How does the City and mayor get away with stuff like this?

36.5 million of "our tax dollars" spent on "Consultant Fees" in 2009 and all without having gone to public bid etc to hire the consultants and all that money that could have been used in so many other areas of the City instead...

What an unbelievable "waste of tax dollars" again...


http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/breakingnews/City-to-take-extra-month-to-amend-consulting-rules-90097392.html

All $36.5 million has been wasted?

That's way too much! They should have gone to Rona for some advice!

Three contractors . . . One from Sri Lanka, another from Germany and the third from England are bidding to repair the City Hall fence.

A senior City Hall official takes them to examine it.

The English contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works on some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says. "I figure the job will cost $900 . . . $400 for materials, $400 for labour and $100 profit for me."

The German contractor also does some measuring and figuring and then says, "I can do this job for $700 . . . $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Sri Lankan contractor doesn't measure or do any figuring, but leans over to the City Hall official and whispers: "$2,700."

The official incredulously says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

"Easy," the Sri Lankan explains, "$1,000 for you, $1,000 for me and we hire the guy from Germany to do the work!"

FlyingRat wrote:That's way too much! They should have gone to Rona for some advice!

Indeed. Free advise abounds at Rona from old chums like Pavola.

GOM you wrote:

All $36.5 million has been wasted?

Not specifically but who knows exactly how much is wasted when consultant contracts are not put out to tender first...

And did you check out some of the related stories such as this one?...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/councillor-livid-firm-gets-10m-despite-errors-58437982.html[quote]

See, I don't much like exaggeration. You said it was wasted, perhaps you can support that comment? Perhaps you know exactly how much was
wasted.

Consultant bloat is a direct result of so-called government downsizing. The way it goes is that they "reduce" their senior staff and give them generous golden handshakes (about 5 years worth of salary). Shortly after, the same people get hired back to do the same job as consultant at about 3 to 5 times their previous salary. So thank the morons who want to shrink government for that.

eViL tRoLl wrote:Consultant bloat is a direct result of so-called government downsizing. The way it goes is that they "reduce" their senior staff and give them generous golden handshakes (about 5 years worst of salary). Shortly after, the same people get hired back to do the same job as consultant at about 3 to 5 times their previous salary. So thank the morons who want to shrink government for that.

And thank the morons left behind for engaging in that practise.

GOM you wrote:

See, I don't much like exaggeration. You said it was wasted, perhaps you can support that comment? Perhaps you know exactly how much was
wasted.

It's not my job to put consultant contracts up for tender in a "Democracy" and I would assume it would be the politicians jobs instead...

And that is of course if the politicians were truly interested in "Spending Tax Dollars Wisely" of course...

And also instead of perhaps sleeping with a couple of them...

Isn't this just a re-hash of old headlines? The article is just about an 1 month extension to produce a report and amend the rules.

GGF wrote:GOM you wrote:

See, I don't much like exaggeration. You said it was wasted, perhaps you can support that comment? Perhaps you know exactly how much was
wasted.

It's not my job to put consultant contracts up for tender in a "Democracy" and I would assume it would be the politicians jobs instead...

And that is of course if the politicians were truly interested in "Spending Tax Dollars Wisely" of course...

And also instead of perhaps sleeping with a couple of them...

Holy sh1t! Pretty dramatic leap of logic from accusations of wasting money on consultants to sex scandals.

Well, typical style, if you can't answer the question, just spew more bullshit.

Freeman wrote:

GGF wrote:GOM you wrote:

See, I don't much like exaggeration. You said it was wasted, perhaps you can support that comment? Perhaps you know exactly how much was wasted.

It's not my job to put consultant contracts up for tender in a "Democracy" and I would assume it would be the politicians jobs instead...

And that is of course if the politicians were truly interested in "Spending Tax Dollars Wisely" of course...

And also instead of perhaps sleeping with a couple of them...

Holy sh1t! Pretty dramatic leap of logic from accusations of wasting money on consultants to sex scandals.

Well, typical style, if you can't answer the question, just spew more bullshit.

