The Argue Endorser ED Board proves once again they live under a rock

Kinda reminds me of Pat Lalley’s 100 EYES show that lasted a whole 17 minutes on Tuesday because none of the viewers gave him any comments to flap his gums about. I would have commented, but since us bloggers are not influential, would it have really mattered? He was able to talk about his favorite topic, him riding a bicycle to work. Thanks for reminding us Pat. Who knew?

I know Pat doesn’t sit on the Ed board of his employer, so I will cut him some slack, but they have proved once again that they know very little about what is going on in city government. I suggest the next time they want to spout off about a proposed change in the city charter, they speak with Beth, Jonathan, John and Megan. You know, the reporters that work for you that cover this sort of thing, until then, my non-influential perspective;

In the mid-1990s, the council approved the current policy. It allows the mayor and his department heads leeway to approve contracts – even big ones – without council approval. In a strong-mayor form of government, that certainly is an acceptable option.

Acceptable to who? The AL Ed Board? I believe a majority of the council approves of this, and thinks it is an acceptable change. In fact I spoke to a former city councilor about this the other night (not Staggers 🙂 and they told me this is something that his council even looked at after the Munson ‘Phillips to the Falls’ debacle.

Why it must change now is not really clear.

Are you living under a freaking rock? I think it is pretty clear why this needs to change. TRANSPARENCY!

We hope the council is indeed making a serious-minded effort to monitor spending here and not playing politics or making a power play out of this issue.

Yeah, what a HUGE power play they make out of approving malt beverage licenses on the consent agenda, which will be the same process used to approve these contracts. Do you folks also write opinions for FOX News?

The mayor’s office should offer ideas on the appropriate amounts and help forge a compromise.

This will necessitate some even-tempered discussion, but a workable policy shouldn’t be that difficult to achieve.

What!? They have been discussing this change for months! If not years. The time for compromising is over and done with, the first reading will appear on the city council meeting agenda on Monday (Item #24). That means the discussion is over with and it is time to act. Like I said above, the Ed Board needs to crawl out from under the rock they live and talk to their OWN reporters once in awhile. As Archie Bunker would say, ‘Jeeeezch’

 



7 comments ↓

#1 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 4:47 am

If you want a good laugh about this topic watch this video, in which the city attorney does a Mexican Hat Dance on the subject. Heck, the Velvet Hammer even was laughing at his arguments at one point (starts at about 11:00);

http://docs.siouxfalls.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1514&doctype=AGENDA

#2 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 5:05 am

And FF to 27:00 to see where the City Attorney defends the city charter on the issue, and this is where Vern reminds David that state law trumps city charter, and David denies it. Hilarious stuff.

#3 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 5:37 am

I also love it when David lays out his version of ‘Cliff Notes’ and Vern says, “I don’t think we have time today for this.” This should be made into a play.

#4 Sy on 07.28.11 at 9:35 am

The first contract we need to scrutinize is that of SMG, seems lots of people in other places are asking WTF?

“The City’s contract with SMG for the management of the Pontchartrain Center is expiring. The City of Kenner has received proposals from SMG and another management company that was not disclosed for a new contract to manage the building.

“I’m tired of losing money on the building,” Mayor Yenni said.

Mayor Yenni also said that he has considered bringing the management of the center in-house, possibly as a new department.

The proposals are currently being evaluated by a committee with a decision expected within the next two week.

The question is, why even consider SMG?

Yes, SMG is the largest facility management company in the world but are they doing enough to bring business to Kenner and the Pontchartrain Center? Why continue using a company that has not ever operated the building at a profit?

http://www.clickjefferson.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=2761

“The third strike came when that interview, with a six-member citizens committee, went so badly that committee members marveled afterward at what they viewed as SMG’s disconnect from reality about its performance at Roberts Stadium.”

and,

“SMG was initially very reluctant to focus its financial incentives on net revenue or on attendance goals that reflected any activity significantly greater than that which was occurring already at Roberts Stadium,” according to a Jan. 31 statement by the mayor’s office.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/feb/06/how-smg-struck-out/

“It was SMG’s failure to produce results promised that impacted Forum Enterprise’s ability to pay, according to Little. “It’s very clear that SMG could never do the things they promised,” he admitted in hindsight. ”

http://www.calblackmediaassoc.com/news/la-focus/411-the-forum-under-new-management.html

So why is it that SMG doesn’t seem to give a rip about whether a place loses money or not? Probably because they word their contracts so they get paid either way:

“The city is keeping the SMG contract under wraps until an award is made, but some details are in a December 14 memo to the assembly, issued about four weeks before the Bid Review Board convened its meeting.

“SMG is protected even if the facility should lose money, but they have an incentive to make money there, too. Their fee, calculated after operating expenses are paid, is 45 percent of “net audited operating income” and rises to a ceiling of $1,075,000 over five years. The city gets the rest.”

http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/article_20a58a9b-2781-5a75-833a-f7fef239a183.html

#5 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 12:39 pm

That’s why these contracts need to be scruntinized.

#6 scott on 07.28.11 at 9:21 pm

the argus is afraid that if the council reads the shopping news’ proposal for public notices, they will lose their contract!

#7 l3wis on 07.28.11 at 9:23 pm

No shit. One of the few guaranteed advertisers they have.

Leave a Comment