Are blinders being put on the Core Review Committee? – Part 2
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 @ 3:45 AM
By Peter Ewart
The first article in this series (click here for Part 1) discussed how it appeared that “blinders” were being put on the City’s “Core Review Committee” in regards to its focus and direction. As evidence for that view were the announcements of job and service cuts (even before the Core Review has started), as well as the increased “focus” of Initiatives Prince George on “development of downtown.”
Part 1 also spoke to how only a “Select Committee” on business had been formed to provide “Recommendations” to Council, while the vast majority of city residents were excluded (except to provide vague “input” somehow through “external engagement strategies”). It was clear that this “Select Committee on Business” was being privileged, and that, on the Mayor’s initiative, its “Recommendations” were being “combined” with the Core Review, further narrowing its focus.
In these Recommendations from the “Select Committee on Business”, there is evidence of even more narrowing of focus. For example, the Recommendations state that “the City of Prince George and its administration must view themselves as a business.” This is an old idea that gets trotted out every few years, only to be discredited once again and disappear into the fog. Lately, certain politicians in the U.S. and Canada are attempting to serve it up again, claiming that citizens must now be viewed as “customers” and other such rhetoric, rather than citizens with rights. But does such an approach have validity?
The fact of the matter is that municipal government has very different and much broader aims than that of a business, and anyone with a passing familiarity with municipal government knows this. According to the provincial “Community Charter”, the purposes of a municipality include: “(a) providing for good government of its community; (b) providing for services, laws and other matters for community benefit; (c) providing for stewardship of the public assets of its community; (d) fostering the economic, social and environmental well-being of its community.”
The purpose of a business is much narrower than this, whether it is a profit or non-profit enterprise. It is true that government, as one of its functions, may own or operate a business, but, in its totality, government is something very different than a business. To claim that they are the same is to fall into the trap of a “logical fallacy”, specifically that of “false analogy”.
A private business has the essential aim to make profit for its owner or owners. This is not a criticism of private business – it is just a fact. What should be the aim of a municipal government? To make profit off of its citizenry? To turn them into “customers” to make the maximum amount of money from them? That doesn’t make sense. The fact is that the aim of a municipal government should be to provide “good government” for all its citizens – whether they are business people, employees, pensioners, students, or youth – and to do so effectively and efficiently.
So why is this “false analogy” of “government as business” being pushed at this time? There is a hint in the “Recommendations” by the Mayor’s “Select Committee on Business.” In these “Recommendations”, it is claimed that “the newly announced Core Service Review is the best way to determine what the ‘core business’ of the City is, and focus on that business.” Then it adds ominously, “that may require the City to exit some other operations.” Are “exiting some other operations” code words for privatizing or contracting out city operations or converting them into P3s (i.e. “public / private partnerships)? It certainly sounds like it.
Which brings us back to the Core Review. Just who is going to conduct it? The City issued a “Request for Proposals” earlier this year, putting aside $350,000 for an “independent” outside consultant to conduct the Core Review. But only one company, KPMG (which is a multinational company composed of an “international network of firms” that “share the same values”) chose to submit a bid. This does occasionally happen with City contracts. But, nonetheless, $350,000 is quite a chunk of change. Why no other bidders in the city, province or country? Were they discouraged by the fact that a KPMG representative sits on the City’s “Select Committee on Business”, whose “recommendations” are now part of the Core Review?
So, if City Council approves its bid, KPMG will become the “independent” consulting firm to conduct the “Core Review” of the City’s operations and services. Just how “independent” is its view towards the issue of say “privatization”?
Here is what KPMG Global has to say about that controversial topic. While it acknowledges that “few words evoke as much passion” among citizens and governments as “privatization”, KPMG’s view is that “privatization is a valuable and essential approach to managing budgets and – far from turning their backs on serving citizens – is a viable way to maintain and improve service levels.” It further emphasizes that “the recent financial crisis and ongoing debt concerns have put budgetary pressure on almost every jurisdiction, creating a keener appetite for privatization as a means of rebalancing capital” and that “privatization may quickly prove itself to be a valuable tool.”
