Oh YES, pick Helen for the IBD Board, she is more qualified than the cumulative total of the IBD.
It is really absurd how we allow local officials to run on a platform of transparency, then renege and lock down the hatch. The city of Chattanooga recently cost the taxpayers $74K in attorney fes for a citizen lawsuit due to failure of gov to produce records, and hopefully Helen Burns Sharp will prevail in another citizen action for open records. A closed government is a corrupt and dangerous gov, so sue um often.
Funny stuff, inquiringmind
You write, "Robin is just achieving her own degree of marginalized credibility, the time of her ideas is slowly coming to an end - the reason she barks so loudly."
Of course, Robin Smith writes for the TFP each Monday, yeah diminished perspective indeed.
People that work with infrastructure networks, and understand that the inventory's are riddled with error for all municipalities.
Ki is a leftwingnut screecher.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying municipal inventories are cost prohibitive when cost/benefit is weighed. Secondly, I don't believe that EPB intentionally overbilled, or that Mr. Lepard has uncovered a big secret. Everyone that works with public infrastructure knows the inventories are not perfect.
So, what is Mr. Lepard disclosing that was no already known?
Good grief, here we go Mr. Socialism. The GovernMint needs to give everyone a cell phone, Ipad, internet. The short list is what is not a government function in the world according TFP liberals.
EPB is not wrong about everything. Even KI is correct about some things :-)
inquiringmind, it is not the software for the inventory that creates the cost, it is the field work. Mr. Lepard is just fleecing the taxpayers. His lawsuit asks for 25 percent of the overbilling. He is not helping anyone, but himself.
Thank you, Pam Sohn, I read your side of the paper every day. You are doing a great job providing interesting subject matter.
As a conservative, I wish to share the other side of this story.
The Electric Power Board did not intentionally overbill the city of Chattanooga.
Mr. DePrist, EPB CEO, is truthful regarding the city’s inventory of lighting fixtures. I have never seen a municipal lighting inventory that is completely accurate. Further, it is very common for municipal inventories to be riddled with error that carries for decades.
All municipalities have flawed lighting inventories. Why?
1) Municipal lighting inventories were started in the 40’s in hard copy journals. As lighting fixtures were installed or replaced, a journal entry would generally be made. Often times, loose work orders were simply placed in the journal. Translated over decades through generations of employees, the errors are monumental.
2)Inventory entries were later translated to electronic spreadsheets or databases with data entry errors. After all, we are talking about 30,000 or more fixtures that include roadway lighting, sidewalk lighting, parks, and public facilities. This is a massive list, and to expect that the inventory would be without error is unrealistic.
3)Each time a light is replaced, removed, or new construction results in new lighting the inventory would be updated. There is also carry over error in older entries that just compound the total error.
It is a massive undertaking for a municipality to inventory their entire lighting system, with a very high price tag. I dare to say the cost of a new inventory would exceed any savings in electric billing. For municipal electric billing an informed estimate is warranted as a matter of cost.
To call the error in the city’s lightening inventory intentional is farfetched, and is clearly a ploy to fleece the taxpayers out of 25 percent of the billing error. I have worked for municipalities on this issue of light inventories, and all municipal inventories are flaw. Pick a city, any city and check their inventory. The findings will the same as Chattanooga’s.
Mr. Lepard should select any two cities in our region and randomly field check their inventory.
How can Mr. Lepard be a whistle blower on an inventory problem that is commonly known to all that work with public infrastructure? Just asking.
Finally, why should Mr. Lepard receive 25 percent of the overbilled amount for exposing a problem commonly known in the public infrastructure sector?