Myth: Vendor Overcharges To Government (Part 6)

Posted on May 24, 2013. Filed under: Journalism, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

10th in the series The Manipulators

Today’s proverbYou can’t fight city hall

Your words for the day:

  • scapegoat = one too helpless, often by reason of circumstance, to defend itself
  • witch hunt = the search for a scapegoat
  • not my job, man = the universal escape clause — unstated, but, inherent — in every assignment of responsibility

The Big Pee loves “ongoing coverage” of targeted scapegoats…   sort of a choreographed witch hunt.  Over the centuries, burnings, beheadings, public hangings, and executions by horses-going-off-in-four-directions-while-tethered-to-one’s-various-limbs have really filled the idle time of the masses.  All of that used to be free, but, in the spirit of capitalism, we now have to sit through silly and obnoxious ads from t.v. sponsors, subscribe to an internet service, or buy a newspaper to get our constitutional entitlement to blood and gore.  We are no longer unwitting witnesses to the grand processions of TIME and LIFE (Reality!   …not the magazines); we are now paying customers who are just here for the show.

Public officials are often targeted by The Big P (pronounced “pee”) when it is out to sell papers and such.  For that reason, I am surprised that our featured Jack-Haas missed his shot at Houston’s top executive, Mayor Annise Parker.  Ostensibly, all of the principals involved in those undocumented payouts of $19.2 million of taxpayer money are under her leadership.  And, since elections are only 2 years apart for that office, there has to be some interest by the public or the political opposition in such perception of top-level mismanagement.

Yes, Jack DID mention the mayor, or at least her office.  I paraphrase:  “According to the Mayor’s Press Secretary, that office is doing a separate review to be compared to the one being done by Dangerous Dave; and, the Mayor’s office will be diligent in working to recover any money owed the city, including litigation fees.”  In other words, the Mayor’s office is happy to join in the witch hunt for a cut of the booty.  Like a real Haas, Jack pursued no further, since that announcement from such a high office bolstered his tried-and-true theme, “Government…   victim!   Vendor…   villain!”

So, Mayor…  (Mayor-ess?  Your honor-ess?) Annise Parker, I was just wondering:

  1. Does the city’s accounting department perform a monthly closing of its books like real businesses?  Such as this would catch any variances or deviations at the time of occurrence and get them corrected for future invoicing and payments.  That’s what a real business would do.
  2. Does the city’s accounting department do a quarterly summary of its bookkeeping like real businesses do?  Ditto the benefit.
  3. Does the city’s accounting department do an annual report of all accounting functions detailing variances between documentation and money spent…   as real businesses do? 
  4. Real businesses have an outside auditor come in and verify their figures and on-going accounting practices — ANNUALLY.  Is Dangerous Dave, the self-serving bureaucrat who apparently gets motivated only once every 4 or 5 years, all you’ve got to rely on?
  5. Does the term “reconciling accounts” mean anything to the city’s bookkeepers and accountants?
  6. Does the city provide free coffee and donuts to all of its gold-bricking employees, who are being paid by the taxpayers to loiter?
  7. Are there any plans to have each city office submit requisitions for supplies to a central office where they are consolidated into a single order for maximum discount AND CONTROL?
  8. Are there any plans to have those who receive the materials actually document its receipt and identify it with the appropriate accounting numbers so it can be referenced when balancing the books…   and be available at the end of the year (or every 4 or 5 years) for Dangerous Dave the Auditor to review and criticize?
  9. The State of Texas has 266,874 square miles while the City of Houston has only 627 square miles.  With its thousands of offices statewide, Texas could easily run up 300,000 purchase transaction over a span of 4 years and 10 months (that of the Office Depot contract).  It is inconceivable that a piddling little 627 square mile bailiwick could rack up 1,100 purchases EVERY WEEK for 4-plus YEARS for miscellaneous office expendables (Dave’s figures, not mine) while taxpayer-subsidized supervisors notice absolutely nothing amiss.
  10. City employees have abused the spirit of the US Communities co-op purchasing contract by run-a-way impulse-ordering.  Will you be criticizing or rebuking those city employees who, instead of sharpening that dull pencil, opt instead to pick up the phone and order 1 box of mechanical pencils for ASAP delivery one thousand times a week?