On its website, KPMG notes that it “has advised” on over 1,700 “Public private partnerships” with a value of over $285 billion (USD). There seems to be little doubt that it has business and client relationships with many of the private companies and global multinationals that specialize in taking over municipal operations. Can it provide an “independent” view on the issue of privatizing Prince George’s municipal operations?
Of course, the KPMG website does not mention that many privatizations and P3s have ended badly, with jacked up service fees and taxes for citizens, and poorer quality service. On the other hand, the private multinationals that specialize in “taking over” municipal services and infrastructure, like water and sewer, have made a lot of profit. The website also doesn’t mention that, especially in Europe, where privatization of municipal infrastructure has been rampant, there is a growing movement of municipalities to take back previously privatized operations precisely because of the jacked up fees and costs, and botched operations. Too often, privatization and P3s has meant “private profit, but public risk.”
It should also be noted that it was the Toronto KPMG which, at the behest of the Rob Ford administration, conducted the “core services review” of Toronto’s municipal operations, and ended up advocating drastic privatization of a wide range of city services and operations. As Doug Ford, who is the brother of the mayor and a Toronto city councillor, famously put it, “we are going to be outsourcing [privatizing] everything that is not nailed down” (Feb. 6, 2011, Toronto Sun). Needless to say, these measures have given rise to much controversy and turmoil in Toronto’s civic politics recently.
Where are we heading with Prince George’s upcoming “Core Review”. It is hard to avoid the distinct impression that “blinders” are being put on the Core Review Committee impelling it to go in a definite direction towards privatization and substantial cuts to city services. Will it go in that direction? Will Council continue to spend millions of dollars on “mega-projects” like the RCMP building, the River Road dike, and downtown property flips, while slashing services and eliminating municipal jobs? It remains to be seen.
One thing for sure. Doing a “Rob Ford” on city operations and services was not put forward as a platform during the municipal election by Mayor Green or city councillors. If it had been, there might have been a very different outcome.
This is the last in this series of articles.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
Quotation marks must be on sale.
Start writing the mayor and any councilors, telling them to get rid of the “CORE REVIEW” and reinstate “PUBLIC OWNERSHIP” as this is the only way to ensure a future for Prince George.
….a future of ever increasing taxes and crumbling infrastructure.
Pretty obvious that current plan is not working very well so to continue down the same path is crazy.
P.E.:”Lately, certain politicians in the U.S. and Canada are attempting to serve it up again, claiming that citizens must now be viewed as âcustomersâ and other such rhetoric, rather than citizens with rights.”
Citizens and customers have rights. So do citizens who are customers. As a customer one can choose where, how and when one purchases a product or a service, like a TV set or a meal in a restaurant. If the product or the service is inferior a customer can make a choice and make a purchase elsewhere, where the service and the product are better and more affordable.
With municipal government a citizen customer has no such option. Although the citizen pays for the products (such as clean city water) or services (garbage pickup, snow clearing, etc) he does not have the *customer* option of purchasing somewhere else no matter how inferior the product or how great the dissatisfaction, the citizen in fact becomes a captive audience of the municipal government.
One either accepts whatever it decides to provide and how it provides it or one moves.
Especially at the municipal level one may suggest that all city staff and departments wake up to the fact that only because citizens live here, work here and pay taxes here – do they at City Hall actually have jobs.
Treating local taxpaying citizens like a business treats valued customers could be a very much needed and positive shift towards improving some of the stale who-cares attitudes which prevail now.
Just another way to look at the world, of course.
“privatization may quickly prove itself to be a valuable tool”
Wow!!! What a vote of confidence from KPMG, eh? “May”??? …
Why do we not get told: “privatization has quickly proven itself to be a valuable tool to improve service and reduce costs.”
Could it be that the auditors’ auditor cannot truthfully say that?
Couch your words …. don’t promise a thing … use the power of suggestion to promote you product ……
First thing learned from “Used Car Sales 101”
We need a core review badly in this community. But we do not need a P3 screening test.
