Sandy Springs Maintains Services

As reported in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution Sandy Springs has passed a 2012 budget with no service cuts while cutting costs by over $7 million.

How did they do this?

City officials have said switching from CH2M Hill as the provider of most city services provided big savings. They estimate around $7 million in savings by allowing companies to bid on separate services instead of all of them being put together.  "Dividing the contracts up has been good for the city," Councilwoman Dianne Fries said. This is supported by the City Manager, John McDonough who added, "Due to the savings realized from the re-bid of the city's general government services, Sandy Springs was not faced with making significant budget cuts."

Dunwoody was out front on the proper way to contract for city services, but it is comforting to have the affirmation of our "big sister" to the west. Now if Dunwoody could just show DeKalb County how to save some of our money...

A Shout Out to Frederick County, MD

Google Analytics indicates the good folk of Frederick County, Maryland have been doing due diligence before moving from a traditional service approach to the once-favored "Public Private Partnership" or "Three Pee UhOh". Since our new cities north of Atlanta seem to be the breeding ground for Three Pee UhOh, perhaps the experiences of these communities can provide some guidance.

In no particular order...

Be wary of studies. The outcome of any study is based on assumptions. Whoever controls the assumptions controls the results and recommendations.

Be wary of consultants. Consultants are a bit like picking a doctor. If you talk to a surgeon, your ailment will most likely be treated by surgery. A homeopath? Not so much. If you hire a consultant with a track record of advising wholesale outsourcing of services, well, don't be too surprised when he recommends you do the same. And you should be no less surprised to find out he just happens to know of a company that can get the job done.

Be careful what you ask for.  If the motivation is to free the county from a Wisconsin-like death grip of public worker unions, then perhaps wholesale outsourcing is required to break free. Be sure the contract is no greater than a term in office or you will simply trade one demon for another. Plan a clear path to the optimal solution arrived at by some of our communities.

If the change is the result of a political shift from democrats, generally beholding to unions, towards republicans, generally beholding to business, be very wary. You are probably just trading one form of political corruption for another.

Wholesale outsourcing is dubious at best. The financial arguments are simple enough: like Walmart, these mega-corps allegedly enjoy economies of scale. Perhaps they do. But one thing is certain, when you pay the contract, you are paying their profits, their executive bonuses, and funding their re-investment in their business. Little of this money will stay in Frederick County.

When you outsource services you outsource quality. More importantly you outsource accountability and transparency. What is now subject to open records requests will magically become "the proprietary business information of a private corporation".

Full frontal Three Pee UhOh has lost its luster. Before rampant city formation had run its course north of Atlanta, at least one of the new cities rejected full outsourcing from the very beginning. The others have or are in the process of moving towards in-house management with multiple contracts for various work. This is being done not only to ensure the best service levels, but to save money. Ironically it is saving money that is offered as the primary reason to outsource but it simply has not withstood the onslaught of reality.

We in The Other Dunwoody hope this helps.

Millar Distances Himself

Oh, yesterday's over my shoulder
So I can't look back for too long
There's just too much to see waiting in front of me
And I know that I just can't go wrong

That's right Fran, you just can't go wrong, so it must be us. Or that's his story and he's stickin' to it.

In the latest release of the Dunwoody Fan Magazine, Fran opines that we, the voters, (OK, 35% of the registered voters) were simply brilliant in voting for cityhood based on his advice and the advice of shills for CH2M Hill and the wannabe politicos running the Citizens for Dunwoody, but not so smart when it came to electing a mayor and council. Turns out it turned out the way these things generally turn out: it didn't pass the smell test then and now by golly, as the sweet perfume of his salesmanship dissipates, it is really raising a stink. Seems folks, not just The Other Dunwoody, have begun pointing out to their fine Rep that this cityhood thing is not at all what he said it would be. In fact, it is beginning to look like this is a scam of Madoff proportions.

