WikiLeaks Sudbury
Accessing Information

WikiLeaks Sudbury Legal Defense Fund

We keep you informed

    Main About  Archives Editorials Donate    







Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organizations.





     January  2016        

Ex. Sudbury Chief Frank Elsner

Ex Sudbury police chief will be in Sudbury Court for "Examination of Discovery"

Ex Sudbury Chief of Police Frank Elsner will be called for " Examination of Discovery" a case against him for false arrest and negligence in investigation.

Elsner is facing allegations, coordinated with City of Greater Sudbury's legal services and human resources department to cover-up misspending tax dollars. Under Elsner's watch an employee who raised voice against corruption in Water Division forcibly removed from Wahnapitae Water Plant using police force.

The case against Elsner with regards to involved in an inappropriate relationship with an unnamed woman and   improperly used the Victoria Police Department's official social media account continues in Victoria.

Elsner paid huge price for his actions and admitted that his career in policing is over.  

Ed Archer: City's new CAO

New CAO begins job at the end of May

Ed Archer, currently the interim city manager and CAO in Regina, is the city's new permanent CAO. 
He begins the new job at the end of May 2016. 
Former Greater Sudbury CAO Doug Nadorozny, was fired in April 2015 and escorted out from the City hall.

Incompetent and controversial practices


Benkovich on a loose leash 


The water department has more managers when compared to any other division in the City at a ratio of 1:2. For example, each water division manager supervises 2 employees.

Benkovich continually hires private contractors to do water main repairs despite the higher cost to do so.

Furthermore, Benkovich skillfully manipulates the City's administration. WikiLeaks Sudbury has learned that at least two "sun" vacation trips for Benkovich are paid by contractors. WikiLeaks Sudbury will soon release more information to the public.


Beware, the water and wastewater bill is expected to rise again.


 Released on January 10, 2016 (posted on February 29, 2016)

Fowke: (de) Fraud, corruption, incompetence and negligence

Fowke: incompetence and negligence

Playing golf using tax dollars
Hotel bill cost taxpayers $3,521.66

Bigger failure ..

Bigger: Broken leadership and promises

City's interim CAO Fowke, pocketed $12,245.14 tax dollars
As Fowke expense scandal grows, why hasn’t Bigger cut off the money?

WikiLeaks Sudbury uncovered that the City's embattled interim CAO, Kevin Fowke, was reimbursed $12,245.09 from tax dollars for his travelling expenses from 2012 to 2015. He collected this amount in addition to his annual salary of $142,743.30 with $7,821.78 in benefits, totalling $150,565.08. The necessity of such expenses to run the city’s business is questionable.

Mayor Bigger and fellow councillors are counting pennies to provide the best value for tax dollars; meanwhile, the City’s senior managers are living in luxury at the cost of taxpayers. All this while taxpayers struggle to make ends meet.

Fowke's hotel bill alone cost taxpayers $3,521.66. Additionally, on September 15, 2012 while attending City Business, he played golf at the cost of taxpayers. These types of expenses along with the sense of entitlement on behalf of the city’s top bureaucrats are questionable.

Fowke's uncovered questionable expenses are as follows:

2012 - $ 2813.33


Reimbursed Tax dollar amount

June 14 - 15, 2012

$ 875.00

August 13, 2012

$ 747.05

September 12 - 14, 2012

$ 1,191.33- Golf Adventure


$ 2,813.38

2013 - $ 2744.5


Reimbursed Tax dollar Amount

April 4 - 5, 2013

$ 551.66

June 06 - 07, 2013

$ 800.16

September 10 - 13, 2013

$ 1392.68


$ 2744.50

2014 - $ 4221.97


Reimbursed Tax dollar amount

January 15 - 16, 2014

$ 1,025.05

January 24, 2014

$ 582.47

May 13 - 14, 2014

$ 719.77

September 9 - 12, 2014

$ 1,364.02

December 12, 2014

$ 530.66


$ 4,221.97

2015 - $ 2465.29


Reimbursed Tax dollar amount

February 6, 2015

$ 621.39

February 27, 2015

$ 582.57

May 07 - 08, 2015

$ 626.85

June 19, 2015

$ 634.48



Total: 12,245.14

Fine dining and accommodation expenses are as follows:

