Here’s a photo I took last week, out the car window, on the way back from Tri Cities. There is hope in the world, in spite of global woes and local economic tensions. We have a new week, let’s make the best of it.
Any comments, questions or ideas?
November 17, 2008
Open Session, Monday
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What was with that Guest Editorial in today’s Press from the guy who wrote the financial impact plan for the Ed Corridor? One of the central points of his plan is that educating the citizens will directly result in economic benefit to the region. I agree.
But one of the major fallacies of the plan is the implication that this education must take place in the Fort Grounds location. That’s absurd. It can take place anywhere in our community: on the prairie, in Post Falls, or any other more cost effective location. And a more cost effective location would dramatically increase the economic benefit to the community…something the plan did not mention.
Comment by mary — November 17, 2008 @ 11:39 am
My experience with reports paid for by the City of CdA or LCDC is the reports agree with the pre-disposition of the governing body 100% of the time. That renders the report useless and makes me question why this city’s government continues to pay premium dollars for such nonsense.
Comment by Dan — November 17, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Do you recall at the unveiling of the plan last spring (that meeting in the CdA library community room where questions had to be written) that someone asked Hamilton if his study included looking at any other possible sites in addition to the Fort Grounds? He said they were only directed to look at the Mill site in the Fort Grounds.
That invalidates the “study”, in my opinion.
Comment by mary — November 17, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Question: When a consulting firm is asked to explain the client’s decisions which were based upon the findings of the consultant, does the consultant get paid extra for what might be considered a”hazard fee” for being asked to get out front? What shall we call it,
1. A sort of an “above and beyond the call of duty” fee?
2. A “protect your client fee”?
3. Other?
Would the billing from the consulting firm show it as an item?
Not suggesting anything nefarious of course, just wondering.
Comment by Gary Ingram — November 17, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
It is appropriate for a consultant to explain his findings and recommendations to a third party if requested by the client and if that requirement had been written in to the original contract.
If a consultant goes beyond explaining his findings and recommendations made to the client, if the consultant becomes an advocate for the client’s decision, then he’s treading on thin ethical ice. Professional consultants provide accurate, timely, complete information, not advocacy. A consultant who skews his findings and recommendations to conform to a client’s desired decision is not a consultant; he’s an advocate.
So Gary, to answer part of your question, a consultant should explain his findings and recommendations, not the client’s decision(s). If the client needs the consultant to explain (validate) the client’s decision, then the consultant did not do a very good job of explaining the consultant’s findings and recommendations to the client.
My opinion is the client should be the one explaining his own decisions, because he made them. If the client didn’t understand what the consultant said, the client was entitled to keep asking questions until he got understandable answers. I can’t imagine that I would ever have signed a consulting contract in which the client ever would require me to answer public questions or write letters to the editor justifying a client’s decision. The decision was the client’s, not mine. Justifying it and advocating for it was the client’s responsibility, not mine.
Comment by Bill — November 17, 2008 @ 6:52 pm