Vice Chair of the Financial Services Tribunal at the FSCO (the regulatory agency that's looking into the CCWIPP plan)article from 1997 to 2000.
Both Williamson and Whitlock have been immortalized in the Trough. Among UFCW local presidents in Canada, both these guys are living legends. Whitlock being somewhat more famous for his involvement in the very extra special Local 777 - the local Loblaw's (a subsidiary of Robinson's previous employer) built.
It would seem to me (and this is just my humble opinion) that the ccwipp boys would consider Judy a good person to have around because she's well-connected. As far a Brian and Gibby are concerned, they're the creme de la creme of the biz union. Their appointments to these businesses are just small tokens of the organization's (or maybe some high-ranking god-like being's) appreciation of their efforts.
Why would the CCWIPP Trustees allow or want the fund to lend money to one entity when the money is actually going to a third entity? Why the complexity and middlemen?
Take for example the deal where close to $100 million CAN was pumped into the restoration of The British Colonial Hotel. Now remember the approximately $100 million CAN was on top of the original purchase price. And remember that the renovations cost almost double the original estimate.
The British Colonial property is split into two or more companies. The land is in two companies, Ocean Bay Properties I Limited and Ocean Bay Properties II Limited. The Hotel sits on land owned by Ocean Bay Properties I Limited.
It seems that a company was set up to renovate The British Colonial Hotel. That company is called the British Colonial Development Company Limited (BCDCL). Now CCWIPP has loaned money to RHK Capital, which in turn, it seems, loans the money to British Colonial Development Company Limited to assist it in the renovations of the hotel, which as we said sits on the Ocean I/BCDCL property.
We also notice that the CCWIPP financials report a lot of the money sunk into the Bahamas ventures as being loaned to PRK Holdings Ltd. rather than RHK Capital. In fact PRK Holdings Ltd. is listed as an investment and an asset.
Why all the complexity and why isn't the money lent directly to the Bahamian registered companies?
I wonder if loaning money directly to off-shore entities would affect the pension rules for foreign investments?
Maybe one of the CCWIPP Trustees would wish to comment on this.
Apparently the company trustees were contacted some time ago by a journalist, but they declined, through their media representatives, to answer questions.
Hey Gord, and Lucy and the other company guys. I'm sure you know a lot about business and pension plans. How about a comment or two. Lucy, I know that you are an expert on pension plans. Could you at least let us know about foreign investments and off-shore tax havens.
I would like to know how the CCWIPP Trustees came to the decision to invest such an enormous amount in this hotel in the first place. Why would you invest in a hotel so far away? Won't due diligence and will be more challenging and more costly than if the investment were in a Canadian or US property?
This investment really reminds me of the UA's ill-fated adventure with the Diplomat Resort in Florida. I wonder if Canadian pension regulators will hold the CCWIPP Trustees to the kinds of standards that the US DOL is saying the UA Pension Trustees should have followed?
I wonder what kind of due diligence was undertaken by the CCWIPP Trustees before 100 mil was poured into some joint in the Bahamas. My prediction: They'll say it was all done by the Investment Committee of CCWIPP. I wonder if that's why the "Investment Committee" exists in the first place - so that the Trustees can say "hey man, it wuzn't me. The Investment Comm, they look after all the investments." I don't think it's that simple.
Well the Bahamas investments (we won't get into the Jamaican investments quite yet) point to another oddity. When CCWIPP decided to pump money (close to $1.8 million) into the Acubid.Com Inc. fiasco, so did a Bahamian company called Andora Holdings. What's even more interesting is that the big cheese for Andora Holdings is none other than CCWIPP's special Bahamian counsel. Much of this went down just months after CCWIPP started pumping huge amounts of dough into The British Colonial Hotel and another up-island resort.
Another thing that I don't undersand is the interchangeability between Land Securities Corporation and Landmen Management Resources.
In 2000, Avison Young reported on the Edmonton commercial real estate market by saying, "Other significant deals this year have been the Land Securities purchase of Millwoods Mainstreet [Shopping Mall]for over $21 million,...