2012 - $ 890.37
2013 - $929.94
2014 - $1001.10
2015 - $700.25
Total: $ 3,521.66

Fowke has already wasted millions of tax dollars on legal fees to cover-up his incompetence. This revelation is exemplary proof that the  2016 budget consultation process was nothing more than a pre-emptive initiative by Mayor Brian Bigger.   

A freedom of information request was submitted to the access Fowke’s expense claims. The Bigger administration at the City hall denied access to Fowke's expenses. The matter was appealed to the Ontario Privacy Commissioner under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Appeal has been allowed by the commissioner and was forwarded to a mediator to gain access to the records as a primary attempt. The City failed in defending their position and finally WikiLeaks Sudbury was able to gain access to Fowke's travel expenses.

This is the scandal that Sudbarians saw coming in slow motion, but no one at the Bigger administration did much about it.

In 2012  WikiLeaks Sudbury unveiled part of Fowke's expense scandal. Now, long after the blow-up of the shocking expense claims of the Interim CAO, yet another shocking expense claim has surfaced. Once again Sudbury Citizens can now bear witness to these ugly revelations.

Despite this scandal’s predictability and the reveal of its existence, no one (neither Mayor Brian Bigger nor the councillors) came forward with a proposal for the practical reform Sudbarians want: choking off the entitlement of bureaucrats. Instead, for the most part, Bigger and Councillors waited, like an audience to a low-budget horror movie, to see which characters would be mauled. However, names are now leaking out and Fowke should be referred to the independent audit committee for a review to see if a crime was committed.

Because of free flowing money from the City’s coffers, the Bigger administrators turned a blind eye. Unfortunately this wilful blindness is a real problem of the Bigger administration. Mr. Brian Bigger has done nothing to address the main thing Sudbarians want: cutting the flow of money to bureaucrats. There’s been no big move to tightly restrict their expenses – travel, hospitality, contracts, or anything else.

Bigger made promises to taxpayers and his election mandate of accountability and transparency is now falling in apart. Fowke and bureaucrats at City Hall continue wasting tax dollars without any respect to taxpayers and Bigger is failing to address these issues in City Hall.

Nevertheless, Bigger appointed Fowke as Interim CAO. It is looks like fox is now in charge of hens house.  

Related Articles

An outrageous spending practice found for Labour and Employment matters
City’s Labour and Employment Legal Expenses Continually Soar
2011 outside legal counsel expenses paid to the one single firm reached $
Toronto based legal firm received $ 717,123.22 pay cheque - Disbursements also includes airfairs and hotel charges
City Clerk Hallsworth reimbursed $ 593.25 legal expenses from tax dollars - Echo of bad legal advice
City Spent $ 86,142.00 tax dollars to defend the misconduct of bureaucrats’ in Human Rights legal proceedings from 2009 to 2012. 
Transit Ticket Scandal: Nadorozny’s Sorry Saga -CAO Nadorozny, City Solicitor Canapini and Director Human Resources, Fowke should step down    
City’s labour and employment legal expenses on the rise - Incompetence of top bureaucrat in the human resources division exposed
Authoritarianism: City in crisis
Lack of Accountability: "Gravy train" all over again
Dark side of Nodorozny’s Sorry Saga
Open and Transparent Municipal Government - Municipal Election Forcing New Politics of Sudbury Identity

Related documents
June 14 - 15, 2012 Claim
August 13, 2012 Claim
September 12 - 14, 2012 Claim
April 4 - 5, 2013 claim
June 06 - 07, 2013  claim
September 10 - 13, 2013 - Golf Adventure -  claim
January 15 - 16, 2014 -  claim
January 24, 2014 -  claim
May 13 - 14, 2014 -  claim
September 9 - 12, 2014 -  claim
December 12, 2014 -  claim
February 6, 2015 -  claim
February 27, 2015 -  claim
May 07 - 08, 2015 -  claim
June 19, 2015 -  claim

Released on December 10, 2015 (posted on January 15, 2016)

This article originally published on Harvard Business Review, 76 (1) 124 -134 (1998). Brief overview and excerpts of the articles as follows.

