John Crawford On IT Contract
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 8/18/08 @ 8:58 am - Filed Under City Council, Featured
Former at-large councilman John Crawford penned an op-ed in response to councilwoman Karen Goldner’s letter regarding the city’s IT contract. I respect Crawford and I voted for him this last election cycle but he’s wrong on this. Let’s dissect his letter a bit:
The fact was that there were no local companies that were qualified to do this scope of service.
With all due respect, Crawford isn’t qualified to make that statement. He doesn’t know enough about IT companies or their services to pass judgment.
Furthermore, the idea that no local company could do this job is ludicrous. Aren’t we going to use all local employees? That’s what I keep hearing, so no local company can manage these employees to do the job? Does anyone else really believe that?
If one city or county starts putting up trade barriers, then others do so, ultimately decreasing economic activity.
The Buy Local ordinance, just like the Buy Indiana ordinance put in place by Governor Daniels, would only penalize those communities that already have barriers against ours. That was thoroughly documented during the debate and so Crawford’s point here is moot.
It also is not fair to increase one citizen’s taxes to pay for a higher-cost contract to subsidize another citizen’s business who couldn’t win the contract in fair, open competition.
I must’ve missed the meeting when Crawford voted against Harrison Square or the hundreds of tax abatements he voted against. What? You mean he supported Harrison Square and numerous other tax abatements? You don’t say.
If we subsidize a local company with a portion of its business with a city contract, it will still not survive unless it can compete in all its other contracts with private businesses that will insist on the best quality at the best cost.
This is flawed logic. Proponents of tax abatements, Crawford included, will say that many businesses would not be able to get on their feet without these abatements. Why is the same logic not applied here? Perhaps a local business just needs a solid contract to build from and provide the stability over the next five years to compete in the general marketplace.
I guess I never thought that using local tax dollars to buy local goods and services was a radical idea. By the way, how is the whole NAFTA and “global marketplace” working out for us in Indiana? Is that the model we want to apply locally? These are high quality jobs we’re talking about here - not reams of paper or mechanical pencils…
Comments
15 Responses to “John Crawford On IT Contract”
Leave a Reply
I appreciate the way you (and others) use Harrison Square for your argument on all issues. No need to defeat Dr. Crawford on the merits of his argument regarding this contract, just simply say Doc Crawford voted for Harrison Square and therefore that undermines his argument on all other issues.
“I guess I never thought that using local tax dollars to buy local goods and services was a radical idea. By the way, how is the whole NAFTA and “global marketplace” working out for us in Indiana? Is that the model we want to apply locally? These are high quality jobs we’re talking about here - not reams of paper or mechanical pencils…”
NAFTA is truly amazing. I has allowed Indiana to move back in time to a slower paced time of bailing hay and pushing brooms (with pay and benifits ti match). And in fact, Gov. Daniels so called “Buy Indiana” tured out to be “Sell Indiana” (Toll Road, Prisons, Lottery).
I look forward to hearing how much money the City/County saved on this IT contract when the ink is on the paper and the “fit hits the shan”.
The city/county will have a lot of egg on its collective face before this is over.
Green Jeans,
Reading your comment you would think my post was all about HS instead of only being used in a single isolated sentence…
Jeff;
I know H.S. was not intended to be the focus of this post, but that is how Crawford will forever be remembered. Remember Crawford’s record as a fiscal conservative? Numerous votes against small wasteful projects and one vote in favor of one HUGE wasteful project.
However, as far as your main point, I disagree with you on this. First of all, just about any local business can get some kind of tax-abatement without much effort. That is their subsidy, and if they still can not compete then against foreign businesses that don’t receive this advantage then they probably shouldn’t be picked.
As far as the awarding of this contract, was it actually opened to bidding? Were there any local businesses that put in a bid? If so, how did their prce compare to the other’s? If not, then Crawford is right.
Phil,
Way to remain open minded. “Huge Wasteful project”, no matter what the end results might be.
Crawford will be remembered for being one of the few politicians with the kahoonas to do what HE believed was right even if it would cost him the election.
We have enough of the other type…. the ones that raise their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Crawford raised his finger in the air alright….he raised his finger in the air to the voters of Allen County, and I needn’t tell you which finger it was.
Dr. Crawford was always going on about brain drain at council meetings. Young graduates were not going to stay in the area unless we gave them a reason to stay. Good jobs and a growing community were among the things he cited over the years as issues that needed to be addressed.
Local companies have more of an interest in making the community better (think Lincoln Life in the old days).
Dr Crawford’s time on the council was a great example of what is wrong with the At-Large councilman position. They have no direct group that they are responsible to, so they can cherry pick issues and cobble together some re-election support.
Sure wish regular law-abaiding CITIZENS could get a REAL tax abatement…just for living in certain parts of Ft. Wayne…now THAT would be progress!
B.G.
The reason organizations outsource is to get more for their money. Typically there are two groups that outsource, small companies outsource so they don’t have to keep permanent personnel and can pay for services as needed. This group is very commonly serviced by a local IT firm.