So what's a successful politician to do? That's right. Duck and cover. "Please remember that the City Council chose to go in a different direction of governance than anticipated by most people." Not exactly a mea culpa, but Fran does acknowledge things aren't going well: "I see attempts for no-bid contracts and possibly hiring employees and vendors primarily because someone worked with them before." Sounds like Fran is seeing what we in The Other Dunwoody have seen all along--more of the same old cronyism in politics, except this time it's the frat boys and not the good old boys.

And after all, just what was "anticipated by most people"? Well that would be what they were sold/told by the leaders who brought this upon us. After shenanigans to get SB82 through the house and a manipulative referendum in mid-July scheduled well before publishing Task Force reports and in a presidential election year no less, Millar lays the blame at the feet of other politicians and the voters that supported them. How quickly he went from "we did it the right way" to they went another way.

Well, "Please don't blame me when you go to the polls" may not cut it this time. When a building advertised as glorious, innovative and safe collapses on top of folks the architect and engineer should expect to be held responsible. And that's just what...wait...what's that sound? Is it? Can it be? Yes! It is! It's Fran! Fran jammin' to Boofay...

With these changes in platitudes, changes in attitudes
Nothing remains quite the same
With all of my running and all of my cunning
If I couldn't laugh I just would go insane
[everybody!]
If we couldn't laugh we just would go insane
If they weren't all crazy they would go insane

TOD

A Momentus Day

December 1st marks the end of the 2008 Hurricane Season. It offers a time to reflect on the pre-season predictions and assess the accuracy of the experts. As sometimes happens, the predictions didn't quite meet with reality.

But December 1st is also the first day in the existence of the City of Dunwoody. This also offers the opportunity to reflect on where we are and how we got here, the end of our first season of Dunwoody.

Given that Dunwoody doesn't even officially start until Monday December 1st this might seem difficult, but...Dunwoody's Mayor and City Council have been in operation since being sworn in and prior to that operated under the auspices of the Governor's office and prior to that these very same folks who comprise the fledging government of Dunwoody operated the wholly political and quasi-governmental Citizens for Dunwoody and Dunwoody Yes! organizations. And as Dr. Phil likes to say "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior". This gives a significant body of work to evaluate.

To make the job more manageable, let's look at some key metrics: No Taxation without Representation, Service Value, Integrity, and Transparency.

Taxation: D. This covers not only the taxation of various businesses operating within Dunwoody which likely have little say in city operations, but also the imposition of the Franchise Fee Tax which negatively affects everyone who lives in and uses utilities in Dunwoody, but more importantly represents a tax levied by Dunwoody on Georgians who live outside Dunwoody. Remember the primal scream of cityhood? No Taxation Without Representation!

Service Value: C. This is one political hot potato. On the plus side: a city hall not in the city because it is cheaper; and dodging the CH2M bullet, but on the minus side: tacit acknowledgment that the CVI study was bogus; serious, allegedly surprising, startup cash flow problems; insufficient funds for promised police staffing; and no immediate prospects for park or road improvements.

Integrity: F. There is just no other way to say it: the citizens of Dunwoody have been lied to from the beginning. A now suspect Carl Vinson Study produced under the direction of cityhood proponents. Task Force reports withheld until after the referendum. The Citizens for Dunwoody and Dunwoody Yes! operating outside public view and review as was their legal right, but since they were influencing events affecting us all there was a moral imperative to operate openly. A moral imperative they diligently ignored.

Transparency: F. You probably cannot have integrity without transparency, at least in government, and when the first official meeting of the City Council results in the first official open records request, you get a pretty good idea how committed the Mayor and Council will be to their pledges of transparent and open government. One might accept them as technological novices but for the fact that someone associated with CfD and DY! demonstrated an amazing ability to put up (and tear down) websites and post Shrill Jill videos when it suited their purpose.

