I have tried to refrain from posting on the county website issue for various reasons. The story has unfolded to some extent, and the picture is a bit more clear. But questions still remain as far as I can tell.
First, a decision was made by county staff to pursue a relationship with an outside contractor under a purchase order arrangement even though an amount in excess of $40,000 was involved. I am not sure whether it has been adequately explained why that happened. Was the county staff trying to avoid the need to put the job out for competitive bidding, and if so, why? Were they trying to avoid having to get the approval of the county commissioners, and if so, why?
Second, it remains unclear why the county's information services department was unable to develop its own website.
I have in my possession a print-out summary of the Guilford County fiscal year 2011 budget. The information services component commands a total budget of $9,049,357, and 61 FTE's.
Within that information services component, there is a line item for "applications/web development". The description is as follows:
Designs and maintains the County website, implements web-based applications, and assists with the publishing of content for release to the public.
This specific line item in the budget is allotted $647,200, and 6.44 FTE's.
I am no expert in the field of web design and development. But with an information services budget of >$9 million, and a dedicated line item for web development that costs taxpayers $647,200, why was it imperative for the county to hire an outside provider under a purchase order system?
Perhaps I missed it, but with all the reporting thus far, I am not sure those questions have necessarily been answered to the satisfaction of everyone.
Excellent job, Joe !
First I wonder if the SBI has any in-house expertise to investigate a matter like this. If not they could very well get blinded by BS and mirrors and walk away leaving us another of their famously inconclusive reports.
Has the vaguely familiar odor of Willow Oakes ? What say you , Ben Holder ?
Posted by: Timur | January 29, 2011 at 12:07 PM
"Has the vaguely familiar odor of Willow Oakes ?"
The concept of Mitchmanagement is alive and well in Guilford County.
Posted by: bubba | January 29, 2011 at 01:08 PM
"I am no expert in the field of web design and development."
I am, and 6.4 employees paid an average of $100,000 per year to do what you say is described is outrageous.
Can you post that page from the budget, Joe? -- or email it to me and I'll put it online.
Posted by: Roch101 | January 29, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Funny...those are the exact same questions I've had. Something isn't right here.
Posted by: Elizabeth | January 29, 2011 at 02:39 PM
(1) Local law enforcment has to ASK the SBI to get involved.
(2) North Carolina law enforcement - at every level - SUCKS at doing anything about white-collar crime.
(3) This isn't going to change until the public starts getting MAD and demanding change . . . instead of "hoping" for it . . . and "wishing others well" as they deal with the consequences.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | January 29, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Timur and Bubba, until the questions are answered to the satisfaction of objective observers, questions will remain.
Roch, I will see what I can do.
Elizabeth, your comments over at the C4GC Facebook page partially inspired this post. Have been watching this story on the blogs, and while some observers seem satisfied with the explanations offered thus far, I am not sure this has been put to rest entirely. On at least one level, this episode represents a misunderstanding. And I don't claim to know what happened, and $47,000 is not a lot of money in the larger scheme of things; but you were absolutely correct that something does not seem right, and the budget numbers in this post lend further support for your suspicions.
Mary, I suppose there may be some discussion at the next commissioners' meeting on this topic. Let's see what happens.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 29, 2011 at 08:23 PM
"Second, it remains unclear why the county's information services department was unable to develop its own website."
Get that answer and I think it will all be clear!
Posted by: Jack Hart | January 29, 2011 at 08:38 PM
Or maybe it should be read as, "Second, it remains unclear why the county's information services department was 'not allowed' or maybe asked to develop its own website."
Jack
Posted by: Jack Hart | January 29, 2011 at 09:41 PM
Joe the agenda for next weeks commissioners meeting is online and I don't see it as a agenda item but I just glanced at it real fast. I am sure that someone will bring it up at end of meeting where they can bring up their owm issues and it will be fun to listen to them talk about this get your popcorn ready
Posted by: triadwatch | January 29, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Guilford County Citizens need to attend this weeks Commissioners meeting and demand answers and accountability... Thursday night, 5:30pm, Old County Courthouse at 300 West Market Street.
My sign will say, "OMG XMG".... sounds like fun doesn't it?
Posted by: Jodi Riddleberger | January 30, 2011 at 09:04 AM
Keith, I think we might need lots of popcorn for this one.:)
Jodi, yep, demanding answers and accountability is what we need to be doing. I hope folks will turn out.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 30, 2011 at 04:31 PM
That 100,000 probably represents salary & benefits. The benefit portion, retirement, medical, etc. typically is 30 - 40% of the package. Good IT people get more than that in the private sector. I've seen where corps have had to go outside to hire a company to do a project that they had staff who could accomplish the same thing but as a result of other ongoing projects were constrained for time, manpower, etc. Getting in line for the IT to do a project can result in months or more to accomplish. Just because you have a budget line item detailing a specific area doesn't neccessarily mean the personnel at the time of request are in place or might be allocated for a different request/project. I thought I heard CM Fox mention this in a comment she made to the board. Perhaps time was of the essence and Weaver felt it necessary to get it done as soon as possible.
In any event, the County hired the wrong firm and as a result of non-performance by XMG, the County oughta get it's money refunded.
It ain't the 47,000 that's bugging most of you, it's your friend the Skipster who became involved in the thing.
Posted by: Harold | January 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Harold, you are correct that we cannot assume the individuals working in that section receive an average salary of $100,000.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 31, 2011 at 10:40 AM
While Skip does bug me most of the time, his role in this isn't the only problem here. This XMG thing is just another example of poor county management and their inability to make good decisions that benefit the county and the taxpayers. They always have ulterior motives looming in the background. (I'm not sure exactly what the motive was here, but I don't rule out the Skip connection) There are way too many missteps here for this to just be a little "mistake". First, they didn't go through the bid process. Then they go with a company who, as far as I understand, has no experience with this kind of project or working with government. Instead of having a contract to outline exactly what will be done, they use a PO so they can expedite the billing process! When the whole thing falls apart, they call in Skip (a good friend) to make it all better. Now we are supposed to just ignore the whole thing. After all, it's only $47,000 of taxpayer money. For me, it's not just about the money. It's about all the shenanigans going on at the county...don't even get me started on skippy's Yow cow diversion attempt.
Posted by: Elizabeth | January 31, 2011 at 01:03 PM
I agree, Elizabeth. Thanks for some great comments.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 31, 2011 at 04:53 PM