Wow, that was hard to read. With all the quotation marks, I thought I was reading a post from Socredible.
I sure hope the “city” starts looking at “privatization”; the current “model” is not sustainable. We just can’t keep supporting too many “people” doing too little for too much compensation.
I watched some city workers last Saturday evening (~6:15) filling every third pothole on North Kelly. Two trucks, at least two people and a Saturday evening. I have wonder what the cost per pothole was?
So johnny how come you seem to be the most vocal on the unecessary need for personal attacks, and yet I have noticed on more than one occasion you are the first to take a personal jab at someone?
“A private business has the essential aim to make profit for its owner or owners. This is not a criticism of private business â it is just a fact. What should be the aim of a municipal government? To make profit off of its citizenry? To turn them into âcustomersâ to make the maximum amount of money from them? That doesnât make sense”
You said it, that does not make sense. So why on earth would you propose that is the purpose. Why introduce a nonsensical notion?
A City has the essential aim to make a profit for its owners who are its citizens. Profit does not have to be monetary, although even that would work if one can put a value on something. And one certainly can. To me, it is valuable to be close to relatively good health services access. To me it is valuable to have good quality transportation systems, which includes roads that are properly paved, maintained and cleared of dust and snow. To me it is valuable to have a city that does not look like a dump, that it looks like a community that cares about its appearance â¦.. everyone has their own list of what is valuable to them.
Like it or not, people make an investment into the community. We are all shareholders in the most tangible way. When we buy from a store, we do not become shareholders. We are simply that, customers.
We are the owners of the business, if you will. As owners, we expect profits, not losses. We expect our efforts and investments of time, interest, and even money when we purchase real property and pay for services from our community, to be rewarded with an increase on our investment.
Essentially we are living in a huge co-op. The better the City is managed, the better off we all are. And, of course, the opposite is true as well.
Citizens have rights as the article points out. So do customers. What the essential difference between citizens and customers actually is, is that citizens also have duties. The article conveniently forgot to mention that.
“Welcome to Prince George, the City that cares about those who live here.”
“Ask not what you City can do for you, ask what you can do for your City”
As one person once said ……..
“Essentially we are living in a huge co-op. The better the City is managed, the better off we all are. And, of course, the opposite is true as well.”
Precisely!
—————————————-
P.E.:”What should be the aim of a municipal government? To make profit off of its citizenry? To turn them into âcustomersâ to make the maximum amount of money from them? That doesnât make sense.”
Can’t believe anyone would even suggest something as nonsensical as that! We would be AMAZED if a city even truly balanced its books, never mind making a profit! Debt is piled on top of debt, year after year! How is that a method to make “profit off of its citizenry?”
Unreal.
– Rob Ford – two very scary words…
But: “So johnny how come you seem to be the most vocal on the unecessary need for personal attacks, and yet I have noticed on more than one occasion you are the first to take a personal jab at someone?”
How is noting that Mr. Ewart’s article was hard to read because of the quotation marks construed as a personal jab? I wasn’t even the first person to note that. Socredible does the same thing, and his posts are hard to read too.
Wonder what ever happened to the notion that we are “citizens” and need to be treatewd as such. It is unbelievable that we should be considerd as cuctomers. Its bad enough to be considered as “taxpayers”
Cheers
PG you missed this part,-Of course, the KPMG website does not mention that many privatizations and P3s have ended badly, with jacked up service fees and taxes for citizens, and poorer quality service.
This is the best line, One thing for sure. Doing a âRob Fordâ on city operations and services was not put forward as a platform during the municipal election by Mayor Green or city councilors. If it had been, there might have been a very different outcome. Folks get out the popcorn and watch Green do a fiberal on the city.
Excellent work, Peter!
Trying to find the answer to a question. Perhaps someone can help. Was KPMG the city’s auditor at one time?
Yes, JohnnyB you were just making an observation, silly of me to think you might be taking a jab at another poster on here. Now onto the topic at hand.