So there you have it. On the issues that matter most to most of us, Taxes, Services, Integrity and Transparency, this city earned a first term grade of D-, far short of their original promises. Maybe next year there will be a hurricane Dunwoody that meets predictions.

TOD

Boyken International vs CH2M HILL

It's called "workin' da web".

Try these searches on google:

CH2M HILL indict
CH2M HILL corruption

Look over just the first couple of pages of search results. The Alaska fiasco is prominent, because it is topical, but you'll also see reference to the Cleveland water disaster and the Camp Humphreys Expansion project. The common thread: the use of "consultants" who are really no more than shills for the company.

Now replace 'CH2M HILL' with 'Boyken International' and repeat the searches.

Does anyone still think Dunwoody didn't dodge a bullet?

TOD

CH2M: Not to Run Dunwoody!

The AJC reported that CH2M has withdrawn it's offer to run Dunwoody!

At the first sign of a competitive, alternative option for city operation, CH2M folds. Surprising? Not really. CH2M has a history of using contractors and consultants to garner business while maintaining distance from activities that are increasingly scrutinized. This is not the hallmark of a competitive bidder.

Here's what their local broker has to say:

“They withdrew because they don’t feel they can get the kind of support they need to partner with the city,” Porter said.

What kind of support do they need? Would that be unfettered access to our money? Their self-proclaimed consultant installed as City Manager? Total lack of transparency? The ability to increase costs at will, as in Bonita Springs?

Was it possible that our city council actually wants to run our city for us? Were they a bit too inquisitive? Did they want a City Manager who isn't connected? Did they want too much oversight? No matter, if this decision sticks Dunwoody dodged a bullet.

TOD

Consultant Ethics 101

Professional, ethical consultants have two qualities:

1. Area expertise--they are exceptionally accomplished in an area important to their clients where the client is not sufficiently capable.
2. Objectivity--the consultant receives no benefit due to the client's decision and this is most commonly expressed as vendor-independence.

Area expertise is table stakes, you cannot even sit in on the game without it. No statement of ethics from any professional organization tolerates consulting outside one's area of expertise. Not the Institute of Management Consultants, not the Project Management Institute, nor any state licensing agency for whom it may actually be a criminal offense. And consultants are expected to be expert, not just above average or merely capable. These extraordinary, exceptional individuals acquire their skills from academic research and/or outstanding performance in their area of expertise. They are few and far between.

Objectivity is absolutely critical--a consultant must not be influenced by a client's preconceptions and more importantly must not even appear to be influenced by or biased towards a particular vendor. A quick google search for "consultant ethics vendor-independence" reveals that many professional consulting organizations agree. Without this independence, objectivity is compromised and no matter how knowledgeable the expert, the relationship becomes deal brokering, not an objective advice in the client's best interest.

Why do we, The Other Dunwoody, care? Well, it turns out we have our own self-professed consultant who lives in neighboring Sandy Springs. None other than Oliver Porter, the citymaker. But who is Oliver Porter and what is his field, what makes him an expert, acceptable as a consultant? We know this from the City of Sandy Springs:

Oliver W. Porter, Sandy Springs, GA - Porter is a former vice president of sales at AT&T. He is the founder of the Combined Health Appeal of America and served as the group's chief executive officer and past national chairman. He served as a board member with the Committee for Sandy Springs and as the past chairman of the National Kidney Foundation. Porter earned a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of South Carolina, a master's degree in business administration from Georgia State University, and completed graduate level executive programs at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, Williams College, and the University of Illinois.

He is a businessman, more specifically, a salesman. Prior to his position with Sandy Springs he held no elected municipal position, had no municipal job with fiduciary responsibility or oversight of services. Not even dog catcher. He has no degree in urban planning nor in municipal management. No law degree, no studies of state or local law.

This is not the background of someone exceptionally knowledgeable in municipal operations and the legal, political and financial contexts in which a city exists.

So much for expertise, now how about objectivity?