Anyway, the journalistic Jack-Haas of the Houston Chronicle story missed all that stuff I have cited.  Why?  ‘cawz it was easier for him to meet his column quota by copying everything the important-sounding City Auditor told him and presenting all of that to a pre-conditioned, anti big-business, audience.  Taking the time to actually verify the basis of the “official” allegations would have been…   WORK.

And the General Public, that massive brain-dead jury pool so loved by litigators, receives its daily dose of anesthetics to numb that vaunted hallmark of humanity — those pesky reasoning abilities.

Next up:  A break from “The Manipulators”

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Myth: Vendor Overcharges To Government (Part 5)

Posted on May 8, 2013. Filed under: Journalism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

9th in the series The Manipulators

Today’s proverb Alas, GEORGE DIDN’T DO IT!

Your words for the day:

  • scapegoat = one too helpless to defend itself, often by reason of circumstance
  • witch hunt = the search for a scapegoat
  • not my job, man = the universal escape clause — unstated, but, inherent — in every assignment of responsibility
  • consolidation = getting your shi…   uh, shituff…   your shtuff… getting your shtuff together for maximum personal benefit

US Communities (see previous post) DOES NOT consolidate orders for the signed-up members to the contract.  US Communities DOES NOT verify shipments from the vendor to the buyer at the receiving dock;  US Communities DOES NOT check the invoices against the receiving documents before the buyer pays them.

Per US Communities, they do complete regular 3rd party audits to “guarantee” adherence to that so-called contract, but…

  • IF THAT IS SO, how does one explain that 4-year gap gleefully filled by the City Auditor in seeking (job-enhancing?) retro-active rebates for his employer, the City of Houston?
  • And, IF THEY DID, then US Communities was satisfied that Office Depot was in compliance, which means that Dangerous Dave the City Auditor, is off-base with his assertions.

This is what happens when you expect George to do it:

  • You get that “self-promoted” extra cook hanging out in the kitchen pretending to “adjust” the existing recipes;
  • You get a vendor diligently watching his discount principle; delivery cost for a $64.00 order is the same as that for a $640.00 order.  That vendor will not be receptive to discounts — 300,000 times — for $64.00 orders.
  • You get a department full of watchdogs (a.k.a., bureaucrats) going on a full-time coffee break because they are quite content to LET GEORGE (the pretend cook hanging out in the fully staffed kitchen) DO IT.
  • You get department heads thinking they’ve bought a cure-all for government over-spending (without expending the effort they are being paid to expend) and underlings who think they’ve been given a garlic wreath to prevent ACTUAL WORK from sucking all the fun out of a bureaucrat’s vacation time — you know, that 9-5 daily time frame for which they are being paid TAXPAYER MONEY.

In reality, all that the bureaucrats have procured is a giant container of Dr. Feel Good’s Industrial Strength Cure All — snake oil in a much simpler time.

“Let George Do It”  is a very bad business practice.  But, apparently quite compatible with guv’mint ops, an undertaking that should be run like a business; however, it is handicapped by being staffed with politicians and toady bureaucrats.

I am totally perplexed.  When I was buying expendables for my employer, the greater the quantity I purchased, the cheaper the unit price per item became.  You buy one, you pay $5.00 per item; you buy a dozen, you pay $4.50 each; you buy a gross, you pay $3.00 per item.  I guess that is what they mean by “volume discount.”  Surely, an organization as pervasive as government with staff layered upon staff of taxpayer-paid professionals, with a hundred departments ordering the same items on a recurring basis, would have at least one manager who would understand the term “consolidation” and the financial benefits that result from it.

EVERY VENDOR GIVES VOLUME DISCOUNTS BY THE ORDER.  Every sizeable government entity can, by monitoring their expenses and their department requisitions, get those standard discounts by consolidating all of those individual departmental requisitions into one order per cycle.  No useless “third cook” (such as US Communities — a self-promoted, useless appendix to the body politic) needed in the kitchen.  All that the government entity needs to do is ensure that department heads, whether elected or hired, and their toady bureaucrats do the jobs they are being PAID to do.  Did I mention that they are being paid with TAXPAYER MONEY?

EVERY VENDOR HAS A ROCK BOTTOM PRICE AT WHICH HE CAN SELL.  Every order reflects the vendor’s cost of product, transportation cost, and storage and handling costs.  More product handled per shipment means lower overhead costs for each item shipped; this becomes the basis for price discounts on increasingly larger orders.  The fewer items shipped per order, the higher the price per item.  Office Depot (and any other vendor) would lose its financial ass if it adhered to a “best price” discount for 300,000 $64.00 orders.

