A Spin on "Time is Money"

The July 28 special City Council meeting was the first to be recorded by the city's new videography service. The 8 p.m. meeting was not open to the public for two hours, but the videographer showed up on time, and can legitimately bill the city for those two hours plus the one hour or so in open session - $300.

The Courier News slide show on the Aug. 1 town hall meeting captured an image of the videographer at work for another three-hour stint. Ka-ching! $600 total within a few days.

Previously, the city had an employee who manned the camera at meetings and public events since 2006, until his recent layoff. Looking at his 2006 salary and assuming some increase over four years, his hourly compensation was only about $30 per hour.

The new situation raises several concerns. The contract, as approved by the City Council on July 19, is "not to exceed $30,000." Yet, at these increments, it will take only 300 hours, or less than six hours per week, to exhaust that amount.

The previous videographer often covered events such as concerts and parades that spanned many hours and also did community interviews for segments on cable programming. Add to that public meetings and the tally grows.

Another concern is who assigns the videographer to cover events. If it is the mayor's office, where is the departmental oversight? All city functions are supposed to fall under three departments mandated by the city's special charter, but the mayor has stated that media will be solely under her purview.

The layoff of the fulltime employee was supposed to result in saving money. Of course, an employee costs the employer in benefits, but if the rate of compensation just about triples, does hiring a consultant bring any savings?

It may take several months to track the comparisons, but Plaintalker hopes readers (and especially the Citizens' Budget Advisory Committee) will look into the actual cost savings in this new arrangement.

--Bernice Paglia