Mr. Porter has been involved in the creation of new cities in our region, including his participation as an unpaid consultant and lobbyist for the City of Dunwoody. In all cases except Dunwoody where the decision is yet to be made, these cities have all chosen to outsource services to one company: CH2M Hill. In the case of Dunwoody an RFP was issued which surely Mr. Porter had a hand in and here's the real surprise: there was no other acceptable respondent but CH2M!

This could be no more than coincidence. Or perhaps there really is no other capable vendor but CH2M.

But this strange set of coincidences isn't all there is. It turns out that Mr. Porter is also an author who is "boutique publishing" a book espousing the benefits of city service outsourcing. So how does someone market a book without the services of traditional publishers? Glad you asked.

You could set up a web site, perhaps even a blog. You could work with academic institutions presenting seminars and workshops or even offering full semester, for-credit classes.

Or, you could co-market your book with a favorite vendor.

• Starting in 2006, CH2M Hill began promoting Mr. Porter's book.
• In 2007, CH2M/OMI gave away copies Mr. Porter's book at the International City/County Management Association Annual Conference.
• This collaboration continued into 2008 as Mr. Porter and CH2M made combined presentations to Toyo University.

Mr. Porter is probably not actually on the CH2M payroll, and CH2M is perfectly entitled to buy any book they want and give them to anyone they want, but this smells more like quid pro quo than a string of coincidences.

This tag team has been working very closely with the Citizens for Dunwoody with CH2M donating money to CfD and our consultant sitting side by side Rob Augustine and Tom Taylor at the League of Women Voters' debate where they:

"defended the studies as prudent, the estimated $18 million budget as fiscally conservative, and the proposed service levels as a 25 to 30% improvement over what DeKalb currently provides."

We now know these statements have no connection with reality, are not supported by sound judgment and would never have been supported by a professional consultant who is truly an expert in these matters.

Doesn't Dunwoody deserve better than a profit motivated corporation with an increasingly spotty track record shilled by a connected consultant?

The Other Dunwoody does.

TOD

The Time Has Come

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach..."

John Heneghan posted a most disturbing Blog entry wherein he states:

"This evening seven fairly intelligent people sat around a table for six and a half hours going over the expected City of Dunwoody revenues and expenses. Come this evening at 7 p.m. when five of us are sworn in, we will then be subject to open meetings and everything from that point on will be discussed in the open."

And just who are these magnificent seven? A Mayor and 5 elected Councilmen, and who else? A consultant? Fran or Dan? A representative from CH2M? Were there any dim-bulbs there or just bright lights?

Furthermore it is clear that right up to the very legal limit the Citizens for Dunwoody have been operating outside the spirit of the open meetings law. Yes, we all know they were not compelled to operate under that law until sworn in, but this leads to an even more disturbing part of the entry:

"money is very tight no matter how the city decides to go forward, there are many unknowns in this initial process"

Many unknowns? In communication with Fran Millar, wherein he was asked about his statement that this was done "the right way" he responded with:

"by delaying this one year to try to get the best data for people to make a decision (unlike Milton, Johns Creek) I do think it was the right way."

So now there is this amazing transition from "financially viable" and "same or better services with no increase in taxes" to "money is very tight" and "there are many unknowns". What happened and what good, other than marketing, was the Carl Vinson study? Did they squander the whole year? Are these "fairly intelligent people" capable of doing anything right?

And what caused this transformation of reality? We all know the answer to that one: the referendum passed.

So now...

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

Anyone else feeling a bit like an oyster?

TOD

CH2M Can Be Someone's Friend

But they probably won't be a friend to those of us in The Other Dunwoody.

Reports from Florida indicate Bonita Springs may have made a deal with the devil:

Since taking over, CH2M Hill and Bonita Springs have come under fire, mostly from the building industry, for proposing to quadruple fees to provide community development services such as building permit reviews, rezoning request reviews and inspections.

