Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
HWM

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 228
Reply with quote  #26 
  Thank you. I understand your points, but to me at least the second explanation can be justified to some extend by what Dana put forth----an initial explanation given to try and make the back and forth which could ensue less likely/frequent.
    Explanation number one a sit down, but no release to allow the Councillor to examine the document  in more detail at their convenience, seems to be limiting the ability of Council to do their job as they see fit.
0
Danapop

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 745
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Quote:
Originally Posted by HWM

"I think it would be better for draper to review with cam before releasing and I am sure there are a lot of assumptions that need to be covered. Just giving the excel without any sort of explanation would not be prudent and probably lead to a lot of wasted time, IMO

"Again the fact Draper said that he was more than willing to walk Coun MacKay through it first should give you a big clue there is nothing to hid - as much as you want there to be something sneaky."


  
 I need clarification here. Forgive me if I am being obtuse:  Is the issue that Mr. Draper will not release the document, but rather is only willing to sit down with Councillors to go over it? Or is he willing to release the document, but only after going over it with the individual to explain the assumptions etc.
     To me there is a major difference.


HWM:  To be fair, it is not clear which position Sir Humphrey was taking.  That confusion arises from his propensity to avoid conversing in simple English and invariably responds in bureaucratic obscurantism. However, if his position is that he will not release the document ... then he has clearly overstepped his boundaries.  If his position is that he will release it only after going over it with the individual .... that suggests either poor spreadsheet design or an instinctive need to somehow put his own spin on the figures.  In either case the obvious question is ... why not proceed in a normal business-like manner<\b> and say "here is the entire spreadsheet .... if you have any questions please feel free to contact me and I will be pleased to provide any explanation and assistance that I can" ?????


As someone in business who does cost analysis on a regular basis I would say that Draper is proceeding in a normal
Business like manner. Explain first to avoid confusion and twice the work after.
0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #28 
Can't argue with your point, Dana.  But why then was this approach not done right from the get-go instead of presenting and wanting approval before the explanation?  The original approach is akin to "sign on the dotted line before reading the fine print". 
0
forgot

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #29 
Maybe Draper was hoping council would buy it without any questions asked? Try to sneak it through? Can't help but to remember Starbucks. Draper was not too happy when someone got hold of the real facts behind the Starbucks deal
0
Danapop

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 745
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galt
Can't argue with your point, Dana.  But why then was this approach not done right from the get-go instead of presenting and wanting approval before the explanation?  The original approach is akin to "sign on the dotted line before reading the fine print". 


And that is a fair comment as well. Probably the best approach would be to go over the spreadsheet in detail at the SCOF meeting via projector. However; simply dolling out the excel without a walk-through would accomplish very little and probably be counter productive.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #31 
Galt and Danapop: 
Since your suggested modes of presentation both make common sense, why weren't they employed by Sir Humphrey?

The probable answer is because utility rates are being used to subsidize the constant rise in administrative costs.  That, it seems, is one part of government we don't want to be too "transparent."  Hence, all the complexity, baffle gab, and obscurantism.

Its funny how Safeway can arrive at the price for a jar of pickles without having Sir Humphrey's elaborate spreadsheets.
0
Danapop

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 745
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Galt and Danapop: 
Since your suggested modes of presentation both make common sense, why weren't they employed by Sir Humphrey?

The probable answer is because utility rates are being used to subsidize the constant rise in administrative costs.  That, it seems, is one part of government we don't want to be too "transparent."  Hence, all the complexity, baffle gab, and obscurantism.

Its funny how Safeway can arrive at the price for a jar of pickles without having Sir Humphrey's elaborate spreadsheets.


Do we know they were not? No. Furthermore, honestly comparing pricing a jar of pickles to a rolling 10 year utility model makes no sense...
0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Galt and Danapop: 
The probable answer is because utility rates are being used to subsidize the constant rise in administrative costs.  That, it seems, is one part of government we don't want to be too "transparent."  Hence, all the complexity, baffle gab, and obscurantism.


It's what I've been surmising for a long time - actually since recyclables and organics became a part of the utility bill whether we use them or not. No matter how conscientious the taxpayer is in regards to water useage or disposing of waste/recyclables/organics, the cost continues to rise. If not at the consumption end, it will at the "flat rate" end. I don't profess to understand all the "complexities" involved, but if my tax dollars are being used to create these "complexities" I sure want them explained in detail to me so I know where my dollars are going. Otherwise those impressive salaries to individuals who create these spreadsheets should be reconsidered.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #34 
Danapop:  You said in part: " No. Furthermore, honestly comparing pricing a jar of pickles to a rolling 10 year utility model makes no sense..."

I guess your right.  The rolling 10 year utility model is the product of a government monopoly in which market forces play little or no role ... and the monopolist simply gets to dictate price and figure out how to spin it to the public ....  whereas the price of pickles depends, ultimately, on market forces created through competition.  Hence the complexity and bafflegab becomes superfluous in the case of determining the price of a jar of pickles.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.