No sales tax on those invoices. The city's not exempt, I don't think, so the sales tax must be on Sharp's agency invoice. Is there a copy of that bill?
I guarantee that two very reliable gentlemen heard Mr. Sagen say that it was 30,000 dollars worth of brochures that were disposed of...now, he may have been being untruthfull or mistaken when he stated that, but TWO people heard the SAME thing.. I wonder about Sharp & assoc. bill to the city? can anyone see that?
It's really, really pathetic that the local media is totally incompetent to get to the bottom of this. No wonder they are losing relevance and moral authority.
Bill,THAT's what I've been crowing about! Kooiker asks for an invoice and he gets a copy of one sent to Robert Sharp.You run an agency. I run an agency. How is this possible, if it was not a deliberate attempt to deceive?
You think somebody was trying to conceal the total ad agency invoice intentionally, Mike? Conversely, did Sam just ask for the printing cost? If so, isn't copying the printers' invoices the best way to show him?
Here's what it looks like to me. Tell me if I'm wrong. It looks like there were 100,000 brochures printed on the initial run (20,000 each of 5 brochures) at a cost of approx. $46 per thousand brochures. Of these, roughly 25,000 brochures had to be thrown away because the info was no longer accurate. I use the 25k number because that's the quantity Sioux printing ran to replace them. Assuming the above is correct, the cost of the discarded brochures would be $920 (25k x $46) $1,150. And the cost of the reprint would be $1662 as per Sioux's invoice. Combined, those numbers equal $2,812.Next you would have to know how much RSA (or whoever) charged to make the revisions to the artwork. Give them 5 hours at $100 for what should be a long estimate. That brings the total to $3,312.Finally, as I understand it, some signs had to be moved. I'm not clear on how many exactly, but if it was 310 as per the invoice from Sharp, the cost was $1,240 (see also installation cost of $4 per sign.)So, if Sam's question was "how much did it cost to reprint the brochures and move the signs" the invoices here supply the answer. Right?Oh, except for Sharp's markup, I suppose (which would be around 20%) and sales tax (if the City pays it.)There, I just did everybody's analysis job for them. Where do I send the bill?
The bottom line remains - the city is a $150 million business. No business survives long lamenting and castigating itself over minor errors: identify, learn, move on. This entire inquiry should have been put to rest months ago. Dragging it out created a hostile work environment. While perhaps well-intentioned, this inquiry's become caustic, counter-productive, as perhaps is the Alderman.
I don't believe Kooiker was trying to make a judgment one way or the other. He was trying to find the truth.The emails demonstrate that he said he was happy to hear the number was not as high as the complaining employees told him.He was not asking for how much it cost to reprint. I believe he was asking for the cost of tossing them and reprinting.
So Mike, how long after Sam asked about these costs did he get these invoice copies?
Bill, I don't know that. He asked on 9-15, and one of the invoices is dated the same day he asked.
Well, Mike, if he saw the invoices the day they came in, that should have been the end of it, right? I mean we figured it out here in pretty short order.
Well Bill, That WAS the end of it until a resolution of censure was set for hearing.
OIC. I don't really know the timing on all this very well.
On the subject of looking into things, did anyone else notice the disclosure of citizen's: names, addresses, telephone numbers, medical conditions, and other private information disclosed in the 2009 Investigative Report? (See pages: 39, 65, 75, 107, and *109) This doesn't seem to be in accordance with SDCL 1-27-1.10. Shouldn't medical information be redacted for the purposes that it seems to "invade personal privacy, threaten public safety and security." (SDCL 1-27-1.10) Maybe I am misinterpreting the law there, but it sure seems like they leaked a lot of personal information. Also speaking of the SDCL, did anyone notice that in the City of Rapid City Letter from the Day, Morris Law Firm, on page 6, it cites SDCL 9-8-5 stating: "The council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its own members ... etc" as a justification for this meeting? I happened to notice that SDCL 9-8-5 goes onto state: "Any alderman who shall have been convicted of bribery shall thereby vacate his office." The title of that law is "Power of council to judge members and govern proceedings--Bribery vacating office." Maybe it is just me, but it seems like the law has been perverted, contorted, and contrived in some malicious construct throughout this whole debacle. What ever happened to the big laws, like the U.S. Constitution - First Amendment prohibiting "abridging the freedom of speech" through laws?
Post a Comment