As for the idea that we may be heading for a privatization of some of the city works..the main thing that bothers me about that is it would most likely be outsourced to some multinational company from Europe or Asia or something. We could very well be looking at a scenario where we would be phoning Germany or France or Beijing to complain about potholes on our road. Personally, I don’t like the thought of that, and do not like the idea of globalizing everything, because eventually, we will lose our identity and eventually, our sovereignty. Just ask a lot of the 3rd world countries who own virtually none of thier resources anymore because the corrupt gov’t of the day sold them out to pad thier own bank accounts.
Seamutt:”PG you missed this part,-“
I didn’t miss it, I just did not comment on it! Being a customer is NOT a bad thing! It’s better! A customer has power, a taxpayer without choice or input has no power except at election time. Curiously enough no matter who wins the taxpayer is liable to pay whatever the municipal officials decide he/she must cough up.
Try to object to something by making a 10 minute presentation to city council! Good luck with that!
Municipal officals can’t even be recalled when they don’t perform according to the mandate of the Community Charter in repect to municipalities.
A taxpayer is a taxpayer. Nothing changes that, a taxpaying citizen must pay – he/she pays the taxes and fees or the property is seized and sold off for lack of paying taxes and fees.
I wish that I would be treated by the city as a customer, with all the rights a customer enjoys – rather than just being another powerless name and address entry on the *ledger of captive audience.*
P3 or not P3? I have no preference one way or the other. Whatever works best, so be it!
But: “Yes, JohnnyB you were just making an observation, silly of me to think you might be taking a jab at another poster on here.”
Hey, I wasn’t calling anyone a troll or making references to Hitler. There’s critique, and then there’s personal attacks, which this site seems to allow to some extent.
“We could very well be looking at a scenario where we would be phoning Germany or France or Beijing to complain about potholes”
But:
I haven’t been to China but if we phoned Germany or France at least they would know what a good road was. Not so sure if the same could be said for city staff.
“Excellent” work,Peter:-P
Well written and thoughtfully researched Mr. E. Business has its hand in my pocket enough…every time I park or open my wallet by choice for my purchases and family/household expenses in addition to many of my basic needs living in a northern town such as heating and lighting my home and operating my vehicle. Business can stay OUT of my “Taxpayer” envelope for which I expect to be recognized and used as my share of the expenses to operate a safe, sound city with adequate infrastructure and attention to beautification and quality of life for its citizens. P3, my butt. Private profit on the backs (risk and expense) of that big giant pool of “customers” to rake more money out of….the citizens.
But wrote: “I do not like the idea of globalizing everything, because eventually, we will lose our identity”
Boy, have you hit on something there. THAT horse left the starting gate a long time ago.
Have you ever thought what indluence coloniztion had on the world and the associated spread of English, Spanish and French …. and then especially the English language as spread under the influence of post war USA? A McDonalds, Submarine, Starbucks, etc. in every corner of the world and the so called “culture” that goes with it.
Not to speak of “Chinese” food, Pizzarias, and Tacos.
Give me a break!!!
Oh yes, and let it be noted, that out of my taxpayer envelope I demand that it employ working men and women and the odd summer student, when it can be realized, to carry out all duties – working men, women and students that do or will work, raise their families and spend their money in this community – and NOT money flying out the door, with the majority going to fat cats that live elsewhere (other than a token manager) off the backs of minimum wage/no benefit workers. Working families without disposable income do not go to restaurants, movies, purchase a new vehicle every 5 years (or a second one for the family) OR purchas expensive “gifties” or “hobby items”. Families that are too stretched, stressed and overworked do not have time to volunteer for the many worthy organizations in town or take vacations. Of course business has it’s place and I appreciate them being there but it is getting ridiculous….in on every aspect of our lives, trying to make a buck. Food is bad enough…water is on the table. What’s next: air? Anyway, thanks for the rant!
LoyalCit wrote: “The response is on the City web-site and seems darned defensive to me and likely resistant to any change.”