The hazard for signers in this “co-op” agreement is complacency.  Office Depot, quite unlike the City of Houston, did not become complacent, and adhered to sound business principles even though the City of Houston tried to bury them under an unbelievable landslide of over 1,000 little bitty orders every week of their contract.

Dangerous Dave alluded to “several” price lists and stated that prices were moved from one list to another to give Office Depot a higher price per item.  Dave was almost certainly referring to the various volume discounts offered with rate schedules based on the amount of each purchase.  Apparently, all those coffee-breaking bureaucrats thought they could pick up the phone between donuts and order one package of napkins for lip-dabbing and get the same price break as if they had ordered 1,000 packages.  It takes a lot more than one package of napkins to pay delivery costs.

Looked at from the full term of the contract, if Office Depot had shipped the same amount of product in only 100,000 shipments, the City of Houston most certainly would have reaped the benefits of volume discounts and would have paid less than the $19.2 million — say, 1.7-6.6  million dollars less.  All the City of Houston had to do was have a central office (e.g., a non coffee-breaking manager) to consolidate all those rampant departmental orders into a SINGLE order once a week (or monthly).  This would automatically have given the city the best price for the product ordered, AND the Office Depot would have reduced its overhead outlay for delivery services.  Win-win, right?

Wouldn’t hurt, either, for the accounting department to verify that all items on the monthly invoice was actually received and that the price listed was the agreed upon price.   I’m just saying

Next up:  Myth (Part 6) Dear Mayor…  Mayoress?…   may I just call you Annise?…

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Myth: Vendor Overcharges To Government (Part 4)

Posted on May 2, 2013. Filed under: Journalism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

8th in the series The Manipulators

Today’s proverbLet George Do It

Your words for the day:

  • crowd = three (as in “two’s a couple, three’s a crowd); or, one too many cooks in the kitchen
  • facilitator = a catalyst in the social not chemical sense; or, one too many cooks in the kitchen
  • not my job, man = the universal escape clause — unstated, but inherent — in every assignment of responsibility

The City Auditor (Dangerous Dave) said:

  • …contract pricing did not accompany the invoices,
  • …(and, yet) he also said that product prices were switched from one list to another list…   even though he said that there were no lists to reference.
  • …”US Communities contract” — intoned as though it were a supernatural incantation that should bring good fiscal luck to the intoner.

According to Dangerous Dave, there were no price lists associated with the invoices, yet, somehow, Dave asserts that prices were floated between these phantom lists to get a higher price for the vendor.  If one’s knowledge base is ignorance, how can one’s conclusion be so assertive?

US Communities.  Who are those guys, anyway?  http://www.uscommunities.org  (Look ’em up yourselves for enlightenment)

What I got out of their online advertising was:

  • …they got nothing to do with government.  Their “dot category” is “org” not “gov.”  They claim to be non-profit, but they take a cut of the gate.
  • …their schtick is to get a lot of organizations (private and government) to sign on as customers (membership) of a single “contract” to be serviced by a single contractor, purportedly to get cheaper everything with minimal bureaucrat effort.
  • …the attraction for the membership is to get product a lower price — with minimal bureaucrat effort.
  • …the attraction for the seller would be a large guaranteed customer base which would more than make up for selling at a lower price (the assumption being that large quantities will, in fact, be ordered.)  Win-win for everybody.

And, if they are NON-profit, what is in it for the “dot.org?”

Why, PROFIT…   of course!  Say, a 1% to 2.5% administrative fee, payable by the seller.  It didn’t say “percent of what,” so I’ll go with a cut of the seller’s take.  With the City of Houston thing, 1% of $19.2 million = $192,000; jump that to $480,000 at the 2.5% rate.  Sweet deal, eh?  Is that tax-free ’cause they are non-profit?