Millwoods Mainstreet Shopping Mall (Edmonton)
I.F. Propco (Alberta) 3 Ltd. is reported on the CCWIPP financials to have about $8.2 million invested in that mall. Who has the other $13 million? Does CCWIPP own Land Securities Corporation, or does it own shares in the company?
Land Securites Corporation and Landmen Management Resources share space in Century Park Place in Calagary, which it seems CCWIPP, through I.F. Propco Alberta (1) Ltd., owns or invested about $4.1 million.
These financials don't make for easy reading. The Oyster Cove residential lots owned by CCWIPP are managed by Land Securities/Landmen. That investment is on the books at a "Fair Value" of $310 thousand. However, the assessed value of the properties still owned by CCWIPP are worth much more. Market value would be even higher. For example. One of the lots assessed at $117,000 just sold for $123 thousand. CCWIPP still has a stake in the "Common Property" as well. So why the low-ball value?
It's just the opposite to the Holland Cross property that an earlier report had CCWIPP paying RHK Capital $28 million for, but now the CCWIPP financials show I.F. Propco paying $18.1 million with a "Fair Value" of $28 million. Are these numbers transposed?
I'm going away to think some more....
Here I am still scratchin' my head trying to figure out where the heck the CCWIPP trustees heads are at. Purely Supreme Foods, LLC is on CCWIPP's financial statements to the tune of $26 million in investments. Sad as it is, the "Fair Value" is reported at only $7.9 million.
Here you have a food union owning 30% of a food plant. It's in Idaho, a right-to-work state. It moved from Nevada, another right-to-work-state.
There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the investments of the union pension fund. Didn't Tommy Kukovica say the plan was being used to better the lives of working people?
Hmmm.... What's with 30%?
CCWIPP owns 30% of PBAS. It owns 30% of Purely Supreme. It owns 30% of Sea King. It owns 30% of Blend Inc. It owns 30% of .....
These guys. Oh, and I've found out that CCWIPP guys and gals aren't the only business people in labour's midst.
These guys will sell you a holiday--cheap. CANADIAN UNION ADVANTAGE BENEFIT PROGRAMS.
We know who Ahee is, but why is his mail going to Bernies office instead of one of his Toronto offices?
Okay, everybody here has a pretty good idea about who Ahee is, but with so may suspects to choose from, we're having a hard time figuring out who the ASS is in AHEE & ASS.
You may want to visit Union Getaway Canada to see what these guys are selling.
This page says that the hotel is "union" owned. Ask Mike Fraser what he knows about this union hotel.
So this is how our union officials spend their time? Running promotional businesses for other businesses? That's a good use of time and energy at a time when things are going from bad to worse for the Power Source.
The truly sad thing about all this is that few union members could ever afford to travel to these far away exotic places. I'll bet their pension money travels to some of them though.
Oh, but that's the charm of it all. These guys will do the holidays for their members, who are too poor and too busy working three jobs, to go.
The funny thing about it, is they wouldn't stay in a dump like the Jamaican property if they went there. They'd stay in much better digs.
quote:
This page says that the hotel is "union" owned. Ask Mike Fraser what he knows about this union hotel.
It doesn't get much more lame than that. The hotel is not unionized or union-represented, it's union-owned. This is what's fundamentally wrong with the UFCW: They're all about owning things and not advocating for people.
The Bamberton Lands project died in 1997. Union pension funds were left holding this property, so they eventually got the union businessmen at Concert Properties to take over management of the lands.
From what I understand the federal government may want to expropriate a right of way, but will only pay the assessed value of the land.
What's with this land? These funds just sit on it. CCWIPP reports that it owns 20% and that it paid $6.2 million for it. That doesn't jive with reports that the pension funds paid $60 million for the land. Likewise, CCWIPP reports that their 20% share of the land's "fair value" is about $2 million.
Maybe the Trustees could tell us whether CCWIPP was in with the original pension plans, or whether it got in after the deal had tanked?
BTW, Bamberton may have been a noble idea, but was it realistic? Should unions gamble members' futures on social pipe dreams?
What the project was about.
Warning. Yes the following link is from an anti-union group, but what it says about a union pension plan is important. There is some mention in another thread about this case.
