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

Deank you wrote:

"Yes I can...Had the politicians and mayor in particular not just slam it in like he/they did last fall and rather ask the public "first" what they may or may not have wanted...All could have been avoided...
"

and you are totally missing the whole point of it again. Many of the councillors were MAD at the Waste department at the time for forcing it on them with no chance to vote otherwise or ask for more information.

LOL!...

Deank you also wrote:

They voted to go with it because if they had not it would have basically meant no garbage pickup or garbage pickup at a VERY high price until they could get a contract working again.
Its not a snap of the fingers thing and it happens. Garbage contracting goes through a very lenghty process THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE ELECTED OFFICIALS before it finally gets to the elected officials with the understanding the EMPLOYEES made proper decisions all along.

Back to what I said in my previous post and will add now...You see all the politicians had plenty of time to figure this out before a vote took place etc...

Go read hansard, hell go talk to the elected officials you will see how pissed they were that this was shoved down their throats.

Myself and Sammy in particular and or perhaps other politicians are best friends and that is...

"Back to what I said in my previous post and will add now...You see all the politicians had plenty of time to figure this out before a vote took place etc..."

NO THEY NEVER and I am talking reality, not the make believe world you live in.
"Myself and Sammy in particular and or perhaps other politicians are best friends and that is.."

most if not all of the councillors will take the time to talk to people they serve. read hansard. Go talk to any one of the councillors that voted against the automated garbage. Hell go talk to the councillor responsible for the waste department, he ended up voting against the latest round of changes simply because the money that was supposed to be saved by automated is now no longer being saved because it is so fricked up.

Oh man.......its moments like this when I could use some really good drugs.

or a couple of bottles of wine...

So this thread started because of consultant fees? I'm not at all surprised that the city is spending a lot on consultants. If they are looking into any cost cutting measures, consultants are going to be hired. City Hall doesn't have the resources or expertise to do propper analysis. The more potential programs they look at changing, the more consultants fees will go up. That's how it is. You could probably argue that Katz likes to redo the same analysis multiple times (i.e.: rapid transit reports) instead of actually going forward with anything, so money may be wasted in that way.

But I'd rather have the city pay for consultants to look at something correctly than to try to do it incorrectly internally. At the same time, if so much is being spent on consultant fees, is 'cutting red tape' and all that actually costing us more to look into than we're really saving? Hard to say. But I'm guessing not many people on this board work for companies who work with consultants. The amount spent might sound like a lot, but for the amount of things the city is looking at, it may actually not be half as bad as it seems. It isn't cheap to do things like feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, etc.

grumpy old man wrote:So where is this promise Katz made? I guess you cannot support your position in this matter either.

Why do you bother?

Ummm, ggf? You have an answer?

WHAT!!! You expect GGF to answer a question of fact? Why should he worry about fact when his arguments are based on some of the best bullshit in the world.

BTW, he never answered your first question as to how much of the 36.5 mil was wasted either, and we're only on page 4 of this thread.

...more to come later...

Come on man.....I need to score badly!

umcrouc0 wrote:So this thread started because of consultant fees? I'm not at all surprised that the city is spending a lot on consultants. If they are looking into any cost cutting measures, consultants are going to be hired. City Hall doesn't have the resources or expertise to do propper analysis. The more potential programs they look at changing, the more consultants fees will go up. That's how it is. You could probably argue that Katz likes to redo the same analysis multiple times (i.e.: rapid transit reports) instead of actually going forward with anything, so money may be wasted in that way.

But I'd rather have the city pay for consultants to look at something correctly than to try to do it incorrectly internally. At the same time, if so much is being spent on consultant fees, is 'cutting red tape' and all that actually costing us more to look into than we're really saving? Hard to say. But I'm guessing not many people on this board work for companies who work with consultants. The amount spent might sound like a lot, but for the amount of things the city is looking at, it may actually not be half as bad as it seems. It isn't cheap to do things like feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, etc.

And so the cycle continues ... programs get changed, and the former staff will become new consultants to do their old jobs at quadruple pay ...

That assumes every former employee becomes a consultant. What are the numbers eViL tRoLI? Of that $36~ million in consultant fees how much went to former employees? Of that number, how much is "bloated" fees?

I think it is right to question that practise. I also believe it is correct to ensure nothing untoward is happening in that arena.

