Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Business

Australia's tier 4 data centre. Micron21 mission critical hosting services.

ACTEW get’s CEO’s salary wrong by only $235k

By Barcham 20 March 2013 24

In a recent report ACTEW understated its CEO’s salary by $235k. Understandably they are a little embarrassed and nobody is saying very much. Mark Sullivan’s correct salary should have read $855,588, ABC News reported earlier today.

When you earn a salary that ridiculously huge it’s probably quite easy to misplace $235k, and we should all give him a break. It must be quite hard having to keep track of such a stupid amount of money.

The error was discovered late last year as the corporation was preparing for estimates hearings.

ACTEW chairman John Mackay says it is an embarrassing mistake.

“I have a board meeting tomorrow, where I’ll be going through all of this with my colleagues, trying to work out what else if anything we can do,” he said.

“But certainly the first thing on our agenda will be to make sure no such error occurs ever again.”


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to
ACTEW get’s CEO’s salary wrong by only $235k
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Chop71 11:23 am 21 Mar 13

Please come back to RiotACT MarkS, we miss you

Madam Cholet 8:27 am 21 Mar 13

I suspect that Zed raised it in the Assembly because he’s wondering why his salary is not that high. Perhaps if he gets thrown out after all the deliberations he will be angling for this job.

54-11 1:53 am 21 Mar 13

Well, Mark, if you thought that “error” was going to go under the radar, you cocked up. Suddenly it’s become big news, and rightly so.

Given the size of this piddling ACT economy, that amount is way out of line.

Katie, over to you to do something about this obscene salary.

And Mark, next time you comment on RA, just remember how much difference there is between your income, and that of the average RA contributor.

c_c™ 10:42 pm 20 Mar 13

As cock ups go, this is truly impressive. I would suspect that’s base salary too, or does that include the sweeteners he no doubt receives.

Silentforce 9:52 pm 20 Mar 13

Did Kate Jackson perchance have her hands in this? ACT Government auditors certainly have their fingers on the pulse of this bleeding Quango.

SydneySuburb 8:45 pm 20 Mar 13

It’s okay everyone, the chief is asking the tough questions…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-20/high-salary-paid-to-actew-head/4584770

After being “surprised”…?

http://the-riotact.com/mark-sullivan-worth-half-a-mil-per-year/29093

LSWCHP 7:36 pm 20 Mar 13

Ridiculous. The guy I work for reports to our CEO and as of a year or so ago he was on about $200K. One of his colleagues was on $205K. CEO salary (as a WAG) is about $280K.

Getting paid $856K to run a business like ACTEW is starting to approach the Vampire Squid category.

chewy14 4:37 pm 20 Mar 13

breda said :

@ chewy

Actually, I’d be certain he wasn’t wearing ACTEW regalia and If you actually took the time to listen you’d find it’s part of the ACT government’s laws with regards to energy efficiency improvement.

By not accepting the lights and power controller you’re actually costing yourself money, well done.
—————————————-
Right, I’ll believe you and not my lyin’ eyes. The guy was not in a yellow hi-vis jacket with an ACTEW tag hanging around his neck and a twirly lightbulb in his hand. I just made up the whole thing.

Not only that, but his wages are paid by unicorn farts and not by my electricity bills.

By not accepting someone coming into my house and fiddling with things because it is “law”, I am stupid.

Here’s a tip, champ. Incandescent lightbulbs (of which I have a large store) are cheap, reliable and provide instant light minus the strange colours that the curlies emit. The one on my front porch has been there for 10 years; the one in my bathroom for 7, and the one in the hallway was there when I bought the house in 1999 and is still going. At adjusted prices, they probably cost a dollar each.

The corrupt mentality that you evidence in your final point is just like those who say – get subsidised solar panels – at the expense of everyone else – and boast to your friends about how much you care for the planet. Bugger the poor, we are talking about “The Planet” here.

No, here’s a tip champ there’s a difference between ACTEW and ActewAGL. You do know that right?

How do I know he wasn’t wearing ACTEW regalia? Because I had the same people come to my house and they were clearly ActewAGL.

Not saying I’m a supporter of the scheme but it’s clearly a government forced excercise to comply with the law:
http://www.environment.act.gov.au/energy/energy_efficiency_improvement_scheme_eeis

If you want to blame anyone for it, then go see the ACT government.

And completely unlike the solar panel scheme, this one is available to everyone and is free for participants. It’s actually targetted at poorer households so your bugger the poor jibe is silly when this scheme will actively save them money (unless they, like you, tell the guy to go away).

But I’m sure you know better than those silly energy people.

peitab 2:01 pm 20 Mar 13

I wonder what their annual reporting writing process is. In every public and private organisation I’ve worked for, every man and his dog goes through the draft annual report with a fine tooth comb (especially the CEO, since they’re the public face of the published report).

