Why couldn't City officials just say no?
http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-111604dwp_lat,0,6860657,print.story?coll=ktla-news-1
Fleishman-Hillard is in business to make money. That's what businesses do, right? City officials are supposed to use the lowest cost responsible bidder. City officials can cancel a contract or award away from the lowest cost responsible bidder.
City officials wrote the contract. City officials administered the contract. City officials used the services for years. City officials approved the purchases. The Controller's Office paid for the services rendered for years.
After six years of abuse, Laura Chick and City officials (contract users) get the idea to blame Fleishman-Hillard for not managing the City's money...
Why aren't the city officials held responsible? Aren't they responsible for prudent use of city resources in the best interests of the citizens?
Do we need a contractor to monitor our City officials? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Should we question the use of the City Attorney's office attempt to tansfer blame to Fleishman-Hillard?
Isn't this like blaming the government for minting the stolen money?
What do you think?
Fleishman-Hillard is in business to make money. That's what businesses do, right? City officials are supposed to use the lowest cost responsible bidder. City officials can cancel a contract or award away from the lowest cost responsible bidder.
City officials wrote the contract. City officials administered the contract. City officials used the services for years. City officials approved the purchases. The Controller's Office paid for the services rendered for years.
After six years of abuse, Laura Chick and City officials (contract users) get the idea to blame Fleishman-Hillard for not managing the City's money...
Why aren't the city officials held responsible? Aren't they responsible for prudent use of city resources in the best interests of the citizens?
Do we need a contractor to monitor our City officials? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Should we question the use of the City Attorney's office attempt to tansfer blame to Fleishman-Hillard?
Isn't this like blaming the government for minting the stolen money?
What do you think?
posted by The Gadfly at 4:27 AM
2 Comments:
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2539410,00.html
DWP audit finds unexpectedly large overbilling for P.R.
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
City Controller Laura Chick issued a scathing audit Tuesday of the Department of Water and Power, accusing a major downtown public relations firm of overbilling taxpayers by a staggering $4.2 million -- far more than the audit was expected to find.
The amount represents more than $1 in every six that the firm, Fleishman-Hillard, charged the monopoly utility for advice since 1998 under its controversial $3 million-a-year contract.
A lizard will excise its own tail to distract and escape its captor.
Instead of blaming Fleishman-Hillard take notice of the cookie crumb dusted power ties and globs of partially emulsified chocolate bits billowing in the gaps of the whitened prosthetically-enhanced teeth of the lawmakers in town. This baneful scene represents the management of our City’s prize resources. The DWP is an enervated cookie jar under the purview of highly coiffed attorneys turned cozy City bureaucrats wielding manicured fingernails to expose everyone but themselves.
I see two distinctly different thresholds for ethical behavior: On one hand, companies like Fleishman-Hillard are in business to make money for their constituents. As much as we may abhor backroom politics, skid-greasing, and price-gouging, their missions are clear – to make money.
On the other hand, elected City officials and municipal utility administrators have a different mission. These civic leaders, their minions, and armies of civil servants are charged with a higher standard, embodied in the City oath, to provide and ensure continuous, ethical, uncompromised, cost-effective service to the citizens of Los Angeles.
Fleishman-Hillard provided services for six years with full knowledge and cooperation of the Mayor’s Office, City Controller, City Council, and City Attorney’s Office. City officials intimately know they have a higher threshold for ethical behavior. For whatever reason, City officials each took part and received benefit from this long-standing relationship. City officials maintained an audit trail of “loosey-goosey” records that invited the abuse.
It is not the vendor’s responsibility to manage the City’s money. The City officials sought, requested, contracted, directed, and approved services for payment. Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. So, tell me again, why are we investigating Fleishman-Hillard?
Obviously, they can't police themselves. The questions we should be asking are what do we need to do to demand reform, hold them accountable, and get them out.
Post a Comment
<< Home