Human Resources configuration ineffective, incompetent, and costly

Should we do away with HR? In recent years, a number of people who study and write about business-along with many who run businesses-have been debating that question. The debate arises out of serious and widespread doubts about HR's contribution to organizational performance. 

Researchers acknowledge  that HR, as it is configured today in many institutions, is indeed ineffective, incompetent, and costly. But he contends that it has never been more necessary. The solution, he believes, is to create an entirely new role for the field that focuses it not on traditional HR activities, such as staffing and compensation, but on business results that enrich the company's value to all stakeholders, and employees. 

Researchers elaborates on four broad tasks for HR that would allow it to help deliver organizational excellence. First, HR should become a partner in strategy execution. Second, it should become an expert in the way work is organized and executed. Third, it should become a champion for employees. And fourth, it should become an agent of continual change. Fulfilling this agenda would mean that every one of HR's activities would in some concrete way help a company better serve its customers or otherwise increase shareholder value. 

Can HR transform itself on its own? Certainly not-in fact, the primary responsibility for transforming the role of HR, Researcher says, belongs to the CEO and to every line manager who works with the HR staff. Competitive success is a function of organizational excellence, and senior managers must hold HR accountable for delivering it.

Make no mistake: this new agenda for HR is a radical departure from the status quo. In most companies

today, HR is sanctioned mainly to play policy police and regulatory watchdog. It handles the paperwork involved in hiring and firing, manages the bureaucratic aspects of benefits, and administers compensation decisions made by others. When it is more empowered by senior management, it might oversee recruiting, manage training and development programs, or design initiatives to increase workplace diversity. But the fact remains: the activities of HR appear to be-and often are disconnected from the real work of the organization.

The new agenda, however, would mean that every one of HR's activities would in some concrete way help the company better serve its customers or otherwise increase stakeholder value. Can HR transform itself alone? Absolutely not. In fact, the primary responsibility for transforming the role of HR belongs to the CEO and to every line manager who must achieve business goals. The reason? Divisional  managers have ultimate responsibility for both the processes and the outcomes of the company.

They are answerable to shareholders for creating economic value, to customers for creating product or service value, and to employees for creating workplace value. It follows that they should lead the way in fully integrating HR into the company's real work. Indeed, to do so, they must become HR champions themselves. They must acknowledge that competitive success is a function of organizational excellence. More important, they must hold HR accountable for delivering it.

Of course, the line should not impose the new agenda on the HR staff. Rather, operating managers and HR managers must form a partnership to quickly and completely reconceive and reconfigure the function - to overhaul it from one devoted to activities to one committed to outcomes. The process will be different in every organization, but the result will be the same: a business era in which the question should we do away with HR? will be considered utterly ridiculous?

Perhaps the greatest competitive challenge companies face is adjusting to-indeed, embracing nonstop change. They must be able to learn rapidly and continuously, innovate ceaselessly, and take on new strategic imperatives faster and more comfortably. Constant change means organizations must create a healthy discomfort with the status quo, an ability to detect emerging trends quicker than the competition, an ability to make rapid decisions, and the agility to seek new ways of doing business. To thrive, in other words, companies will need to be in a never ending state of transformation, perpetually creating fundamental, enduring change.

Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources, Harvard Business Review, 76 (1) 124 -134

Related document
Should we do away with HR?



Contact and Media Inquiries