Is Mark Sullivan trying to tell us that neither he, nor his senior executives, nor his board (essentially the people who would likely have known what he was paid) bothered to read the draft annual report with any care before publication? What else has been published in error in that report?

MERC600 1:55 pm 20 Mar 13

Hells bells ,, 855 K per year , or 16,500 odd per week.,, 2,350 per day.
I’d say he has no trouble gettin out of the sack in the morning,

and I bet he’s got satellite telly. ( so any idea how much our Chairman is on ? )

miz 1:27 pm 20 Mar 13

Man he earns a lot of our money . . .

breda 1:04 pm 20 Mar 13

@ chewy

Actually, I’d be certain he wasn’t wearing ACTEW regalia and If you actually took the time to listen you’d find it’s part of the ACT government’s laws with regards to energy efficiency improvement.

By not accepting the lights and power controller you’re actually costing yourself money, well done.
—————————————-
Right, I’ll believe you and not my lyin’ eyes. The guy was not in a yellow hi-vis jacket with an ACTEW tag hanging around his neck and a twirly lightbulb in his hand. I just made up the whole thing.

Not only that, but his wages are paid by unicorn farts and not by my electricity bills.

By not accepting someone coming into my house and fiddling with things because it is “law”, I am stupid.

Here’s a tip, champ. Incandescent lightbulbs (of which I have a large store) are cheap, reliable and provide instant light minus the strange colours that the curlies emit. The one on my front porch has been there for 10 years; the one in my bathroom for 7, and the one in the hallway was there when I bought the house in 1999 and is still going. At adjusted prices, they probably cost a dollar each.

The corrupt mentality that you evidence in your final point is just like those who say – get subsidised solar panels – at the expense of everyone else – and boast to your friends about how much you care for the planet. Bugger the poor, we are talking about “The Planet” here.

Jivrashia 1:03 pm 20 Mar 13

KB1971 said :

Its just a typo in a report.

That’s a deplorable suggestion!

It wasn’t a typo, it was creative accounting.

astrojax 12:56 pm 20 Mar 13

in a recent report..? well, if the annual report 2010-11 is ‘recent’…

PantsMan 12:35 pm 20 Mar 13

By my rough reckoning, every household will be chipping in $1 to get Mark’s snout back in the trough.

Another solution would have been for Mark to just take a $235K haircut this year, but I suppose harebrained thinking like that shows why I will never be a $855K man, like Mark.

Mr Evil 12:34 pm 20 Mar 13

Maybe since no one in ACTEW seems to have noticed that $230 grand was missing off the annual report, including it would seem, Mr Sullivan himself – then just maybe they should remove it from his salary completely, and donate it to several Canberra charities instead?

chewy14 11:29 am 20 Mar 13

breda said :

Loose language is an integral part of the MO.

Yesterday, a chap in ACTEW regalia knocked on my door and offered me “free” twirly lightbulbs and something or other to do with my TV. I politely told him, no thanks. He had his script, no point in taking it out on him.

Unless his wages are being paid by unicorns, and the light bulbs and gadgets are supplied by elves, nothing he was offering was “free.” It was and is being paid for by me and other customers.

Being precise and honest about money matters is certainly not their strong suit.

Actually, I’d be certain he wasn’t wearing ACTEW regalia and If you actually took the time to listen you’d find it’s part of the ACT government’s laws with regards to energy efficiency improvement.

By not accepting the lights and power controller you’re actually costing yourself money, well done.

zorro29 11:24 am 20 Mar 13

Ian said :

Seems a tad excessive for CEO of a monopoly utility with <400 employees and <$300m revenue. No competition, supplying goods that consumers have no real choice but to buy. I note from their annual report that there's another executive on close to $500k and a couple of others on around $300k. Nice for a small to medium sized company.

agree….

breda 11:13 am 20 Mar 13

Loose language is an integral part of the MO.

Yesterday, a chap in ACTEW regalia knocked on my door and offered me “free” twirly lightbulbs and something or other to do with my TV. I politely told him, no thanks. He had his script, no point in taking it out on him.

Unless his wages are being paid by unicorns, and the light bulbs and gadgets are supplied by elves, nothing he was offering was “free.” It was and is being paid for by me and other customers.

Being precise and honest about money matters is certainly not their strong suit.

Ian 10:45 am 20 Mar 13

Seems a tad excessive for CEO of a monopoly utility with <400 employees and <$300m revenue. No competition, supplying goods that consumers have no real choice but to buy. I note from their annual report that there's another executive on close to $500k and a couple of others on around $300k. Nice for a small to medium sized company.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site