The sound and the fury

When Dick Riseling raised some criticisms of a proposal for energy efficiency projects in a meeting with Sullivan County legislators on January 7, what ensued was a discussion that focused on whether it was appropriate for him to criticize, not on whether that criticism might have actually been right. (See “The high cost of energy efficiency,” January 14-20.)

Riseling has a contract with the county government to advise it on sustainability issues. After the consultants who made the presentation left, he said the proposed retrofitting projects were overpriced, largely due to an immense management fee to be paid—surprise, surprise—to the very firm that had done the energy audits and written the proposal.

Some present apparently felt that any criticism should have been handled behind closed doors, or at least the legislators should have been warned that criticism was coming. We’re not sure why. After all, governmental discussion in a democracy should be open, certainly when it comes to the expenditure of public funds. Presumably everybody’s on the same side here, the side that wants to use taxpayer money effectively. That means critical analysis is not something to fear or that requires a “warning,” but what a discussion about a proposal for the expenditure of government funds should be all about.

Some apparently felt that Riseling’s tone in this case was “too strong.” Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that that was correct. So what? If somebody has an objection to the manner in which the message was delivered, they can let Riseling know about it; and that is the type of personal conversation that really does belong behind closed doors. Because frankly, the taxpaying public doesn’t care two hoots whether somebody’s tone is politic. What we do care about is whether the allocation of public resources is equitable, whether the project will do what it is intended to do and serve the common good. When somebody criticizes a proposal that the legislators—or rather we, the taxpayers—have paid $30,000 for, the only proper response is to consider the criticism on the basis of substance and counter it, if they believe it to be wrong, with facts and logic.

Which brings us to the substance of what should have been the focus of debate. There are two points of concern. One, and in some ways the less important, is whether the proposal estimates are too high, include too much in management fees, and could be accomplished for less in-house. We call this “less important” only because it is at least open to debate: it is, in principle, possible to come up with facts and statistics to counter Riseling’s contentions. But so far, we haven’t heard anyone do so. Moreover, we do know that there are quite a few local energy auditors who would have been happy to do the initial proposal for well under the $30,000 paid to the Massachusetts firm that was actually retained.

But there’s something we find still more troubling. As a matter of protocol, it seems insane to have the consultant who recommends how to do a job, in this case energy retrofitting, draw up a proposal in which it specifies that it should be included as one of the firms hired, and indicates how much it should be paid.

The consultant who does the initial analysis should be one firm, and the individual jobs that have to be done to accomplish the project should be bid out in an open process—if possible to local firms. If the consultant firm wants to be among the bidders at that stage, they’re welcome to join in.

In sum, there are a couple of lessons to be drawn from the January 7 meeting. First, our legislators owe it to the public to focus on substance, not style, when they are discussing ways to spend our money; they should be ready and willing to conduct that discussion openly; and they should not deem criticism to be some kind of danger about which they need advance warning. In this case, if they think Riseling is wrong, they should present us with the facts and logic that counter his argument. Second, as a matter of protocol, when the government orders a study on how to get something done, it should be understood that the company doing the study will not be among those doing the job—unless, after the project has been approved, they bid on a level playing field with other applicants. Anything else is just begging to have our pockets picked.

Also in this issue:

• Look to Dr. King’s principles for inspiration

Dr. Punnybone

Log Jam