Look at some of the charges and think real hard:
Edmonton Pipe Industry Pension Plan Trust Fund
Here's where the plan is at today:
quote:
Problems fixed -- chairman: UNION PENSION FUND BROKE TAX LAWS
BY: Duncan Thorne; Journal Staff Writer
Edmonton Journal, July 27, 2002, Final Edition, p.B3.
UNITED-ASSOCIATION-OF-PLUMBERS-AND-PIPEFITTERS-LOCAL-488
A union pension fund that was at risk of collapse because of bad investments is on its way to a healthy recovery, says the chairman who was named to fix the problem.
Even so, Doug Patterson, a member of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, Local 488, filed a $41-million lawsuit in June for all pension beneficiaries, alleging negligence and wilfull misconduct.
Patterson has not yet served the claim on the defendants. A government-ordered audit of the Edmonton Pipe Industry Pension Plan found two years ago that a solvency shortfall had reached about $30 million by 1999 and was rising, and its unfunded liability exceeded $35 million.
The audit for Alberta's superintendent of insurance, who was then Gail Armitage, found that the fund broke pension and tax laws in buying into three golf courses and a flour mill. Auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers found violations that included buying 100 per
cent of companies owning the golf courses -- Gleneagles at Cochrane and two in the United States -- despite a legal limit of 30 per cent ownership.
The fund administrator became chief executive of the golf courses and some trustees in turn became directors, seemingly unaware of the potential for conflict with their responsibilities to the fund. The audit also found the fund was paying for trustees to fly first class on fund business.
Bill Grace, appointed fund chairman last July to fix the problems, said Thursday that it has sold the golf courses. He said it's trying to sell its stake in Red Deer's API Grain
Processors, an investment which was also criticized by the auditors. A valuation has shown that, as of last September, the fund's unfunded liability was heading for elimination within eight years, Grace said.
He said all other issues have been dealt with "We are on track," he said, adding recent turmoil in the stock markets hasn't helped.
"It was a rocky road but we've made significant changes. We are operating diligently and to the best of our ability." Dennis Gartner, Alberta's current pensions superintendent, wrote to at least some concerned members of Local 488 two weeks ago that the fund has acted on 33 of 34 items "that had to be dealt with in order for the plan to be brought back into compliance with the legislation."
Did you know that a CCWIPP-owned entity advises the Calgary Pipe Trades Pension Plan?
Oh, fer shure--the Plan is fixed. Eight years from now! What's really crappy is the average member sittin' like a deer caught in the headlights. I think it's grand that one member took these guys on.
What's interesting that that member was called a trouble maker. That member was denied access to documentation because of union secrecy.
Hey, one member shook a corrupt bunch of machine heads, and took an enormous amount of shit from his fellow members. He rocked the boat and he was right to rock the boat.
Do you see now why some machine heads love secrecy.
If you are all equal in the union, there is nothing that should be kept secret from you the Power Source. If it's YOUR UNION, it's YOUR INFORMATION.
Hey Cliff, where's CCWIPP"S revised supportive temporary outlay (STO) ? What's the hold up?
Downeaster, any latest developments with FSCO?
The last I have herd fron FSCO was an E-mail from Jaan Pringi on Tue,03 Dec 2002.
She states that the amendment implementing the supportive tempoary outlay (STO) has not been registered as yet, since the terms of the amendment conflict with the pension legislation in Alberta and Quebec . We have requested a revised amendment,however this has not been received yet.
It goes on to say that Mr. Martello is expected back by the end of next week, at which time we will be contacting the Alberta authorities(whoever they are)? as well as the CCRA(Canada customs and revenue agency) authorities to implement a full audit of the plans investments .
Any information concerning this should be forwarded to the attention of Mr.Martello ,who will be including it during his review.
Downeaster, that is good news. BTW, Jaan is a guy. Alberta is the jurisdiction where CCWIPP recently left for cooler waters.
I believe Shauna Holmes is the contact for the Alberta pensions branch.
I'm sure CCWIPP's management guys and girl can 'splain the whole complex investment web to CCRA and the many pension jursidictions in which CCWIPP operates.
From what I've heard, Larry is back with bells on.
How very exciting! Maybe now we'll get to the bottom of all the high strangeness. We all salute you Downeaster. You've done this pretty much singlehandedly. Goes to show you the power of the Power Source.
