By Ghost of John Brown -
The English translation of what the original Chumash Indian tribe called the Los Angeles area is "Valley of Smoke". The low basins and dust made Los Angeles look like it was on fire when it wasn't. The same can be said of political attacks: smoke, when there is no fire.
With some interest I have been watching the accusations from both the Lauzen and Surges campaign regarding "Pay to Play" politics in government with consultants. This State DOES have a problem with pay to play and corruption. During the Blagojevich administration, the pay to play in regards to consultant contracts were endemic. Don't get me wrong, this has nothing to do with Democrats, it happens with Republicans too, trust me, I've seen it.
However, over the last several weeks, the Lauzen campaign first made a series of accusations against the current Kane County administration, and now the Cliff Surges campaign has made similar accusations. Note the "hey, I'm not saying it's illegal, but ooooohhh boy this is bad, bad, bad" form of the accusation.
I'm a consultant - proudly. Sorry, I can't sit back silently while my industry is defamed like this.
Before I get to the actual charges, just a bit about consultants. Having a proper mix between staff and consultants to complete work is important. One of many charges made is that consultants are expensive. Sure, the rate that is charged per hour seems high, but unlike government workers, there is no pension to pay off in 30 years, fewer holidays, and with those rates, you're not paying for an employee to go on vacation. It's all included in the rate. Consultants also bring expertise. Do you really want a County to maintain people that are specialized in 20 different areas of design? Hire a consultant for 100 hours and then be done with them. A detailed study about the New York DOT showed that when you compare all of the benefits, it is cheaper to hire a consultant than use in-house staff. Click here for the full study.
This is not an attack against in-house staff. Quite the contrary. There are some functions that are better performed by staff and some things better performed by consultants. A healthy mix is the best scenario. There are certainly some bad apples in the consulting industry, but by far and away, the vast majority of consultants are honest folks trying to do a good job for their clients. Most of us live and pay taxes in the communities in which we serve and we want to provide a good service.
OK, back to the charges. As outlined, both Mr. Lauzen and Mr. Surges are claiming that since many of the consultants that have given campaign contributions are also vendors for the County, there has to be some nefarious activity going on. Let's look at how consultants are actually hired in the County and the transparency.
The first step in the process is that a consultant has to be prequalified for various tasks. Click here. Consultants submit a list of their employees, their qualifications, the types of projects that they have worked on in the past and their IDOT prequalifications. Once this is received, consultants are deemed worthy or prequalified to complete certain types of projects. A list of all of the prequalified consultants and their categories is publicly available information on the County's website. This step is completed fully by staff without political intervention.
The 2nd step is that consultants are sent an e-mail when specific projects come up for consideration. Typically, well over 100 firms are sent the information and invited to submit a Statement of Interest for the project. Only those firms that are prequalified in that particular area are sent the invitation to submit. Again, this step is completed fully by staff.
Once consultants submit their Statement of Interest, they are evaluated by staff. A Statement of Interest is a short document that outlines the consultant's similar experience, which staff they will assign to the project, their understanding of the project and their approach. Again, the review of Statements of Interest is completed fully by staff without political input. Staff will select three consultants based on their Statements of Interest and notify them that they have been "short-listed".
Consultants are then asked to submit a detailed proposal and come in for an interview to discuss the project and present their qualifications. Based on the proposal and the interview, staff completes a rating of each consultant. Here is one example.
The above image is for one project. EVERY SINGLE PROJECT since the summer of 2007 is listed on the Kane County DOT website. Click here for the list. In every example, the public can view how many consultants were notified, how many submitted Statements of Interests, who was short listed, and their rating. The public can even view the original request for Statements of Interest. Again, the rating of consultants is a step that is performed fully by three staff members without politicians.
The ratings are then forwarded to the Transportation Committee of the County and ultimately to the full Board for approval. Perhaps there are cases, but I can't think of a single instance where the recommendations of staff were overturned by the Transportation Committee or the full Board. You can find all of the Transportation Committee meeting minutes going back to 2007 on the County's website. Click here. On the website, you can view the agenda, the packet that the Board Members get and the meeting minutes. Everything is there for the public to view.
My question to Senator Lauzen and Mr. Surges is where in this process is there "Pay to Play"? Where is there a lack of transparency? If the public can view every single project and every single consultant rating, and see every vote by the Board, what more information should be supplied? How would you change the system to make it better? How do you claim pay to play when each project is sent out to 100+ firms and typically 30-40 Statements of Interest are submitted for each project? Don't just say "we need more transparency", show us how. The County received an "A+" for transparency from Sunshine Review, think you can do better?
If Mr. Lauzen is accusing the County of Pay to Play, what does this say about some of his supporters like County Board Member Mitchell and Smith who are on the Transportation Committee? Is the Senator saying that they have looked the other way while nefarious activity has gone on? Both of these gentlemen have voted on dozens of these consultant contracts. I don't know Mr. Mitchell that well, but I know Mr. Smith and I know him to be an honest and upfront person. I know he would not vote for something he thought was nefarious.
If there is truly "pay to play", point to it. Show us where in the process there is nefarious activity going on. Which one of these consultant contracts was obtained illegally or by underhanded activity? I know the staff members that work at the County very well. I know their integrity. I know that they are not participating in some underhanded bribery activity. Quite frankly, Mr. Lauzen and Mr. Surges owe the men and women that work at the County an apology.
These kind of drive-by smears without proof diminish the discussion. If there is truly illegal activity, report it instead of resorting to cheap political stunts. So far, all I can see is a desperate Senator crying fire when he only sees smoke.
Follow Ghost of John Brown on Facebook. Click here.
