Core Review Not Linked to Contract Talks
Monday, May 28, 2012 @ 7:15 PM
Prince Gorge B.C. – The City of Prince George Core review is underway and Councillor Brian Skakun says there is a growing feeling among City employees that the Core Review will be “hanging over their heads” when they head into contract negotiations this fall .
City Manager Derek Bates, says to suggest what recommendations may arise from the Core Review “Would be speculative at best”.
Councillor Frank Everett, who is also a member of the Core Review Committee says he does not see the Core Review as a precursor to bargaining.
While the update on the Core Review also noted the payment of the first invoice for phase one and parts of phase 2 , it was clear, there would be no details on how much work the City Staff are putting into this project. City Manager Derek Bates says staff have been very busy in the first phase of the review, gathering data requested by KPMG, which is conducting the review. But when Councillor Garth Frizzell pressed for a more complete picture of the amount of time staff have been spending assisting KPMG, Mayor Shari Green was firm in her response that it had been decided staff time would NOT be tracked.
Comments
Taxpayers gonna be allowed to see the receipts for “duties accomplished? A committee of volunteer over taxed citizens should decide if this was dough was well spent. Maybe some entrepreneurial citizens would be encouraged to start their own “Core Review” companies.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 08:06 PM
Prince George, B.C. â The City of Prince Georgeâs inside and outside workers have ratified a tentative agreement that will give them increases of 3% in each of the next 5 years.
http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/9716
The question I have for the folks who work in the private sector is: In the last 5 years how many of you received this kind of a wage increase?
So let’s get this straight. The city says it’s going to have a review conducted and invites bids, but prior to the bids being submitted the city say it will spend $350,000 for the review. KPMG submits the only bid, which just happens to add up to about $350,000, (the same as the $350,000 for the core review in Toronto, which has a population 33 times the population of Prince George) and gets the contract.
So KPMG is contracted to provide this Core Service Review service for the City of PG. But Bates says “staff have been very busy in the first phase of the review, gathering data requested by KPMG.” So city staff is doing work related to the review. And Sherry says the amount of time staff puts in on work related to the review, for which KPMG is being paid $350,000, will not be tracked. Whose decision was that? I’m just wondering what the TOTAL cost of this review is going to come in at. And what happens if KPMG’s billable hours come in over, or under, their project estimate?
Gee, I hope someone is at least taking notes so hopefully if theres a next time it can be done “in house”.
Harbinger….I lost 5 bucks. I thought for sure the winning bid was going to be Commonwealth Core Service Review Corporation.
At first they said they could not track the time city staff put into the core review, now they have changed their mind and say they decided not to track the time. It would have been very easy for the city to track this time.
Once comaparitive costing of services delivered is complete, “contracting in” to the city workers is going to be quite attractive. This same shocking reality has been discovered by many citys that have already completed a core review.
350k to get the same results as many other citys. Hey, I have an idea, just ask for a copy of their findings. The similarities are going to be remarkable.
There must be alot of extra “GREEN” on the 5th floor at City Hall.
What possible reason could Green have for not tracking the cost of staff time spent chasing the elusive core?
It could not be the obvious, could it?
That the electorate might be sorely vexed to learn that in house costs approach the contracted cost. Think about true cost per hour for each person involved, overhead expenses, courier services, add to that the loss of production.
Even when the results are delivered, spoken in Politispeak, this review will prove to have been a colossal waste of of time, money, and resources.
metalman.
In the absence of a municipal auditor this review is a way to ensure we are getting value on how are dollars are spent.
The less time that KPMG spend gathering data will allow more time to properly analyze it and make recommendations.
The one major flaw with the core review is that it will not look at the biggest single expense in the city’s budget-protective services. The final report will not have looked at a full third of expenditures.
Once this report is digested then hopefully the police and fire services can be put under the microscope.
I don’t understand why every accountant, lawyer, architect, engineer, graphic designer and web developer has the ability to track their “billable hours” on a sheet of paper or digital tool, but it is beyond the skill level of very highly compensated staff who feel justified in their pay by saying that’s their “market value.”
I would suggest executives and staff should have the basic skill and ability to fill out a time sheet and allocate time to a specific project.
I think this should be done for most everything – then maybe there’ll be fewer 3-hour meetings with 14 managers doing nothing because it will be easy to track how much that meeting – without any actionable items or follow up – actually cost.
How much do you want to bet the core review does not find any issue with how time – the most valuable resource – is (not) allocated and used at City Hall?
“The one major flaw with the core review is that it will not look at the biggest single expense in the city’s budget-protective services”
I know it will not look at police services, for some reasons which are defensible. But is should look at fire services.
Does it say it will not look at fire services? The fire services cost almost as much a police services.
One Democrat wrote: “the only bid, which just happens to add up to about $350,000, (the same as the $350,000 for the core review in Toronto, which has a population 33 times the population of Prince George)”
That discussion was already had on here previously and anyone who read it should know that the statement about $350,000 for Toronto is less than half baked.
Here is the link to a previous discussion about costs of a core review:
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontocouncil/article/1028588–critics-see-kpmg-report-as-smoke-and-mirrors
This is a link to the Star Article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/torontocouncil/article/1028588–critics-see-kpmg-report-as-smoke-and-mirrors
These are some words from it:
When finished, the cityâs overall service review â for which council is paying outside consultants $3 million â is supposed to produce a map to the rivers of gravy Mayor Rob Ford says are hidden in every city department, agency, board and commission. Many expected KPMGâs reports, one of three parts in the analysis, to lead the way.
Instead, the firmâs findings, released in eight reports over the past two weeks, have been characterized by the mayorâs critics as purely political, useless, and a waste of money.
âIt is a very worthwhile exercise. The city should have done it years ago. But when I heard the total budget was $3 million â well, I knew from that moment this would be a snow job,â said one affected program director.
———– Please note the discussions in the Star report about what typical charge out rates are and what a full report should cost with one person giving a high figure of $15 million and another person a low figure of $2 million.
I have some questions for the City around recording project or program time.
1. Do any employees of the City put in time sheets which would record the approximate amountvidual of time an individual spends on a program, project, etc.
2. If so, which levels of employees prepare such data and which do not.
3. For those who do not prepare such time records, why not?
———————————-
I agree with Bohemian. Anyone who gets paid by clients for doing a project keeps timesheets. Some keep more accurate timesheets than others. In fact, KPMG would keep records of time worked on this City project. It might be as coarse as the number of days rather than the number of hours or even 15 minute bins.
If there is a dispute, consultants pull out their time records and the discussion starts.
Excellent questions gus. Also, what is the standard for meetings? Are there minutes? Are action items created, responsibility assigned, and performance monitored?
I’ve been to meetings at City Hall that must have cost thousands of dollars per hour (based on the bums in the seats) that had no real agenda, no minutes being taken, and certainly no follow up.
Actually I went back to the words from Mayor Green in the report above.
It sates: “Mayor Shari Green was firm in her response that it had been decided staff time would NOT be tracked.”
I think that answers my question. Why do I say that? Because if staff time was tracked normally she could have said:
“This City has an effective staff time tracking procedure and Administrators as well as Council will have access to that information as an appendix in the final report.
“In addition, we may wish to implement an internal review process based on this exercise and such information will play a key role in decsions we may have to make around that possibility.”
It absolutely amazes me that we do not have the expertise in house that can do what KPMG is being paid to do. It’s time to fire all those people in positions of authority who cannot and will not be accountable to the taxpayers of this city.
What a pathetic excuse of high paid management employees who are not doing what they are being paid to do. If they can’t do it, they should leave. (and without severance packages)
Comments for this article are closed.