BTW, for those who don't know, the CCRA is the Canadian version of the IRS.
I can't wait to hear more!
If Ron Kelly is on his death bed, I guess CCRS will be looking into all his business to make sure all taxes are collected. I wonder if they know about the Bahamian jets that were sold a few months back?
Bahamian jets?! weiser, do tell us more.
Apparently, father Ronnie, and possibly some investing partners, had a small fleet of executive jets stationed in the Bahamas. After 9/11 many business big shots didn't want to fly commercial airlines anymore, so some guy approches father Ron and offers a pot-o-dough so big that father Ron just couldn't refuse.
Good on father Ron. The poor bugger or others who bought the jets, or were ultimately stuck with them, were left with jet-lag once the executives lost their fear and returned to commercial flights.
The executive jet market has recently tanked.
Anyway, it's no big scandal or anything like that. I'm sure that father Ron declared the extraordinary sale and paid his Canadian taxes--lots of 'em.
I wonder what CCWIPP is doing to ensure that all it's RHK/PRK/Chimo etc. investments are all secure should father Ron pass on to the great threafter.
I wonder who will take care of the estate. Who will own RHK and Cos?
While Father Ronnie may have bought a fleet of executive jets with no help whatsoever from the UFCW pension plan, I have a question that I think is relevant to the issue of union pension plan governance and administration. This is specific to pension plans where trustees invest plan monies directly in private ventures.
How do the trustees assure themselves (and pension plan members) that the millions they're investing in certain specific business ventures aren't being used by the business for entirely other purposes? It would seem to me that there would have to be considerable and ongoing oversight of the investment to ensure that the money is being used only for the purpose specified in the loan agreement.
Using the CCWIPP investments in companies associated with Father Ronnie, as an example:
CCWIPP, through a number of its Propco investment corporations has loaned about $130 million dollars to RHK Capital or PRK Holdings in relation to RHK/PRK's hotels and resorts in the Bahamas and the Caribbean. But Father Ronnie is known to be a real wheeler and dealer in a number of ventures, Nothing wrong with that at all, however, how do the CCWIPP trustees make sure that none of the $130 mil is being used to finance RHK's or PRK's or other business ventures?
Well, the London Galleria was unloaded on CCWIPP and so, it seems, was the Holland Cross in Ottawa. I understand that the Bahamian investments cost way more than anticipated and I've heard that for some strange reason, they are bleeding red ink.
RHK/PRK always seems to come out on top and CCWIPP always winds up the loser.
Here is something I dug up while deep on the CCWIPP paper trail.
According to the CCWIPP 2001 financial statement, the pension fund has a big investment (about $7 million) in a company called Sissu Onni which owns some development land in Darlington Ontario and at Bloor/Solina (in the same general vicinity).
This investment was made through two "Propco" companies: I.F. Propco 3 and I.F. Propco 6. The investment has taken a big plunge and the financial statement shows a fair value of about $700,000. That in itself is cause for some further digging but get this:
Sissu Onni is a corporation controlled by a guy called Ray Kurki who is a Toronto-area bean counter. Kurki is the sole Officer and Director of Sissu Onni. He is also the administrator of Propco 3 and Propco 6 and of just about every other Propco in the CCWIPP family of investment corporations.
How do you spell conflict of interest?
(Stand by...there's more. You should see what's happening in the hotel jungle!)
Geez Secret Agent, don't you ever take a day off?
This is how to spell conflict of interest ... conflict of interest.
Oh let's not forget the rat hole Kurki occupied at Queens Plate Drive.
Isn't Kurki the nice chap who took over as Director at AFM Hospitality (Accomodex) when Cliff Evans stepped back into the shadows? I believe Eugene Fraser took over from Kurki. If I'm not mistaken, Ray Kurki was touted by AFM as the: Administrator, IF Propco Holdings Ontario #23 Ltd.
Bean counter!? Do you mean as in someone who works for a company that would audit financial statements?
quote:
Geez Secret Agent, don't you ever take a day off?
No siggy. SFD (Snooping for Democracy) is 24/7. If SFD is in your blood, there's nothing more fun and exciting than a good motherlode of info and lengthy documents. Weekdays are for snooping, weekends are for telling.