Frankly, the whole post makes little sense. First paragraph? Of course it is not his job. Kind of an absurd comment. Second paragraph? No, not the job of politicians. Bureaucrats? Yes. Third paragraph? It is that kind of bozonic comment that makes most of those posts meaningless.

GOM you wrote:

Frankly, the whole post makes little sense. First paragraph? Of course it is not his job. Kind of an absurd comment. Second paragraph? No, not the job of politicians. Bureaucrats? Yes. Third paragraph? It is that kind of bozonic comment that makes most of those posts meaningless.

So then why does everything else generally have to go to public tender first instead of just being handed out to a consultant and or consultant firm and without having any other competitive tenders obtained from other consultants or consultant firms?...

And isn't it generally safe to assume the following...

And without any competitive tenders obtained from other consultants or consultant firms then that means that the known consultant or consultant firm recipient can "now" charge "essentially" whatever they like or can perhaps justify now doesn't it?...

And the same can now apply to anyone else that has business dealings with the city or governments and also have "Exclusives" or "No competitors" allowed to bid on the same tender...

So now how am I as a taxpayer protected from a bloated bill "real or not" from a consultant or consultant firm that doesn't have any competitors to worry about as a result of the city or civic government not having put the bid up to public tender first for other consultants or consultant firms so those consultant or consultant firms can also bid on the same contract available etc?...

GGF wrote:So then why does everything else generally have to go to public tender first instead of just being handed out to a consultant and or consultant firm and without having any other competitive tenders obtained from other consultants or consultant firms?...

Everything over a certain $$$ absolutely should go for tender. You suggesting otherwise is happening? You suggesting it is a free-for-all?

GGF wrote:And isn't it generally safe to assume the following...

And without any competitive tenders obtained from other consultants or consultant firms then that means that the known consultant or consultant firm recipient can "now" charge "essentially" whatever they like or can perhaps justify now doesn't it?...

I assume you've never spent a successful day in business? Most business people will offer a fair trade in exchange for continued business with the city. You may get away with something once or twice but when caught all that potential business disappears. No legitimate businessman will jeopardize his future for the sake of a few extra dollars today.

GGF wrote:And the same can now apply to anyone else that has business dealings with the city or governments and also have "Exclusives" or "No competitors" allowed to bid on the same tender...

So now how am I as a taxpayer protected from a bloated bill "real or not" from a consultant or consultant firm that doesn't have any competitors to worry about as a result of the city or civic government not having put the bid up to public tender first for other consultants or consultant firms so those consultant or consultant firms can also bid on the same contract available etc?...

Put appropriate checks and balances in place. Insist upon standards and accept no alternates.

But, this is not the duty of politicians. This is the domain of BUREAUCRATS.

GOM you wrote:

Put appropriate checks and balances in place. Insist upon standards and accept no alternates.

But, this is not the duty of politicians. This is the domain of BUREAUCRATS.

So who hires and or is suppose to watch over and or be in the "Care and Control" of our "Bureaucrats"?...

Is it not our mayor and other publicly elected officials and what is call City Hall?...

And or in other words our civic government and our Mayor Sam Katz and all the other publicly elected officials/councillors forming City Hall?...

And are not all of these elected officials suppose to be in charge of watching over or be in charge of having our bureaucrats under their care and control?...

And mainly and specifically our top bureaucrats?...

Politicians are not responsible for the day-to-day minutiae. They appoint the senior bureaucrats, develop policy and let them do their jobs. God help us if the councilors get their hands on the front-line troops.

You suggesting the mayor review every single transaction the city makes? You can't see how absurd your position is?

GOM you wrote:

Politicians are not responsible for the day-to-day minutiae. They appoint the senior bureaucrats, develop policy and let them do their jobs. God help us if the councilors get their hands on the front-line troops.

Right and specifically..."They appoint the senior bureaucrats, develop policy and let them do their jobs"...Hum?...

So what would be the point of the politicians to develop policies with the senior bureaucrat(s) if they don't check to see if the policy they develop is being implemented with the senior bureaucrat(s) etc?...

