Having Concessionaires and Contractors Pay for Local Government Parties

It's a good thing, especially in this age of fiscal austerity, when a
local government affair, such as a retirement party, is not paid for
out of public funds. But retirement parties, within reason, are part of
any organization's calendar. Better they be reasonable and paid for by
taxpayers than the alternative.<br>
<br>
That alternative is having local government affairs paid for by those
doing business with the agency, as appears to have happened in Atlanta,
according to <a href="http://www.ajc.com/business/airport-going-away-party-548843.html&quot; target="”_blank”">an
article in the Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i></a>. The going-away party
for the airport's general manager, with 250 guests, cost $22,000.<br>
<br>

The airport itself did not collect the checks or even pay for the
party. This was done by the Airport Area Chamber of Commerce, that is,
by a representative of those doing business with the airport, including
airport concession holders, consultants, an airline, a construction
company, and the electric company. This makes it look as if the airport
officials kept out of the fundraising, but sadly, this was not the
case. For example, the ground transportation manager asked for funds
from companies in the ground transportation industry. The chamber of
commerce appears to have been playing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_%28companion%29&quot; target="”_blank”">the beard</a>.<br>
<br>
Such fundraising schemes can be used as pay-to-play vehicles: 
it's hard for those doing business with an agency to say no. Or they
can be a way for businesses to show that they will reward friendly
behavior toward them.<br>
<br>
Even if this is not the intent of those putting such an affair
together, this sort of fundraising creates an unhealthy relationship
with such companies. Business transactions should be as arm's-length
and professional as possible. And it certainly does nothing to support the public's trust in government.<br>
<br>
One thing that people often don't realize about such fundraising
schemes is that often much more money is raised than is needed. That
is, companies can show their support and get some of their money back.
In this case, $38,000 was raised, and nearly half of that was returned.
This makes it look like contributions were as much for show as for
actual financial support. Or did the airport decide to tone the affair
down a bit, considering that 67 airport employees were being laid off
that week?<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---