Councilman Brown's food fight: perfectly-aimed banana creme pie or rotten tomatoes?

News in Durham's a funny thing. You announce a massive $55 million streetscape proposal, and -- save for the intrepid Jim Wise over at the N&O -- there's no mass media coverage.

On the other hand, you come forward to grouse about an employee luncheon event that cost $16,000 last year, and you get every newspaper and TV station seemingly slobbering over each other to get their cameras and their notepads on the scene.

Durham's silly season, which usually gets its start only after the filing period, began early this year, from somebody who ain't even on the ballot this fall.

Yes, the flashbulbs you heard going off were for Eugene Brown, who's always been willing to speak his mind -- be it on the lacrosse matter, or the drought, or the probation system.

(We at BCR have wondered at times whether the camera crews run to Gene's house when he breaks news, or if he just keeps a camera and set handy in his basement to sat-feed it up to the local yakkers.)

The target of Brown's concern this time? A luncheon scheduled for next week at the Marriott; it's a twenty-year tradition honoring staff for major service periods (ten years or longer) as well as employees who've won awards for superior performance.

And while the event wrung $16,000 out of city coffers last year, Brown's estimated a $45,000 tab that includes an open-invitation assumption, the cost of administrators' time planning the event, and the lost productivity of attending employees.

While Brown's often on the mark in scrutinizing spending, though, does this dart hit the bullseye, or go astray?

I'd vote the latter -- for a number of reasons.

It's Too Late. It's one thing to look at an event like this and say, you know, we might want to to done things down next year. It's quite another to raise hackles a week before an event, when -- as administrators point out in the Herald-Sun account -- the event's probably a fixed matter anyway.

One would have to assume that raising the matter at this point in the game would be doomed to failure, impossible to change.

Yet there's not a City employee who's not buzzing over the issue, I'll bet. Which means you've taken what's essentially a sunk cost -- one you're spending no matter what this year -- and diminishing the benefits you'd get from it.

If you're spending the dough, you should at least have something to show for it.

Check Those Figures. Without more details, it's hard to figure out whether this year's event is closer to $16,000 or Brown's $45,000 estimate.

Yet to the extent he's taking the larger number, it's an odd accounting. While there is an opportunity cost for staff doing tasks other than being at their desks or out in the city working, there's a natural fungibility to work that suggests that somehow employees -- especially the top performers honored at this event -- find a way to make up the work.

Are there really projects and efforts that won't be completed by having staff at a lunch? And is there really a financial impact to the City from having staff there?

Frankly, it just doesn't add up.

Brown's point about administrator staff time has more merit -- though it's not hard to imagine that one of the benefits of having an event like this at the Marriott is the ability to have a facility plan most of the event for you.

Sometimes, Pennywise is Pound Foolish. I was thinking about Brown's bellicosity this morning... while walking into Parker & Otis to drop a dozen bucks or so (of personal money) on cookies and snacks for an all-staff meeting for my team at work.

I'm not sure what direct reports Brown has working for him (save for a collection of Distinctive Properties real estate signs), but frankly, I'm not sure that a $100 bonus -- the councilman's suggestion for an alternative thank-you to high performers -- really means more to staff than a nice event where they're thanked and told that their contributions matter.

Now, money is always a motivator; I just don't see a pre-tax $100 check as really likely to make a big deal for employees.

Of course, one could argue (successfully) that there are better motivators than a big luncheon. Having city managers take their long-time staff/high-performers out to a one-on-one or one-on-few lunch at a local restaurant would probably be more meaningful.

Save Where Savings Matters. Now mind you, I agree that the current economic times means it's time to cut back on things you don't need to spend.

I said this here at the first signs of the recession a while back: if times get tough, keep the pay up for public safety employees and key positions, but look hard at other positions and departments, and heck, hold the line (at least) on salary increases.

In the current environment, employees are happy to have jobs. And employers should be judicious in overspending on personnel at such a time.

Yet it's in precisely that context that the little things, the recognition of people and their contributions, matter so much.

The Goose and the Gander. The comments at local news sites are predictable, a mix of indignation over the expense and, more commonly, folks standing up for the contributions of government employees.

And some of those comments note that City Council still gets catered meals before meetings.

Now, we don't know how much that costs, or whether cuts are already happening there. And in fairness, most City Councilfolk are paid less than just about anyone on the City's payroll.

Yet if it is the case that these meals are still taking place -- well, it doesn't exactly speak so highly to making a mountain out this particular (arguable) molehill.

As one commenter notes over at the Herald-Sun: "Why not have the CC brown bag their lunches and reheat their dinner plates from home prior to their meetings at City Hall. With the newly renovated areas on the 2nd floor and the operational kitchen in the City Manager's office I am sure they can cook themselves a well balanced meal instead of wasting the tax-payers money on the meals being catered. Genie does go back for 2nds, too."