Let's just put a few facts together before we throw every consultant under the bus.

umcrouc0 wrote:So this thread started because of consultant fees? I'm not at all surprised that the city is spending a lot on consultants. If they are looking into any cost cutting measures, consultants are going to be hired. City Hall doesn't have the resources or expertise to do propper analysis. The more potential programs they look at changing, the more consultants fees will go up. That's how it is. You could probably argue that Katz likes to redo the same analysis multiple times (i.e.: rapid transit reports) instead of actually going forward with anything, so money may be wasted in that way.

But I'd rather have the city pay for consultants to look at something correctly than to try to do it incorrectly internally. At the same time, if so much is being spent on consultant fees, is 'cutting red tape' and all that actually costing us more to look into than we're really saving? Hard to say. But I'm guessing not many people on this board work for companies who work with consultants. The amount spent might sound like a lot, but for the amount of things the city is looking at, it may actually not be half as bad as it seems. It isn't cheap to do things like feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, etc.

100% agreed

That's it...

The mayor should allocate millions of $$$ and hire a "Consultant(s)" to try and help "Everyone in the peg" try an figure out/understand how to make sense out the "Itchy & Scratchy Politics in the peg"...

And then as an added bonus he could also "Spin" the money spent on "Consultants" as saving everyone in the peg some tax money...

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/the-itchy--scratchy--------show-90559444.html

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:So where is this promise Katz made? I guess you cannot support your position in this matter either.

Why do you bother?

Ummm, ggf? You have an answer?

Anything ggf?

GGF wrote:That's it...

The mayor should allocate millions of $$$ and hire a "Consultant(s)" to try and help "Everyone in the peg" try an figure out/understand how to make sense out the "Itchy & Scratchy Politics in the peg"...

And then as an added bonus he could also "Spin" the money spent on "Consultants" as saving everyone in the peg some tax money...

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/the-itchy--scratchy--------show-90559444.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/the-itchy--scratchy--------show-90559444.html[/quote[/url]]

Again, another brilliantly constructed and well worded post, that makes absolutely no sense.

Freeman wrote:

GGF wrote:That's it...

The mayor should allocate millions of $$$ and hire a "Consultant(s)" to try and help "Everyone in the peg" try an figure out/understand how to make sense out the "Itchy & Scratchy Politics in the peg"...

And then as an added bonus he could also "Spin" the money spent on "Consultants" as saving everyone in the peg some tax money...

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/the-itchy--scratchy--------show-90559444.html

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/the-itchy--scratchy--------show-90559444.html[/quote[/url]]

Again, another brilliantly constructed and well worded post, that makes absolutely no sense.

Try not to expect too much...

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:So where is this promise Katz made? I guess you cannot support your position in this matter either.

Why do you bother?

Ummm, ggf? You have an answer?

Anything ggf?

ggf?

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:So where is this promise Katz made? I guess you cannot support your position in this matter either.

Why do you bother?

Ummm, ggf? You have an answer?

Anything ggf?

ggf?

You're just trying to get that post count over 100,000, aren't you?

GOM you wrote:

So where is this promise Katz made? I guess you cannot support your position in this matter either.

I am assuming in relation to "Consultants" so please try this...

http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/media/news/nr_2004/nr_20040722.stm

Above is the link that was previously posted by Deank in a previous post and go to this…

Work to reduce the cost of City government and ensure citizens and business receive value for the tax dollars they pay out.

Then go to this link I posted in an earlier post…

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

And then in the comments below of that article and down to this…

Posted by: Bartley Kives
April 7, 2010 at 6:06 PM
@Defrost: Nonsense. I have a list of the 2004 campaign promises on the wall in my office.

Here's the first page:

1. Cut the consulting budget.
2. Competitive service delivery in areas such as garbage collection.
3. Lobby the province to eliminate the provincial education support levy.
4. Phase out the business tax, starting in the city's core, where it will go from 9.75 per cent to 7.75 per cent in 2005. The same reduction will take place in the rest of the city in 2007.

Bartley

And then if you want perhaps a more complete list of campaign promises…

Then perhaps try sending BK an email and he might send you the full list of campaign promises Sam Katz made in the last election campaign…

This is exactly what you said:

grumpy old man wrote:

GGF wrote:Deank you wrote:

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS IS IN THE NEWS, THE ELECTED PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FIX WHAT THEY SEE AS A BROKEN PROCESS THAT THE HIRED HELP IS FOLLOWING

I know that and the big question(s) I have are the following...

a) Wasn't the issue of fixing the problem with consultants not an election promise made by Sam Katz in 2004 before he was elected as mayor?...

b) So now...Why did he or they wait just before a new election to be called soon to address the issue of "Consultants" and not have addressed the issue of "Consultants" say 5yrs ago when it could have perhaps made a heck of lot difference overall?...