And or you perhaps suggesting that the mayor or perhaps other elected politicians were perhaps "Asleep at the Switch"?...

And or you perhaps saying that the mayor and perhaps other elected officials or policy makers had to have known that there wasn't any public tendering being offered for consultants in general?...

And perhaps as a result of the mayor and or perhaps council having developed the policy with the senior bureaucrat(s)?...

Hum?...

Then GOM you wrote:

You suggesting the mayor review every single transaction the city makes? You can't see how absurd your position is?

I never wrote or suggested that GOM and that is what your interpretation of what I wrote in my previous post probably was...

GGF wrote:
So now how am I as a taxpayer protected from a bloated bill "real or not" from a consultant or consultant firm that doesn't have any competitors to worry about as a result of the city or civic government not having put the bid up to public tender first for other consultants or consultant firms so those consultant or consultant firms can also bid on the same contract available etc?...

The tender process is total BS. Manitoba is a small province, and it is VERY easy to formulate a tender in a way that will limit the competition or target a specific provider. Let's not forget that many consultants are people who used to do the job before at much lower pay, and who have very specific inside knowledge that can be used a requirement in the tender.

I know somebody that works at PSB (Procurrment Services Branch) and she tells me that there are too many people working on each project and not all are sympathetic to the NDP cause, and someone would blow the whistle immediately if something untoward was happening.

Besides, the other providers would scream bloody-murder if one of their competitors got an unfair advantage.

First, there has to be a distinction between the tendering for goods and services, ie provide computers and installation, vehicles, road repairs, pens and paper and the retention of a consultant.

Consultants are hired to provide expert advice, and need to work with the consultee (?) on a very close basis. Most organizations have different rules for tendering as described above and the retention of a consultant for HR, strategic planning, etc type issues.

That being said (another Gary Doer favourite line), the drift of the article is that the Mayor and council want more details from the hired help as to the whole thing about consultant contracts. Lets see what makes up that 36.5 million. How much of that is for engineers for capital projects, architects for renovations, etc?

There nothing wrong with speculating, after all, thats what we do best in the sandbox.

I find it interesting that we only really know about the 36.5 mill because the mayor and council are all "like WTF?!?!? we gotta change that sh1t!" and yet this thread has people complaining about the mayor and council.

Complaining about the mayor and council? Just gotta consider the source Deank...

JTF you wrote:

Besides, the other providers would scream bloody-murder if one of their competitors got an unfair advantage.

So how are some of these competitors suppose to know about "a public tender being available" if the tender is not offered to the public in the first place?...

And or perhaps advertised elsewhere in Mb or Canada or perhaps the US or even say elsewhere in the world etc...

And I am certain that the quality for such contracts and "in particular" such as with "Consultants" the quality of "Consultants" could perhaps improve dramatically and so on if these "Consultant" contracts were offered publicly and perhaps more specifically without a "Perceived Selective Bias Involved"...

And the reason I say that is because "Governments use Consultants" to do studies and calculate costs for projects etc...

And or whatever the "Government Spin to the Public" usually has come from whatever was in the consultants report/study "first" etc...

And because "Government Consultants" are the "Under Belly of our Governments" and not just in the peg but with all our governments in Canada...

GGF wrote:JTF you wrote:

Besides, the other providers would scream bloody-murder if one of their competitors got an unfair advantage.

So how are some of these competitors suppose to know about "a public tender being available" if the tender is not offered to the public in the first place?...

And or perhaps advertised elsewhere in Mb or Canada or perhaps the US or even say elsewhere in the world etc...

And I am certain that the quality for such contracts and "in particular" such as with "Consultants" the quality of "Consultants" could perhaps improve dramatically and so on if these "Consultant" contracts were offered publicly and perhaps more specifically without a "Perceived Selective Bias Involved"...

And the reason I say that is because "Governments use Consultants" to do studies and calculate costs for projects etc...

And or whatever the "Government Spin to the Public" usually has come from whatever was in the consultants report/study "first" etc...

And because "Government Consultants" are the "Under Belly of our Governments" and not just in the peg but with all our governments in Canada...

and...and...and...greeblok

More of the same.