Good morning, class. My name is Professor Brancaccio, and welcome to DDSS 101.
As you know from the syllabus, this class closely examines the stupid stuff political types in high places can’t seem to avoid. The hope is that by the end of the year, those same people in high places could agree that “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” is the way to go.
Yes, Noodles?
“I’m looking around the classroom, professor, and I don’t seem to see any of those political types in the room. Shouldn’t they be taking this class?”
Why, yes … yes, they should, Noodles. Unfortunately, the first problem with doing stupid stuff is not always knowing you’re doing stupid stuff. Such is life.
We’ll proceed without them.
Danni, question or observation?
“Professor, I read where the Vancouver City Council just raised taxes … again. Would that be considered stupid stuff?”
Not necessarily, Danni. Supporting government with our tax dollars is important. But the issue is often complicated. For example, when a city raises taxes, is it also being fiscally conservative in other areas to show that its leaders understand their obligation to lead by example?
Shoes, you have something to add?
“I just saw where the city sent three councilors to some national cities convention halfway across the country. Would that be an example of not showing fiscal conservatism right after they raised taxes? Would that be stupid stuff?”
Raymo, your thoughts?
“For the life of me, I can’t understand why they wouldn’t just send one councilor and have him or her come back and share. I guess when it’s not on your dime, you don’t care. I mean, when was the last time the city ever sent three councilors out of state to the same national convention?”
Steven?
“Hey, and I read the other day that the City of Vancouver just spent $30,000 to have some guru come in to run a retreat for the councilors. Would that be considered stupid stuff?”
Jimmy?
“What the … ?”
Easy, Jimmy. Easy.
Hannah?
“Well, retreats that lead to new ideas and innovative ways of doing things are worthwhile.”
Good point, Hannah. Does anyone know what the $30,000 retreat got the city?
Jake?
“Yeah, about the same thing those conferences get us. Squadoosh.”
Come on, Jake. You can do better than that.
“OK, councilors got goals like they should invest in a safe and welcoming city, they should become a more vibrant city, and they should grow a more prosperous city.”
Jimmy?
“Really? If they bought me a cup of coffee I could have told them that. It would have saved them $29,996!”
Hannah?
“I followed it too, professor. They got more than just that. They also were told to value innovation, partnerships, technology and knowledge.”
Jimmy?
“OK, with a second cup of coffee I would have added that as well.”
Fernando?
“I’m beginning to see a pattern develop here, professor. Lots of pretty words, lots of fancy talk, and nothing new appears to be evolving.
“I mean investing in a welcoming city and valuing knowledge? Who could have possibly figured that out!”
OK, let’s not pile on, Fernando.
Hannah?
“I really wanted to defend these guys, but that’s difficult when they spend all this money on conferences and retreats and it just feels like business as usual.”
Jimmy?
“What’s puzzling to me is why they didn’t just give the city manager the $30,000 and let him facilitate?”
Max?
“Ahh, they did just give the manager $30,000, but that was his raise this year.”
Jimmy?
“What the … ?”
Dickie?
“It gets worse, professor. One of the facilitator’s $30,000 recommendations was for city council meetings to be more ‘jovial.'”
Jimmy?
“I’m not laughing.”
OK, let’s wrap this up. Anthony?
“So if I have this right, professor, our city councilors:
• Just raised taxes because they’re running short on cash.
• Sent three of their own to a national conference.
• Spent $30,000 on a facilitator who told them, in part, to be more jovial.
• Spent another $30,000 on a raise for their city manager.”
Correct. Any last words of wisdom? Jack?
“Do you think I’ll get that pothole in front of my house filled?”
Class dismissed.