What do they actually do for that fee?  They write-up a form contract that says, in essence…   (in case I’m too subtle here, this is the part where I cynically paraphrase my understanding of all this)

  • “I, the party of the First Part (insert name of vendor here) agree to SELL enormous amounts of post-its, pens, pencils, staples and all kinds of paper and other expendables to buyers signed up on US Communities membership list (insert control number of list), which is attached to this contract, at the cheaper bulk rate prices I offer to all my big-order customers all the time, even without a rinky-dink contract.”
  • “I, the party of the Second Part (insert name of buyer — or a whole list of ’em) agree to BUY from (insert name of vendor again) enormous amounts of post-its, pens, pencils, staples and all kinds of paper and other expendables and pay according to the attached price lists (insert price list control number) which I understand is cheaper than buying from the same vendor in little bitty quantities.  I also understand that NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES in our accounting department, PAID BY THE TAX PAYERS TO KEEP TRACK OF TAX MONEY, WILL HAVE TO DO ANYTHING to monitor either the uncontrolled ordering by hundreds of individuals in scads of departments or to cross-check vendor invoices against our understanding of the contract and get all incorrect invoices clarified BEFORE we pay them.  Further, all that those employees need to do henceforth is show up at the office, enjoy coffee and donuts all day, clock out for the evening, and collect a tax-subsidized paycheck for doing nothing.  Free coffee and donuts would be real nice.”
  • “We, the party of the Third Part, US Communities, will (1) match up our standard prepared price lists (which we got from the stated vendor, JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY COULD HAVE DONE ON-LINE OR BY USING THE TELEPHONE) to the appropriate contract, (2) insert the names of the Buyer and the Seller, and, voila, our contribution to this “Market Place Meeting of Interests” is done…   although, (3) we will diligently listen for future “ka-chings” and check our monthly up-date from the bank of our choice.  Oh, and (4) we might monitor all that stuff we told you about to get you signed up.

This “co-op” thing sounds to me more like a dating service type of operation.  “We are just a facilitator.  We found your match, but marriage relations are up to you two.  Sign on the dotted line, and we are outta here.  Should anything go wrong — or simply not go right — we ain’t got nuthin’ to do with that!  You are on your own.”  US Communities then exits stage left.

Next up:  Myth (Part 5) George didn’t do it.

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Myth: Vendor Overcharges To Government (Part 3)

Posted on April 10, 2013. Filed under: Journalism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

7th in the series The Manipulators

Life’s Prime Directive:  Every living thing shall attempt to manipulate events, circumstances, behaviors, and social structures to favor its own narrow interests in the struggle to exist.  The only judgment that LIFE places on living entities is the failure to keep existing.  (Okay, it has been said before more bluntlyIt’s all about survival of the strongest.)

Your words for the day: 

  • unbelievable = possessing the property of being too incredulous to be believed
  • red herring = a literary device designed to throw the reader off the trail of plot progression; a diversion or decoy
  • math = the science of using mathematics to figure things out; numeric logic

Clarification of my objective:  These articles, from my slant, paint a negative picture of a specific local government and a specific writer and his media venue.  I hold no personal animosity toward those entities.  However, I do have an animosity toward skewed logic and claims that have the objective to actively bend my personal views (and those of the general public) to enhance the standings of others as they hide their own inadequacies or seek to garner awards and salary increases to further their own life-goals.  You know, using the Prime Directive at my expense.

I am aware that there may be other information “out there” that could render my observations on this Media story as way off the mark.  My focus on THIS journalistic venture of Jack-Hass is limited solely to the information that has been provided within the article and the apparent reason it has been presented in such a caustic vein toward private business.  My presentation is to show that Media seeks to MAKE public opinion, not to simply apprise the public of current events, and, that journalistic endeavors are often based on the ignorance of both the public and the paid story-tellers.

O-kay!  I feel so much more morally superior, now.  Let’s get on with my Media bashing.

Jack-Hass is just a writer.  He has been trained to “drop names” and high-sounding titles into his articles to enhance the importance of his words.  My!  Oh, my, has he dropped a bunch into this story to lend it a semblance of credibility:  City Auditor, City Controller, Mayor, and several other non-associated Government Entities.  They are invoked as though they are the benchmarks of irreproachable accuracy, and yet, political malfeasance is another staple of Media hot-button focus.

While not necessarily “malfeasance,” incompetence certainly seems to apply.  If lapses in bureaucratic protocol were occasional, that is certainly understandable.  We are all human, and, we often lose our focus.  That is why business has so many built-in backup steps (per my previous posting, specifically purchase orders and invoicing).  But, I am totally blown away by the magnitude of this bureaucratic gaff, and the joint journalistic-bureaucratic glossing that seeks to paint the vendor as the bad guy.