There's nothing wrong with looking to save money.

It just seems worth making sure that the benefit is higher than the cost.

Comments

[Tar Heelz]

An excellent analysis.

[al]

I am all for government frugality, but spending money honoring excellent employees is not the worst way I have seen tax payer money spent, especially in recent weeks.

Keeping employees motivated is important, so I ask, has anyone asked these employees how they would like to be honored?

[EugeneBrownPaperBag]

You know what? Everyone is right here:

1) Cancel the luncheon. It's hard times, people. The City needs to set a good example.

2) Take a fraction of the money saved and give it to the excellent employees that were going to be honored. I'm sure they'd appreciate it as much as an honors award.

Everyone wins.

[eugene brown]

In my six years on the Council I have voted for every pay raise for employees and I appreciate and enjoy working with almost all of them. This is not an anti city employee proposal. As an elected official I get no joy from this, but we all have to recognize the harsh economic conditions we face as a city. My message is rather simple: this is not the time to be hosting a 3.5 hour luncheon on a workday that costs taxpayers nearly $20,000 for around 400 city employees. Including loss productivity, aggregate cost to our city could be over $50,000. I am in agreement that it may now be too late to cancel the event, but we could have cut it back to two hours and/or eliminate some food or desert as well as the number of non- city employees who are invited. These are coommon sense steps that many private companies are taking including those who cater gatherings at the Washington Duke. Shouldn't a five star city work force respond in a similiar way as those who use a five star hotel. Nor do I understand why the city is honoring 219 employees. We have about 2,000 employees. At this rate everyone should have already been honored since the luncheon has been hosted for 2o years. On occassion, symbolism and jestures are important and I believe the city needs to send a message to our citizens that we too get it,that we understand that many of our citizens have lost their jobs and face an uncertain economic future, and that we in the public sector we who have jobs are willing to sacrifice a little to help in a small way eliminate our nearly $4 million city deficit. Eugene Brown Durham City Council

[City Employee]

Mr. Brown is very out of touch on this issue. But that's nothing new for him. He's almost been the most unfriendly council member to employees.

First, he got the name of the department wrong that actually hosts this event. It's Human Resources, not Human Relations (a department he has openly criticized; does some of his criticism of the luncheon come from his dislike of Human Relations?).

Second, he has not even attended the event in the past few years. How would he know anything about the event? How would he know if employees like it or not? He should show up sometime. He would actually find that most of us like the lunch.

Third, his comment "At this rate everyone should have already been honored since the luncheon has been hosted for 2o (sic) years" shows his ignorance. The luncheon honors employees when they reach 5 year milestones in service (5, 10, 15, 20, etc.).

Fourth, people hardly ever take 3.5 hours for the lunch. If Mr. Brown showed up one year, he would see employees coming and going from the lunch as their work responsibilities call for.

Fifth, there isn't the kind of lost productivity Mr. Brown says. Nearly all (I can't honestly say all) of the employees there work more than 40 hours each week anyway. The emails, voice mails, and paperwork will be there for them when they return. Cutting it back to 2 hours won't make a difference in Mr. Brown's made up cost figures. That whole $50,000 figure is such a joke.

Six, while Mr. Brown says he voted for pay raises, he's the same council member who recently said at a work session, "City employees are lucky to have their jobs. If they don't like working here, they can go find other jobs." That's really motivating!

Seventh, if you want "jestures" (sic; this guy was Joe Biden's speech writer? Maybe he meant jester!), Mr. Brown, let's do away with the Council's Monday night dinners and sometime Thursday lunches. Take away some of your second helpings and dessert.

We're willing to sacrifice, Mr. Brown. You keep asking us to do more with less, and we respond. Sure, a $100 bill would be nice and would cost less for the 219 who are being honored for their service, but sometimes people like to be thanked in person by their bosses. We'd like to know once in while that we are appreciated.

Maybe that's just too hard for you to understand. With that kind of leadership, I'm glad to be on heading to retirement.

[Erik]

That was the single best comment I have ever read on this site. Kudos.

Note to politicians: Enough with useless "jestures" and politically-motivated concern for this "uncertain economic future." We've just gone through 8 years of this crap. It's time for action, good decision-making, and above all else, true leadership on issues that we actually care about.

Waste our time at your own peril.

[New Fan of City Employee!]

Woah! Eugene "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish" Brown takes the smack down!

[S Gwaltney]

Councilman Brown,

I believe this suggestion is one of the most obvious examples of one of the main problems that Durham's city council has. You and some of your fellow council members are very quick to make a comment for the press. But in reality, much of what you comment on is just pointless banter that shows your lack of wisdom and forsight into issues. This is nearly as silly as when you asked Chief Lopez why Durham's turnover is so high two weeks after the Police Department and their families were thrown out of city hall for quietly protesting their pay being 30% lower than Triangle average. By the way, do you still not know why?