Friday, September 30, 2011

ER #13: Consultant Flimflam

City Hall Elevator Rumblings #13

Rider #1: I’m starting to have flashbacks. As we scramble in our attempt to “justify” the $1.6 million chamber of commerce agreement for “economic development” while also hiding the $400,000 stadium sign revenue going directly to the chamber, there are some pesky rumblings about another $1.3 million “consulting” contract affectionally known as Dean’s Deal. What is causing tax payers to go on a rampage about how we are spending their bucks? By the way, what kind of bang for the buck are we even getting on this Dean’s Deal agreement?

Rider #2: Look, it’s not what you get, but rather who benefits that counts. In the case of Dean’s Deal, the city council and consultant benefit. They all take trips (read: junkets) to D.C. and other far-flung locations, attend lavish receptions and hobnob with other politicos to merely chitchat and lobby about federal and state transportation and water issues. So you see, there doesn’t have to be anything tangible produced. It’s more about politico ego-inflation than cost benefit. All the consultant has to do is point to any road, highway or water source and claim success. Besides, when you have $1.3 million to spend, you can throw some rather lavish affairs and inflate a lot of political egos on the tax payer dime.

Rider #1: I think we are in the wrong business. If I had know "consulting" was this easy, I wouldn’t have gone to __________ (censored for anonymity reasons) for four years. I always thought that as stewards of public funds we should be looking out for the “little people.” In this case, it seems so easy for politicos to justify the blather of a consultant, since you cannot disprove a negative on what they claim to have actually done.

Rider #2: Now, you are starting to understand. Maybe we can get the Capo to agree with us on this one if he hasn’t made the “Dean’s List.” We should either trim the deal way, way back, or chunk it in the land fill of undocumented results.

Ed. Note: It would be informing if the council or city administration could specifically reflect what actual and demonstrable results could have been obtained from these two “consultant” agreements that will cost at least $3,300,000 tax payer bucks.

A note from counsel: These “candid” elevator conversations have been injected with fabricated nouns, verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, adverbs, modifiers and maybe a few dangling participles….Mark Holbrook