Why Wasn’t Core Review Mandate -Savings Of Up To 10 Per Cent In Every Department?
The Core Review received a fitting death Monday night when Council was asked to dissolve the Core Services Review Committee.
Mayor Green says that it is appropriate to be disbanded at this point, that its tasks have been completed.
So Councillor Frizzell wanted to know if all of the points had been completed. You know, value for money, all $350,000 of it. The Mayor would neither say , yes, or No, instead she responded, "the committee felt comfortable that it has completed its work". When Councillor Frizzell asked again, he received the same answer.
The review was supposed to come in with savings of about 57 Million dollars, in the form of efficiencies, savings and revenues by the end of 2016. You know, that now famous pledge by Mayor Green of savings of up to 10% in every departmen?
Problem of course is that those savings have translated into fee increases. Councillor Skakun wanted to know how much of that $57 million would come in the form of fee increases. The Mayor slip sided around that one saying "that information has already come to us a couple of months ago" . Please point me to where I can find that info your Worship, cause our whole news team hasn't heard any information on that one.
Councillor Skakun then got one more hit in suggesting that fee increases aren't really a success when it costs the taxpayer more.
No hard reply from the Mayor here, although it is a lingering question that most city taxpayers would like answered.
In the end we dropped 350 thousand dollars in a review that could have been done in house. If we wanted to increase fees we could have done that without the benefit of a Core Review.
It all comes down to savings of up to 10% in every department. Still holding my breath on that one.
I'm Meisner and that's one man's opinion.
Comments
I think the first problem is believing someone when they say they will come up with 10% savings in every department.
It’s far too simplistic of a statement and it stinks of PR spin as opposed to truly understanding what the cost structures within the city are and what they need to be in order to deliver services. For example, some departments could probably be reduced by 20% and others may need an increase of 5%. The dollar value of that scenario may actually result in an overall funding increase.
People need to sit back and really think about what they are being told and ask themselves it it makes sense.
Green has proven time and time again she is not competent enough to run a two hole outhouse let alone be mayor our fine city.
“People need to sit back and really think about what they are being told and ask themselves it makes sense.”
Agree completely. Sadly, the fact is that the vast majority of voters (those who aren’t too lazy and clueless to drag their arses off the couch and vote) make their decisions on the flimsiest of criteria. People turfed Dan Rogers because he was perceived as being indecisive, whereas now it appears he was simply being thoughtful. Sheri Green appeared to be a dynamic and decisive leader, whereas now we can see that she’s a tyrant and incapable of original thought or creative solutions.
What’s the old saying? “We get the politicians we deserve”? What does this say about us?
I agree with NMG. Who thought a 10% savings in every department would really happen? If she found a 1% overall savings to the City it would have been a success.
The problem is every expenditure seems appropriate at the time and at the end of the year there’s nothing left over. Is that the Mayor’s fault? I guess if we want to hold her to her word then yes.
But it’s not that simple. This City is spread too thin (SPRAWL). And to make matters worse, we aren’t even a growing City these days. That makes cost containment a very tricky exercise.
Any Mayor elect with a decent plan to GROW this City and keep costs flat has got my vote.
Although I did not vote for the mayor I assumed that a 10% saving in each department was easily achievable considering the costly misplaced priorities of the city combined with obvious lavish spending on too many wish list items. It costs a lot of money to keep borrowing that much money and service an enormous debt.
So Shari can’t even speak straight in the council meetings? Wow, I wonder if she is even going to run in the coming election. White woman speak with tied tongue.
Krusty, I for one don’t think we get the politicians we deserve, we deserve much better than this! What we really need is an easy and effective recall process. I know this is something the politicians don’t want to give us so we should stand up and demand it. To let this one woman waste our hard paid money like she has, is a disgrace and we should have a way to stop it. She would have spent a lot more of it if we hadn’t stood up and said NO.
Mayor Green has to go and the sooner the better! She is a disgrace to democracy and she is the highest maintenance mayor we have ever had. I have to wonder what else she is hiding from the taxpayers of PG.
The Core Services Review was a total waste of PG taxpayer’s money. I have to wonder if the company that did the Review was a contributor to Mayor Green’s $80,00 campaign expenses in the last municipal election.
People want so badly to believe what the politicians are promising during election campaigns. They lie. The ones who are probably being truthful, giving the straight goods, (Fetterly) never get in. Voters don’t want to hear the truth, and they are getting exactly what they voted for.
Yes, the core review was a disappointing waste of money. Is anybody surprised?
News headline: Toronto City Council to discuss recall legislation for elected officials.
I have to agree with Prince George. A 10% decrease in every department, when you consider how money is wasted in this town, was and is achievable. The problem is, is that the Mayor and the Core Review went about it the wrong way.
First and foremost they should have instructed all the Managers to find the 10% in their respective departments. Those who couldn’t find the 10% would have their process audited, to ensure that they did all possible to achieve the goal, and then implement whatever savings they had achieved. Downsizing staff through attrition could have found significant savings.
Then they should have looked at some of the suggestions made to the Core Review that were rejected out of hand, as an example getting rid of IPG.
They should have put a stop to all Capital Projects for the next 10 years, and paid down the debt. With every loan that was paid off, there would be additional money going into general revenue.