On the other end of the spectrum are large corporations, who tend to keep IT services in-house as they have systems in place like in-house training, varied services, HR, and security consulting that provide superb service while still keeping costs low due to economies of scale.
The group the city/county falls into is a large middle group, who want the perks of large IT such as security consulting, training, varied services, and a large knowledge base without the costs that they would incur being a medium sized organization.
So what to do?
Outsource to a large IT firm who has size, multiple sites, and tens of thousands of employees along with the same established systems large IT departments have. If the City or County wants to move to a new type of application, its very likely another site or sites within their IT contractor are using that type of product and a production example can be viewed, demoed, and if a purchase is made, the knowledge obtained at one site is shared with the City/County location. Security consulting can be provided as-needed, as can other services such as IT personnel training, as well as end-user training. With a large firm you are plugged into a network of technical resources. Discounts on certain products and services are common as large IT firms frequently negotiate lower prices as they represent a large customer base. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
The reason the City and County dropped their current vendor is due to lack of these large-scale services. Local firms simply cannot offer that type of service, so there is no reason to turn to them. If the City and County simply wanted someone to “manage” their employees they could do it in house, they have HR departments and CTOs, they could agree on a way to run the place. They won’t do that because they want more, and that’s ok.
Mr. Green Jeans;
Regarding John Crawford, let me begin by saying that in early 2007, I thought he was one of the biggest pricks to hold elected office locally. I took his callous disregard for the majority opionion on H.S. as very offensive. I also took the commonly stated rumor that he is a cigar smoker to seriously call into question the claim that his stance on the smoking ban was over health concerns. When I saw the Hitlarized posters of him or heard people saying what they would do to him if he walked into their bar, I just laughed. However, after attending several Council meetings, and having the chance to talk casually with him afterwards, my oinion changed quite a bit.
A few days after he put out the campaign ad touting his support for the smoking ban, I shook his hand. I told him that although I strongly disagree with the ban, and I thought it might hurt him during the election, I seriously respected the fact that he was standing firm by it. I think Crawford’s response of “Hey, you’ve got to stick with the girl who you brought to the dance” was very telling of his true character. The worse thing about any politician is the B.S. that they often spew out in place of real answers. I disagree with Crawford on a lot of political matters, but I do think he is very forthright about his views. Basically, I agree with your asessment of him here.
Regarding Harrison Square, the supporters constantly claimed “I’m sure everybody would support this, if they just understood it.” Yet at the same time, many of these same people either gave out misinformation or simply refused to give out information that was necessary for understanding it. I don’t know whether H.S. is a good deal, because I still don’t know all the costs. Some were added after the initial deal was finalized, and I would bet money that there will still be more to come.
Harrison Square was a fraud because of the way it was disingenuously forced upon the people. Many people asked how much H.S. will cost, and they still have never received an answer. When someone refuses to answer a question, they lose the benefit of the doubt. The answer to how much it will cost is obviously “too much”, otherwise they would not have refused to answer the question. Whether or not it is a success sometime in the future is really irrellavent to this.
Now, I realize that this is probably the point where you are going to pull out that term that is overused as much as boondoggle is and call me a Harrison Square hater. My response to that is that in the beginning, I think the city was pretty evenly divided three ways on H.S. One group was blindly supportive, another group was staunchly opposed, and the third group thought it sounded like an interesting idea but they had a few questions and concerns about it. I was in this third group and it didn’t take long to figure out that the proponents did not plan on seriously answering these questions.
I don’t hate H.S. I think it is looking pretty damn awesome, and I really do hope it is a success. But regardless of how it turns out, I will always hate the deceptive process through which it was born. It is possible for a woman to hate the man who raped her, but to love the child that resulted from it. The citizens of Fort Wayne were raped because of the way H.S. was forced upon them. The child is still gestating, and the rapists (most of them) are still on the loose, so don’t blame me if I don’t rally to your cause.
Wow, did this thread get jacked. Jeff, anytime you mention HS in passing, the comment thread will focus on HS rather than the issue that you were trying to focus on. So let’s talk about buying local.
I disagree with John Crawford on a number of things, but he is right on this. The primary advantage is that the City can regain a small portion of the price of the contract through taxes on the property owned by the company. Note that this portion would become smaller if an abatement is granted. Compared to the entire value of the contract, we are talking about recovering a very small sum of money.
The two biggest things that are at stake in any government contract (or any contract for that matter) is the amount of money paid out and the services received in returned. The goal of the city should be to minimize the former and maximize the later. Whether or not the company is “local” should be a tiebreaker at best.
Robert,
There will be NO property owned by this company.
They are GIVEN office space from the City/County. All they are supplying is labor.
An alarming response to say the least. It must be hard to live life with such cynicism. Rape? fraud? Wow.
…and the City therefore gets cheap rent from the County and a good price from ATOS to boot. Sounds like the taxpayers save and the City advances. Pretty dogone ingenious if you ask me. Good to see that the City is trying to collaborate with County?
Thank you for pointing that out Kevin. That means that neither a local nor a non-local company would pay any additional property taxes as a result of getting this contract.