Can you believe…

  • 300,000 instances of poorly documented transfers of private product and TAXPAYER MONEY — under a single contract?
  • That a City Auditor would wait 4 years before auditing a major supplier ($75,000 or so per week) against the city’s accounting protocols?
  • That such interest in the accounting protocols only took place after the Auditor heard that other Government Entities were fairly successful in getting retroactive rebates from the same supplier?
  • That an auditor could not determine whether the alleged overcharges were on the order $1.7 million or $6.5 million, and simply summarized, without corroborating documents, that “the city is owed a lot of money?
  • That a city accounting department would pay out $19.2 million without EVER checking to see if the invoicing was as it thought it should be?

Can you believe that a (reputed) journalist would ignore such bureaucratic mis-steps and opt, instead, to cow-tow to the biased, self-serving slant of the reluctant City Auditor?  (Well, that would be the path of least work…   resistance…   I mean “the path of least resistance”.  Why do investigative work?  Just take what the important-sounding City Auditor said and print it up.)

  • Accounting did not do its job for over 4 years.
  • The City Auditor did not do his job for over 4 years.
  • The City of Houston has been short on cash for years; an inept auditor could enhance his standing by dredging up some hard cash when it occurred to him to do his job.  Hell, he might even get the Controller’s job; after all, the Controller bears final responsibility for the city’s financial accounting — or, in this case, NON-accounting.
  • An inept City Auditor who finally thinks he’s onto something needs to get the spotlight on someone else so that his own shortcomings are not in the limelight.

How absurd can this get?  Let’s do some math.  252 weeks of a contract with 300,000 financial transactions during that time totaling $19.2 millionthat’s the raw data.  The extended data is that the average of each transaction is $64.00 ($19,200,000 divided by 300,000), with 1,190 of them per week (300,000 divided by 252 weeks).  This was business as usual for untold numbers of city employees charged with accountability of TAXPAYER MONEY.

The REALLY ABSURD part?  A series of $64 transactions (over 1,000 of them each week for 252 weeks) that — according to the City Auditor — resulted in $6.6 million of overcharges…   or, maybe it’s only $1.7 million.  I guess it just depends on how you calculate it.

And, just how does the US Communities thing fit into all of this?  My code name for US Communities will be “George.”

Next up:  Myth (Part 4) Let George do it

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Myth: Vendor Overcharges To Government (Part 2)

Posted on April 7, 2013. Filed under: Journalism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

6th in the series The Manipulators

Your words for the day:

  • auditor = one who analyzes processes and figures, frequently on a short-term recurring cycle
  • extortion = coercion, pressure, blackmail, squeezing, shakedown
  • cheat = deceive, swindle, bilk, take advantage of

The target of my mockery:  The Houston Chronicle (again), December 9, 2012, Section A, Pages 1 and 14, Article title:  Auditors find 4 years’ worth of overcharges, Writer:  Mike Morris (hereinafter referred to as Jack-Hass).

Every business (or government entity) creates a Purchase Order when it agrees to buy product from a vendor.  That order constitutes a contract with an offer (to sell), an acceptance (of the product and the terms of sale) and transfer of the consideration (the monetary payment).  This contract can be verbal, but big business prefers the accountability of that paper trail; it gonna be in writing.

The City Auditor in our story alludes to a contract that “was part of US Communities, a government purchasing cooperative.  The contract ran from March 2006 to the end of 2010.”  That would be 252 weeks by my calculation.  And that is all that Jack the Writer thinks we should know about this third cook in the accounting kitchen.  What is US Communities?  I’ll get to them in Part 3.

I’ve spent a bunch of years preparing specifications lists for needed products and contacting various vendors for availability and best pricing of our needs.  I have prepared purchase orders, detailing the final agreement of purchase (product description, unit price, total price)).  I have cross-checked the product received against the vendor’s shipping bill and my company’s Purchase Order for compliance with specs, and prepared a receiving ticket to document the delivery.  This receiving ticket was then affixed to the purchase order.  ANY DISCREPANCIES, whether of quality or quantity, WERE ADDRESSED WITH THE VENDOR AND CORRECTED BY THE VENDOR, or I ISSUED A CHANGE ORDER TO THE PURCHASE ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE DOCUMENTED VARIANCE.