But it turns out to be a devil they should have seen coming:

East Cleveland officials last month [August] sued CH2M Hill OMI, alleging the engineering and management firm was part of a conspiracy that involved the city's mayor to improperly secure a multimillion dollar, no-bid contract to run the city's water department.

Is there a substantial difference between "no-bid" and "only accepted bid"?

Then there is the related fiasco in Houston:

CH2M Hill has also been reaping million-dollar contracts for developing a "strategic plan" for the city's water system and for a major project for the Port of Houston Authority. So it should come as no surprise that the feds are snooping around Texas.

Do we want the feds snooping around Dunwoody?

What can we do to avoid these pitfalls?

1. Do not use CH2M at all: their baggage simply isn't worth it.
2. Do not outsource all operations to a single vendor, regardless of the vendor.
   
3. Establish performance criteria for each operational area. Publish this as part of any RFPs.
4. Hire an Operations Manager to oversee all contracted services.

We also have to root out the participants in sweetheart deals on our side of the business relationship. We already know we have a City Council member with close ties to CH2M. Is this the only one, and how can we know since the CfD operated in secret? Even if these relationships are exposed and the individuals recuse themselves can we really be certain of a good faith business arrangement with no ex parte communication? Not based on the CfD's or CH2M's track record.

Finally there is the all important transparency in Government. Are we outsourcing our ethics? CfD was able to operate outside of public oversight because they were a private corporation and not required to inform anyone of their efforts (allegedly) on our behalf. CH2M has publicly taken the position that they are free from open disclosure laws in Florida:

There has been some dispute over the corporation’s adherence to public records law with people [...] saying the company must adhere to the same standards as governments [...]. CH2M Hill argues it doesn’t need to reveal this information because it is a private company.

Maybe we should take ownership of our own city instead of selling out to private interests with cozy political connections.

TOD

Fool me once...

...shame on me. Fool me twice...

Perhaps that isn't going to happen. The backlash against Citizens for Dunwoody is beginning and let's hope it isn't too little, too late.

The Peach Pundit has taken notice of our impending financial woes. While that is mostly outsider gloat, there are some inside the city who are less than pleased. One commentator on Heneghan's Dunwoody Blog was surprised at the announcement of a budget shortfall. Another interprets recent events as the beginning of good old boy politics in Dunwoody.

Citizens of Dunwoody are beginning to feel duped. Because they were.

The referendum was rushed with the vote held before task force reports were available. Decide for yourself if that was intentional, but it is becoming increasingly clear voter ignorance was on the side of cityhood. Everything is on an accelerated schedule except full disclosure. That can wait. The nonprofit lobbying organization, Dunwoody Yes, even failed to file required disclosure reports on time.

Yet there was time to issue an RFP. From an organization with a top ranking official who has close ties to CH2M. Interestingly, CH2M was the only qualified bidder. You connect the dots.

The Carl Vinson Institute was given direction that resulted in a fairy-tale scenario supporting financial feasibility. Self-appointed leaders have acknowledged ignorance on significant revenue sources including the ever-popular backdoor tax known as franchise fees. Now we find out they had no firm grasp of cash flow--they didn't know that certain business taxes wouldn't be available until the end of 2009, or...perhaps they did.

This fiasco was created by The Few, The Self-Appointed, The Self-Righteous, but not without our help. Sadly, many of these same people intend to and probably will run our new city. Only a fool would expect them to do better after these elections than they have so far.

Let's hope we don't have a city of fools.

TOD

How DID They Do That?

During the victory celebrations Fran Millar was quoted by the Dunwoody Crier, the fan magazine of the cityhood movement, saying that the referendum and vote was "done the right way". As events unfold and unpleasant truths are revealed it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that anything done in support of cityhood was correct, proper and above board.

But there may be a logical explanation, other than victory-induced exuberance. Perhaps we are victims of homophonic confusion and Millar actually said "done the Wright way.