So this is how it works … CIVICS 101
The Council sets the policies that were suggested by the infamous business committee ought to be changed.
Council asked Administration to look at how the recommendation might be incorporated inot the way the City does business.
Administration came back by reminding Council that in many cases it was Council’s policies which were being asked to be reviewed and Administration said that could be accommodated.
You see,
1. Council sets the direction … I know, it is sometimes hard to believe …. and
2. Administration implements the directions by creating programs, processes, projects, etc.
Neat how that works, isn’t it? Quite logical actually. I just sometimes wish more people understood that and remembered what policies were in place. Especially Council …. ;-)
bcnorth250 wrote: “Of course business has it’s place and I appreciate them being there but it is getting ridiculous….in on every aspect of our lives, trying to make a buck.”
Yup …. when was the last time you saw a business somewhere in the middle of a forest waiting for customers to show up?
It works the other way around. When a few people gather because they farm, or have a wilderness tourist camp or a mine … and a business sees that there might be a possibility of a little ma&pa restaurant that also rents videos, sells magazines and toothpaste, then the business might come in and see if it can work.
The relations eventually become symbiotic, they benefit from each other. So, I get very ticked off when business says that without us providing jobs, you would not be here so bow down to us and worship us.
True, but it works both ways, and many businesses seem to forget that.
You really do take comments to the extreme don’t you gus. I can’t help what happened in the past, but I would like to think I have some say as to what my future holds. Just because there are franchises worldwide for business, doesn’t mean our infrastructure business should become a franchise as well.
Gus wrote “Yup …. when was the last time you saw a business somewhere in the middle of a forest waiting for customers to show up”.
gus, I hear ya here, but you are referring to the relationship between consumer and business where it works….supply and demand, retail, service industries, yadda yadda and yes it is 100% reciprocal and it usually works out quite nicely. People living a relatively comfortable lifestyle can afford the few extras and that is fine, too; it goes too far, in this consumer driven society, in my opinion but I digress. My point is aren’t others getting just plain tired of business and corporations prying bucks out of our pockets when it comes to either the necessities/realities of life and the institutions that Canadians cherish. I’m not talking about frills here, rather: food, utilities, clothing, transportation (I dare anyone to argue that owning a sound vehicle is a LUXURY in this climate and in this city)…birth, death, education, healthcare – there are shareholders profiting off it all. Access to clean water is at risk as corporations see another golden goose there…it has been exposed that there are fortune 500’s that benefit from life insurance policies on their employees – WTF? I am just saying, shareholders stay on your darned side of the fence and governments let the businesses run the businesses – you all just get back to managing the collective tax monies to support publicly funded institutions and services that benefit society at large.
P3’s and Multi National Corporations.
The Corporation as Psychopath.
Corporations display the following behaviours.
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
3. Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
4. Deceitfulness, repeated lying and conning for profit.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt, and
6. Failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviours.
So why would anyone with half a brain and a butt want to go from our present model of self government, to the model of Corporate P3’s.
We know that over time anything touched by a Corporation turns brown. Lets keep them as far away as possible from our municipalities.
Have a nice day.
I want to thank Ben for having the vision to provide a forum for discussion of such fundamental issues. It has potential for being a digital “town hall meeting”. A moderator to help us with rules of debate/engagement might be useful, but could also be abused.
Reading the opinions of others on here is for the most part of great value, but I wish there were a couple of improvements:
1. the discussion would be so much more meaningful if we all had the same courage to use our real names to put our money where our mouths are
2. it would be great to be able to reply to comments more directly than to reply in chronological order. [reply to comment]
3. A thumbs up/down function might serve to moderate some of contributors.
BTW, my real name is “The Hawk”. ;-)
PS Thank you Peter!
John: “1. the discussion would be so much more meaningful if we all had the same courage to use our real names to put our money where our mouths are”
I disagree. I think this site would turn into a ghost town if people had to use their real names. I don’t need to have somebody threaten me or my family because I might have an opinion or viewpoint that differs from theirs.
Comments for this article are closed.