Finding more efficient ways to clear snow, pave streets, fix pot holes, and repair aging infrastructure would also show (with the right management) some savings.
Lets not forget that while the City was crying poverty and increasing our taxes and service charges, they built a brand new office building for the purchasing department on 18th Avenue, and they borrowed $3 Million dollars to do so. The old offices, and buildings now sit empty on the East end of 3/4th Avenue.
Lots of places where money could have been saved, had they gone about it the right way, however they don’t seem to be professional enough to get the job done, or they just don’t care.
Also have to agree with Prince George and Palopu.
It seems to me the only beneficiary of the Core Review was the group that charged us $350,000.00 to perform it!
I’ve always stated and believed that we need a complete overhaul of our “Government”, Government at all levels, Federal, Provincial, Municipal! It’s time for a major shakeup from the very top, all the way to the very bottom!
$350,000.00? What a complete waste of time and money!
I was reading in yesterday’s Citizen about the Delta Hotel changing their plans now and attaching a building to it on the next lot. How much do you want to bet it will be a PAC? The builder stated that the city was working with them on it. Hmmmm.
There was a time when the people of this City were provided with more background of who is who at City Hall and what those individuals did.
http://pgnewspapers.lib.pg.bc.ca/fedora/repository/pgc:1984-02-21-06
We no longer know who runs our City.
If you read the above link, some of you will recall Bill Kennedy. It was under his financial leadership that the budgeting process began to ask every department to bring forward a bare bones budget showing a 10% cut from the previous year and then to put in the needs and wants in separate increments which would then be debated around the Council table as justifications were presented.
10% is not a new concept. It was in vogue during a âbase budgetingâ period in our history. It was the way many organizations planned their financial activities for the coming year.
The thing is, it is easy to find savings when one is working at a level of excellence that has covered the needs and is providing many wants for a community. We are not one of those communities anymore. We have been spoiled with taxes which are considerably lower than other municipalities our size and larger. In fact, recent figures show that we are in the lower quartile of taxes being paid in 200 urban communities in Canada. One can only go so low.
Yes, there are efficiencies to be had. That is what post core review processes should be looking at. That is the part of the process we missed. We are now being told by an external source that our fire services are not up to the standard it should be. There is some truth to that. Fire services is not the only one. So is police services, so is planning, so is engineering, so is public works, so is parks-recreation-culture.
We need the people that can manage the City properly. We have lost them over time.
===========================
I think people should read what Ben wrote about the Green interview when she was a candidate for Mayor. Some of you may be surprised if you read the report carefully for content.
What she said, and what some of the people think she said are two different things. Also remember, she was for a PAC. In fact, every single person elected was for a PAC. The question was put to them all. We just do not recall, or we just chose not to hear it.
blog/view/21961/1/shari+green+wants+core+review
Correction: we dropped $350,000 on a core review for consultants that essentailly was re-done in house after gross discrepancies between staff and consultants findings emerged.
I maintain the main role of the so-called consultant was the facilitation of data collection from the City Administration coupled with little tidbits of comparable data from other communities, the majority of which were not even comparable.
When one looks at core review processes, that data collection process is just the beginning. That becomes obvious when one looks at the GTA core review process which cost the same for that component as it did in PG. It really does not matter what the size of the city is, the process is the same so should cost approximately the same.
That introductory summary needs to be followed by in depth review of actual operations to determine potential savings. Toronto did that and is still doing it. Each one of those is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
According to that off-the-wall Ford fellow, Toronto saved a lot of money. I have not taken the time to find some proof of that. It is not my city anymore.
I do know that the committee that was in charge of our process had the wool pulled over their eyes. It continuous to look to me that they really did not have the faintest clue what to expect or how to handle the consultants.
We are no longer “ready for prime time.” We were a few decades ago. No longer the case.
I think that KPMG should not be faulted here. The City hired them to do the Core Review, including to identify solutions.
If the City later on fails to implement many recommendations and the result is mediocre or worse, who would have to take the blame? If the City knew beforehand what would be doable and what wouldn’t why did it bother to get outside help?
Staff knows each department more thoroughly than any consultant. At least it should. It is like having an audit done by an auditor. The result of the audit is only as accurate as the information given to the auditor! Read any audit and that is the statement of disclaimer found on the first page and the last!
If KPMG was my outfit I would be more than a little ticked off by now.
I agree with Ben’s assertions and opinion of the core review waste of time and money.
I was surfing the net when I ran into this blog article from an past resident of Prince George, she even mentions visiting Ben at News250, I thought her objective opinion, and those that commented on her article, very interesting and eye opening.
Give it a read people.
http://lailayuile.com/2012/03/29/home-is-not-where-you-live-but-where-they-understand-you-christian-morgenstern/
“So Councillor Frizzell wanted to know if all of the points had been completed. You know, value for money, all $350,000 of it. The Mayor would neither say , yes, or No, instead she responded, “the committee felt comfortable that it has completed its work”. When Councillor Frizzell asked again, he received the same answer”.
———————————-
She is definitely looking at a higher office in politics. She answers questions like the rest of the untouchables.
Here’s a wild statement from that article People#1.
“The Nechako river freezes entirely to the bottom in some areas over winter, the river having become so shallow”
Freezes right to the bottom does she?
Insert head pounding brick wall emoticon here—>
http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=3408
Comments for this article are closed.