When the vendor’s invoice came in, I went to the purchase order and the attached documentation and compared it to that invoice.  If it matched all of my documentation, I approved that invoice for payment.

If the invoice differed, it was kicked back to the vendor for clarification and compliance.

That invoice was not paid until it complied with my company’s documentation.  It is basically the same thing that everyone does in the department store:  select a suitably priced product, take it to the check-out, then scream bloody murder if the register ka-chings a higher price than that shelf price tag that attracted your attention.  You ain’t payin’ until the cashier re-rings at your understood price, or until you change your expectation and agree to the now-higher price.  You take care of the variance at the point of sale.

So, WHY does a multi-billion dollar a year operation (e.g., guv’ment) with whole departments on the payroll to oversee such things, pay those invoices as they are received and wait 5 years to see if it is overpaying for its weekly/monthly purchases?  Oh!  I really haven’t told you the particular newspaper story, have I?  Strap on that seat belt; this is going to be quite a ride.

Our writer, Jack-Hass, has a ripping good story — another one of those big business-ripping-off-the-taxpayer scoops.  This was going to be a no-brainer for this Hass, and the chosen headlines accentuated that:  Office Depot could owe city millionsAuditors find 4 years’ worth of overcharges, and, Controller says firm didn’t cooperate with audit.  We gullibles, by and large, just see the hot-button headlines and conclude that “our local paper has uncovered another anti-taxpayer plot.”  Rah!  Rah!  Sis-boom-bah!  Obviously, that’s not what I read.

Our city auditor (City of Houston), hearing that other government entities (Dallas County, Texas; Los Angeles, California; State of Florida) were successful in cheating * Office Depot out of millions in alleged overcharges, checked the sign on his office door and discovered that he, himself, David Schroeder, was in fact being hyped as a bona fide AUDITOR.  “Wow!” he must have thought.  “Why don’t I…   AUDIT…  and make it look like my employer, the City of Houston, has been getting overcharged, too?  I’ll bet everybody will sit up and realize that I am a…  I am a… ”  (he read the cue card on his office door again)   “… an AUDITOR!”

You will have to excuse Dangerous Dave’s uncertainty.  Auditors, as a rule, cruise around their kingdoms at least once a year to rap the knuckles of those departmental bean counters.  This would be Dave’s first venture in the AUDITING of this contract, so he was probably both mystified and elated when he discovered that Office Depot’s contract had been on-going and un-reviewed FOR OVER 4 YEARS.  “What was the auditor doing,”  he must have thought.  (I figure this is the FIRST audit since, had it happened before, this story would be 1, 2, 3, or 4 years AGO.)

Now, one would think, being the auditor for the CITY and all, that his job would be to audit CITY DEPARTMENTS for accountability and adherence to city departmental protocols.  You know, “Show me what you did with all that money the city budgeted to you this year just ending!  Paperwork.  Show me the paperwork!”

Anyway, one would think that.  Yet, the clue to bureaucratic goldbricking was in the headline “Auditors find 4 years’ worth of overcharges.”  Get real.  NO ONE in accounting noticed ANYTHING for 4 years??  NO ONE in the auditors office, during that 4 years, thought to go over and ask someone in accounting, “WHAT’S UP DUDE??”  (Or, Dudette.  I don’t want to be labeled a sexist.)

Let’s give Dangerous Dave his due.  He at least STARTED OUT mucking around in the files of the city’s accounting department.  We use the term “files” somewhat loosely, here, ’cause Dave couldn’t find the documented history of just under 300,000 transactions from Office Depot.  He did find a total for the amount paid out by the accounting department over 4 years and 10 months for those transactions — $19,200,000.  YES, an undocumentated payout of TAXPAYER MONEY by city employees to the tune of $19.2 million.  But, Dangerous Dave, the Cinderella Auditor, rose to the occasion in true bureaucrat mode — and in keeping with his original intent for leaving the comfort of his office in the first place — announced that…

…it was all Office Depot’s fault.

_____________________

*being government entities and all, they did the cheating legally.   Using the extortive weight of GOVERNMENT, they leaned on the private business and said, “Give us a BIG REBATE or we’ll have to play rough with you.”  The Big Pee ignored the extortion by officialdom, and went for vendors ripping off the tax payers.

**A national office supply retailer.

_____________________

Next upMyth, Part 3Can you spell t-o-t-a-l-l-y  a-b-s-u-r-d?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...