Dear Editor:
Re: Resident concerned about "city friends with benefits" procurement policy, The Record website, June 28.
If I get the drift of the above letter, instead of parading business opportunities on the city hall website and soliciting bids to ensure "best price," staff will now be using what they refer to as "best practices," as outlined by Christopher Bell, by telephoning their "favorites."
What is more frightening about this move to so-called "best practices" is the self-referential base of this request for less oversight. In simple terms, "best practice" is a business buzzword used to describe the process of developing and following a standard way of doing things that multiple organizations can use - usually by surveying and choosing the best solution. But the best solution for whom - the $100,000-plus bureaucrat or the taxpayer?
My alarm bells went off when I read the delegation bylaw rationale for more delegation (read less oversight, transparency and accountability) and note that one of the purposes of the bylaw is to "formalize actions currently being undertaken by staff" and "currently most of these duties have been assumed by staff without the delegation being defined in bylaw."
In blunt terms, staff is doing what they please and when they please without regard to their current delegated authority or reference to the oversight that council is supposed to provide.
The delegation bylaw is just an after-the-fact embodiment of the old adage, "It is easier to beg forgiveness than seek permission."
One would hope the change of the guard at the top of the city bureaucratic structure would lead to bringing "best practices" back into line with the rules as they exist rather than changing the rules to accommodate slippage in enforcement.
It's in taxpayers' best interest to have city business done with maximum transparency and within existing authorities and oversight.
E.C. "Ted" Eddy, New Westminster