Could this be? Well, before becoming mayor-without-election, Mr. Wright was past-president of the Dunwoody Homeowners Association, and more recently president of Citizens for Dunwoody, Inc.

As we all know the latter organization formed Task Forces that sadly enough could not complete their tasks prior to the referendum. Worse yet, they conducted their affairs as if hermetically sealed. Truth be told, Citizens for Dunwoody is a private organization and any work they do, source material they use or reports they create belong solely to CfD. Until now. Presenting these reports to the Governor's Dunwoody Task Force made them public records, and we are finding out why they were kept secret.

For one, the Police Task Force report is an embarrassment to the Carl Vinson Institute as it recommends a budget more than 50% greater than the CVI estimate. And now we learn this will only provide a level of protection that experts consider minimally adequate. So who is really competent, a task force comprising lay-people with an agenda or the heretofore highly regarded Carl Vinson Institute of Government? Maybe neither.

Then we have the not so small issue of privatization. Mr. Wright's organization took it upon itself to issue an RFP, accept bids and select the winning bidder. There are a couple of problems with this.

First, while done on behalf of the potential city it was done without any public oversight. We should not be surprised when we find our new city does not set a new, higher standard for open government. In fact, we should expect to see only those things that the law requires probably after an open records request.

Then there is the matter of the winning company having potential ties to a high ranking official of Citizens for Dunwoody. Turns out the wife of a CfD corporate officer is a past employee of CH2M and promotes herself as a member of the CH2M Alumni Association. The selection of CH2M and the process behind it doesn't pass the smell test.

So. Was Millar misquoted? Was he being punny? We will never know. But if the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, we had best fasten our seat belts--it's going to be a bumpy ride.

TOD

Let the Truth be Told

Voir dire is the opportunity to examine the jurors before their appointment as regards to their integrity and balanced approach.

The time is short to apply this much needed process to the candidates for city council. A problem facing us, The Other Dunwoody, is that many of candidates are former insiders of the Pro-Dun proselytizing organizations. These organizations promoted the idea of cityhood without a great deal of respect for the truth. Of course, this is the nature of marketing.

Now some of these individuals are marketing themselves and we can expect them to be no more forthright with accurate information than they have been in the past. Yet they are selling themselves as the best option for various council positions. Do their recent past actions recommend them for these offices?

There are some serious questions that deserve considered answers:

Were they on any of the task forces and if so did they operated in the open? Did they publish agendas before meetings, minutes afterwards, disclose source information under consideration and produce timely reports? What is their explanation for why this was not done (we know it wasn't)? Does their answer speak to the character you wish in a city leader?

Were they a member of either of the Pro-Dun organizations? If so, what was their role? If not a member did they support either organization and in what fashion?

Were they a member of the non-profit organization formed to lobby for cityhood and if so, what was their role? This organization was required by law to file a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report 15 days before the vote, yet it was e-filed on July 9th. What is their explanation for this negligence or incompetence and if they tolerated it in this organization why are we to believe they will not tolerate the same in our city?

Were they a member of the Pro-Dun organization that issued an RFP for city services, accepted bids and eliminated one bidder? What was their role in that organization? Do they, or any of their relatives have business or social ties -- past or present -- with either of the companies under consideration? Do they, or any of their relatives work for these companies? Have they in the past? We already know this is true for one candidate. Are there others?

If they were a member of the Pro-Dun organization that commissioned the Carl Vinson Study, what interaction did they have with the CVIoG? We already know that the CVIoG was told to include $1.5 million in the budget as a contingency for lost HOST funds to PCID. Who, and we deserve a name here, spoke with them on this matter? Who gave them guidance to include Georgia Power franchise fees under 'other franchise fees', making what is little more than a miscellaneous category the second largest source of revenue? What other guidance were they given and who made those choices?

