Thank you Allan. We all share your concern when a Revenue Item requires an advisor for where it's to be applied. This job seems unnecessary and suggests someone is paying a friend for breathing.
In managing a P&L It's one thing to underspend on one line item to fund an overpsend on another as long as all concerned/impacted parties are aware, the specific underspend is set in concrete and the overspend is agreed to. Managing to the 'bottom line' provides some flexibility while holding true to the overall budget.
It's another thing, completely, to hide a spend in an account that is unrelated to the activity or purchase driving it. That is obfuscation. Someone is trying to hide something. Itt's unnaceptable under any circumstances. In a public institution, it is a violation of public trust.
Hold their hand to the fire, Allan. BOLD headlines, relentless pressure. The fact that they edited the transcipt is enough to suspect that something is wrong in the City of Portland.
I would think the Council would be very concerned about any public records violation after being reviewed over communications outside of a quorum.
Raymond Lee has the responsibility of overall responsibility for PBOT. I would hope given as many issues and frustrations numerous groups around the city have expressed about street maintenance he would focus some serious attention on how FTE are distributed in that department.
And after 2 years of hiring an outside facilitator for the Parking SAC isn’t it past time the committee put together some meeting rules and manage itself?
Doesn’t matter. Two wrongs don’t make a right and why have open meeting laws of they are not required to be open to all? This isn’t DC. We should follow the rules here. Deleting a question from the press is unacceptable.
Here is the website for Christine Moses, the consultant mentioned by Allan. https://www.buffalocloudconsulting.com/ Give it a look, it seems to check all the boxes that’s so Portland. At the next meeting, someone needs to stand up and ask openly why does this meeting require an outside consultant being paid $241 to lead it? And how many other ‘Buffalo Cloud Consulting’ firms are the city hiring for other meetings?
I notice she mostly "facilitate$" in Oregon and especially in Multnomah County. She figured out where the cash-cow was pretty quickly: where gullible taxpayers vote and where Nonprofits grift.
And, of equal importance, since anecdotal evidence suggests some moderators engaged by local government have asserted the power to ban individuals from future meetings and/or shut off lines of discussion, are those powers defined in writing, and where are they to be found?
All of our local governments now rely on consultants. I would have hoped electing public officials that promised (at least in all their campaign brochures) that they had leadership skills that didn't need to be addressed.....after an election.....by a $241 / hour consultant.
One of my favorite examples: Multnomah County hired a consultant for Animal Services (MCAS) whose specialty is:
"Business Analysis Service Design Thinking". Not my words, his. Yeah, that's what the county needs......
PS: it means customer service. Which further indicts the consultants who now need to disguise their "consults" so as to appear important. As a successful business owner, I'll volunteer to do that job (consultation) for free and save us taxpayers a few hundred thousand dollars. I'll start with this as issue number 1 on the "vision board":
Self described as: "a boutique consulting firm specializing in restorative conversations".
One needs to ask, what lame ass bureaucrat saw that and said, "wow, we really need a restorative conversation". It would be silly if it wasn't so damn expensive. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. It created this thread where we all condemn this Bull___t. Maybe we're all having a "restorative conversation" here......
It’s also worth noting that actions like this often indicate a fundamental unethical foundation in an organization. There are likely other infractions. You might call for an audit.
The Portland Bureau of Transportation requested a correction, claiming the full recording was on the website when we wrote this story. We contend that the complete recording, with a second part added, was put in place only after our report.
PBOT spokesperson Dylan Rivera said "two teams were accidentally on the same Zoom link, prompting us to post the meeting video in two segments. ... This was the first time we've had an error like this."
The meeting notes posted before our report was published mention our closing statement.
This argues against an intentional act of censorship.
Why?
Why?
Why?
… and why?
Good job Allan. First, for digging up this information & second for exposing the fact that your input at the meeting was deleted.
Unbelievable! Have they no shame?
The City of Portland has no shame.
Oregon Values™.
Thank you Allan. We all share your concern when a Revenue Item requires an advisor for where it's to be applied. This job seems unnecessary and suggests someone is paying a friend for breathing.
Grifters gonna grift. Portland's taxpayers are fleeced every day.