And or would you happen to perhaps know if someone perhaps finally woke up at City Hall or something?...

And that's the reason it's in the papers now and wasn't in the papers say 5yrs ago...

Maybe that is what you should have said right from the get go then. I don't know if that was an election issue or not. Maybe you can post a link to support your allegation. Google is your friend.

So, you have two questions:
1) was "fixing" the consultant issue a Katz election issue.
B) if so, why did he wait so long?

Where exactly does your response address this post?

GOM you wrote:

Where exactly does your response address this post?

In relation to this I am assuming...

So, you have two questions:
1) was "fixing" the consultant issue a Katz election issue.
B) if so, why did he wait so long?

Answer is here...

Posted by: Bartley Kives
April 7, 2010 at 6:06 PM
@Defrost: Nonsense. I have a list of the 2004 campaign promises on the wall in my office.

Here's the first page:

1. Cut the consulting budget.
2. Competitive service delivery in areas such as garbage collection.
3. Lobby the province to eliminate the provincial education support levy.
4. Phase out the business tax, starting in the city's core, where it will go from 9.75 per cent to 7.75 per cent in 2005. The same reduction will take place in the rest of the city in 2007.

Bartley

1) was "fixing" the consultant issue a Katz election issue.

And specifically #1 and "Cut the consulting budget"...

And isn't cutting a consultant budget a consultant issue?...

And it is not my fault or problem if he wasn't more specific on what he truly meant by simply saying "Cut the consulting budget" without elaborating what it was that he truly meant...

And or if we find out now that the same consultant was used several times over etc...

And or perhaps if we find out that senior bureaucrats may not have been doing what they were expected to do for the last 4-5 yrs etc...

And that for me just appears to be just a lot of passing the puck around and nothing else one way or the other...

And certainly and or more specifically not something I would see as "Accountability" in my opinion...

B) if so, why did he wait so long?

"Cut the consultant budget" or in my opinion the more generic issue of "consultants" is a promise that was made in 2004...

So once again...Why did he wait until now in 2010 to start to look at the consultant budget/consultant issue?...

And possibly or probably because an election needs to be called soon...

I love bold and I just love it when people quote from outside the sandbox and make it look like it was posted here. I really want to read everything a message says when it has stuff like that in it.

Deank you wrote:

I love bold and I just love it when people quote from outside the sandbox and make it look like it was posted here. I really want to read everything a message says when it has stuff like that in it.

Try looking back at my post #38 in this thread which is this one...

Here's a link GOM in relation to some of the election promises made by Sam Katz in 2004...

Below is the story that appeared in the FP online yesterday which is "City to take extra month to amend consulting rules" and then check the comments at the bottom of the article where BK has a comment at the bottom in the comment section to the article in response to someone asking if anyone had a copy of Sam Katz elections promises in 2004 etc...

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

Sorry but I tried to guide you there earlier in the debate and it is truthfully not my fault if you missed it...

I would take "cutting the consultant budget" as synonymous with "building capacity to do the jobs internally".

I concur

Evil troli you wrote:

I would take "cutting the consultant budget" as synonymous with "building capacity to do the jobs internally".

Check out this link...

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

And specifically in the article link above the following ...

Laubenstein said the city is seeking to reduce the number of consultants it employs. But in 2008, consulting payments rose to $34.8 million from $29.9 million in 2007.

And or in that same article link above...

Total spending on consultants by the city of Winnipeg in 2008: $34.8 million, up from $29.9 million in 2007

And in this article link below…

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

And specifically check out the following in that article link…

The city spent $36.5 million on consultants in 2009, according to the latest summary before council.

The consultant budget...
In 2007 it was $29.9 million...
In 2008 it was $34.8 million...
In 2009 it was $36.5 million...

Hum!...So now exactly how does that relate to the Sam Katz election campaign promise in 2004 to "Cut the consulting budget?"

Whatever...And that is also just one more reason why I say it is synonymous with saying it is time to say...Bye, Bye Sammy already...