Toronto’s budget chief says he has no idea what kind of “smell test” the housing authority board went through before deciding to award more than $2-million in golden handshakes and bonuses to senior executives.

“Does anybody think at the end of the day that this doesn’t smell good?,” Mike Del Grande asked Wednesday in response to revelations by the Toronto Sun that eight senior execs of the embattled Toronto Community Housing Corporation(TCHC) cashed out big time before either retiring, leaving for greener pastures or being asked to step down.

Some of the more egregious payouts — provided to the Toronto Sun by a TCHC insider fed up with what this source called a “disgusting” misuse of taxpayer dollars — included $290,000 to Harold Ball, when he retired as vice-president of human resources at TCHC after a long career with the city.

Ex-CEO Keiko Nakamura, who was sacked at the end of March 2011, walked out the door about $320,000 richer, not including the $47,000 bonuses awarded to her in 2008 and 2009. She has now taken up residence at Goodwill Industries as CEO.

Gordon Chu, the controversial CFO who gambled away $41.4-million of TCHC money in high-risk equities, left at the end of 2010 but continued on the housing authority payroll for another eight months — collecting $141,517. He also earned himself bonuses totalling $65,000 from 2008-2010.

None of the execs who received cash kissoffs and/or bonuses responded to a series of e-mails and phone calls made over two days earlier this week.

Which brings me back to Del Grande’s comments.

The only smell pervasive among the inner circle of execs at TCHC seemed to be one of greed.

For all their handwringing, it’s clear their friends on the board couldn’t have given a hoot about tenants living in squalor as the repair backlog grew steadily to its current $751-million.

The CEO had the discretion to approve contracts for senior execs — contracts which included severance clauses and bonus schemes of up to 20% a year.

Let’s not forget who was CEO when most of these contracts were approved — Derek Ballantyne.

Ballantyne collected bonuses of $47,344 in 2008 and a walk-away payment of $33,000 in 2009 when he left for Build Toronto.

When the spending scandal at TCHC came to light — thanks to the diligent work of Auditor-General Jeff Griffiths — and Ballantyne was asked to leave Build Toronto, he departed with a year’s salary or $245,000.

Who approves these deals?

In the case of Ballantyne and Nakamura, who succeeded him, it was a board consisting of such noteworthy minders of the public purse as Anthony Perruzza, Paula Fletcher and Giorgio Mammoliti (who talks a good game but allowed it to happen.)

The culture of indulgence was perpetuated from CEO to CEO.

That brings me to Interim CEO Len Koroneos, who also jumped on the Gravy Train when he walked out the door this past June — taking at least $461,000 and as much as $594,000 with him.

The difference would depend on whether his 18 months severance is based on both his CEO salary and the $10,000 premium he got per month for doing double duty as CFO.

That was “very surprising” and “upsetting” to Del Grande considering Koroneos was brought in to clean up things at the scandal-plagued TCHC.

Here’s the thing.

While interim chairman Case Ootes and current chairman Bud Purves say they “inherited” the Koroneos contract, they both signed off on it — and agreed to pay him a hefty premium for acting in the CFO’s job.

Since neither would discuss the contract — and Koroneos did not return Sun phone calls — I have to wonder if they ever explored refusing to pay him the premium. Were they that afraid he would sue?

Someone has to put their money where their mouths are. No use just talking about cleaning house.

I was nonetheless pleased that Del Grande, current board member Councillor Frances Nunziata and Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday all agree that bonuses should not be paid to execs working for a public housing authority, or if paid, should be done in the rarest of instances.

“I don’t believe in bonuses,” says Nunziata. “They make enough money.”

Holyday agrees.

“If somebody did something extraordinarily good and saved them an awful lot of money or improved their processes, it might be considered,” he says. “But it shouldn’t be done as just a a matter of a fact.”