These two organizations did not operate to the level of integrity, openness and respect for the citizens that are a minimum requirement for a city created in this, the new millennium. Those who participated in these organizations have much to answer for, especially if they seek city office. If they evade these questions, or seek to hide behind the herd ("the committee decided", or "the task force reported", etc.) they are not qualified for any city position.

Unfortunately the uncontested mayoral position will not receive scrutiny.

TOD

Inside Job

Some candidates for city council seem to agree with The Other Dunwoody that there is something fishy with the pre-ordained selection of CH2M Hill to operate the city.

As it turns out the wife (and business partner) of a highly placed participant in the pro-city movement was once employed by this company and lists herself on linkedin as a member of the "CH2M Alumni Association". If you believe this high powered couple hasn't maintained friendly relations with the company and many of its employees then you might be interested in some beach front property just listed on Bunky Way.

The notion that some self-appointed representatives of a possible city-to-be should even issue an RFP was offensive from the very beginning. That they have taken bids and narrowed the choices (to one) is odious. Discovering that a high ranking official of this organization has personal ties to the winning bidder is just more evidence that city governance in Dunwoody will be no better what we had with DeKalb.

It should come as no surprise that this individual is also running for a city council spot.

TOD

A Foundation of Lies

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Joseph Goebbels.

It appears Dunwoody's Powers-That-Be are losing their ability to shield The Other Dunwoody from their lies. And make no mistake, we have been lied to and it is becoming inescapable that it was done with malice and forethought.

The reports from the Citizens for Dunwoody's clandestine Task Forces have been presented to the political elites: the candidates for city council. Not only were they not created with public review or provided to the citizens before the referendum, they are still withheld from Dunwoody's citizens. Apparently they are available on a need to know basis and mere citizen-taxpayers simply don't need to know.

We can gather some interesting insights from Sunday's AJC Metro article, "Dunwoody candidates see preview of operations proposals":

• As the title clearly states, this information was presented exclusively to candidates. Given that it is already too late to negatively impact the referendum, how bad can it really be? Apparently pretty bad.


• "The reports are only recommendations and are not binding. But they likely will carry significant weight with new council members, who will have little time to prepare for cityhood after Sept. 16..." Obviously these reports were intentionally delayed, forcing the newly formed council to accept these recommendations without serious debate or plausible alternatives. Someone has a vested interest in this outcome. Who is it and what do they get?


• This is all clearly intentional. When a constituent questioned Fran Millar, a prime mover behind the Dunwoody movement, about cityhood being sought "the right way", he responded:
  
  

  "[...]by delaying this one year to try to get the best data for people to make a decision (unlike Milton, Johns Creek) I do think it was the right way. Are there assumptions that might be wrong-probably. However it will be better than DeKalb in the long run if we elect responsible people and you can throw them out if they do not do a good job-unlike DeKalb."
  

  
  Well, it seems these folks had an extra year and still could not pull together their reports in a timely fashion, even for presentation to decision makers. It is a sad state of affairs when incompetence is the most palatable explanation.


• Then there is Chem2Hill and an apparently cozy relationship with some members of these clandestine task forces: "The company was selected over another bidder by a panel appointed by Citizens for Dunwoody Inc., the group that headed the task force effort." So there was an RFP issued, bids were taken and a winner selected. All on our behalf, but without our knowledge or permission.

• The company seems quite sure of it's future business with Dunwoody, Inc.: "the company already has selected the staff that will work for Dunwoody if the council selects the firm. The company also has a building that initially would be used as a City Hall." Initiative or a done deal--which do you think it is?

• Finally, one of our fine candidates for City Council, a past task force commandant, is recommending a police budget that is 20% over that in the Vinson study--the only detailed information provided before the referendum. Of course, we, The Other Dunwoody, are not allowed to know why and for what purpose the budget ballooned.

This is the kind of "behind closed doors" good old boy politics, deception and fiscal irresponsibility we've come to expect from the county. Dunwoody was supposed to do better.

TOD