We should sponsor a Musk-like DOGE
Joe Mack <jmmcavoy@gmail.com>
8:22 AM (0 minutes ago)
to Northwest
In managing a P&L It's one thing to underspend on one line item to fund an overpsend on another as long as all concerned/impacted parties are aware, the specific underspend is set in concrete and the overspend is agreed to. Managing to the 'bottom line' provides some flexibility while holding true to the overall budget.
It's another thing, completely, to hide a spend in an account that is unrelated to the activity or purchase driving it. That is obfuscation. Someone is trying to hide something. Itt's unnaceptable under any circumstances. In a public institution, it is a violation of public trust.
Hold their hand to the fire, Allan. BOLD headlines, relentless pressure. The fact that they edited the transcipt is enough to suspect that something is wrong in the City of Portland.
thanks
Joe McAvoy
How much algae in democracy’s reflecting pool must we ignore?
You are the man, Alan.
Great work Allan!
Thank you!
Excellent. Thank you!
Our District 4 advisors and Raymond Lee need to know that the city staff are altering public records.
Excellent point, and others have also noticed. When a public record is created, it must not be erased or destroyed. I'll be following up on that.
I would think the Council would be very concerned about any public records violation after being reviewed over communications outside of a quorum.
Raymond Lee has the responsibility of overall responsibility for PBOT. I would hope given as many issues and frustrations numerous groups around the city have expressed about street maintenance he would focus some serious attention on how FTE are distributed in that department.
And after 2 years of hiring an outside facilitator for the Parking SAC isn’t it past time the committee put together some meeting rules and manage itself?
"I would think the Council would be very concerned about any public records violation after being reviewed over communications outside of a quorum."
I would like to think that too, but remember they suffered no consequences.
Doesn’t matter. Two wrongs don’t make a right and why have open meeting laws of they are not required to be open to all? This isn’t DC. We should follow the rules here. Deleting a question from the press is unacceptable.
Thank you, Allan.
Here is the website for Christine Moses, the consultant mentioned by Allan. https://www.buffalocloudconsulting.com/ Give it a look, it seems to check all the boxes that’s so Portland. At the next meeting, someone needs to stand up and ask openly why does this meeting require an outside consultant being paid $241 to lead it? And how many other ‘Buffalo Cloud Consulting’ firms are the city hiring for other meetings?
I notice she mostly "facilitate$" in Oregon and especially in Multnomah County. She figured out where the cash-cow was pretty quickly: where gullible taxpayers vote and where Nonprofits grift.
And, of equal importance, since anecdotal evidence suggests some moderators engaged by local government have asserted the power to ban individuals from future meetings and/or shut off lines of discussion, are those powers defined in writing, and where are they to be found?
All of our local governments now rely on consultants. I would have hoped electing public officials that promised (at least in all their campaign brochures) that they had leadership skills that didn't need to be addressed.....after an election.....by a $241 / hour consultant.
One of my favorite examples: Multnomah County hired a consultant for Animal Services (MCAS) whose specialty is:
"Business Analysis Service Design Thinking". Not my words, his. Yeah, that's what the county needs......
PS: it means customer service. Which further indicts the consultants who now need to disguise their "consults" so as to appear important. As a successful business owner, I'll volunteer to do that job (consultation) for free and save us taxpayers a few hundred thousand dollars. I'll start with this as issue number 1 on the "vision board":
show up for work.
Self described as: "a boutique consulting firm specializing in restorative conversations".
One needs to ask, what lame ass bureaucrat saw that and said, "wow, we really need a restorative conversation". It would be silly if it wasn't so damn expensive. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. It created this thread where we all condemn this Bull___t. Maybe we're all having a "restorative conversation" here......
You haven’t received my bill yet.
And…the lame ass bureaucrat is probably another, former nonprofit grifter who is probably besties with her.
It’s also worth noting that actions like this often indicate a fundamental unethical foundation in an organization. There are likely other infractions. You might call for an audit.
The Portland Bureau of Transportation requested a correction, claiming the full recording was on the website when we wrote this story. We contend that the complete recording, with a second part added, was put in place only after our report.
PBOT spokesperson Dylan Rivera said "two teams were accidentally on the same Zoom link, prompting us to post the meeting video in two segments. ... This was the first time we've had an error like this."
The meeting notes posted before our report was published mention our closing statement.
This argues against an intentional act of censorship.
Ok, that's good at least.
Was your question answered / will it be?