June 28, 2005

Comments (23)

1. Dave Lister on 28 Jun 2005

   b!X,
   I think you are a little off base on this one. Running anything like a business means paying attention to the bottom line. The excesses described in the Oregonian story have nothing to do with running PDC like a business. They have to do with an inexhaustible money pot, no oversight and no accountability. As a small business owner I can tell you that's not running like a business. The only people who can get away with that sort of thing are crooked CEO's of huge corporations, congressmen and union bosses. When a small business person, like myself, says that government should run more like a business we are asking for cost effectiveness, accountability and waste elimination. If my company had engaged in the excesses described we'd be long ago bankrupt.

2. JPM on 28 Jun 2005

   You touched on a good point - "running government like a business." What goes even deeper to the heart of this matter is the enduring concept that there is one, best way to do something. Frederick Taylor, circa 1920, coined the phrase scientific management to elaborate on his time/motion studies of factory workers and the progenitor of this one, best way thinking. According to Taylor, you can break down a worker's movements so much so that one can manage every aspect of a workers job to increase efficiency and thus productivity. Thus, making more money for the employer that trickles down to the employee. We have been carrying this yoke ever since, and has been translated into national policy by Reagan and W.

3. The One True b!X on 28 Jun 2005

   Dave, in actuality, is quite correct that I used a broad brush. Honestly, I did so intentionally, to see how quickly someone would jump in to try to distinguish between different types of businesses.

   In the end, nonetheless, my real point would be to suggest we try running government like a well-run government and not like anything else.

   I would be curious, however, to know if any of the people the Maz wined and dined have any connections to the people who complain about government waste.

4. Dave Lister on 28 Jun 2005

   b!X,
   Run government well. I totally concur. I just want non business owners to understand that there are about forty thousand organizations in Portland like mine. Small firms owned by hard working people that pay their taxes, provide employement, follow the rules and manage to eke out a living. The folks being wined and dined by PDC aren't part of that crowd, by any means.
   

5. The One True b!X on 28 Jun 2005

   Which is why someone needs to point out to people like Mazziotti that the government lifestyle to which he's accustomed isn't about "running government like a business" as he claims, but about running a government like a party.

6. panchopdx on 28 Jun 2005

   $12k in three years isn't all that surprising. Since Don was the one with the power to commit public funds, it is much more likely that he was wined and dined to excess by others.

   I imagine that his staff has been treated to three times that amount in business entertainment expenses over the last three years.

   Who knows what the businesses got in return.

7. Jonathan on 28 Jun 2005

   The Oregonian article conflates the significance of this. If these meals are truly business or marketing ventures, then $12,000 in 4 years (2001-2005) is not necessarily excessive. Look at any of the small businesses (like my own) that buy media, and I think you'll find that the costs for a few spots in print or on the air far exceed $12,000 in 4 years. While I have not spent $3,000/year wining and dining clients, my bet is that there are plenty of business people in this City who do. Shoot, just take a look at the business sponsorships of arts organizations in the city -- huge chunks of change.

   The difference for small businesses is that in most small businesses, everyone whose money is being spent have a say about the use and amount. At a large business or firm, that is not the case -- instead, you have a policy that everyone has to follow. In my view, it's OK to treat the PDC as that kind of large business, and whack Maziotti when he declares himself to be above and beyond the dictates of the policy.

   Also, while I am not a tax expert, I would expect that some percentage (50%, I think) of Maziotti's meals would be taxable income to him. At least, my reimbursed meals come back to me that way.

8. NLP2P on 28 Jun 2005

   I have to say that there's some merit to the argument that the PDC Director, and the Mayor, for that matter SHOULD have access to those kinds of entertaining money. Why do we treat our high-level public servants like any old average public employee? The fact of the matter is that PDC is a business, making investments on behalf of the city. Any business with a similarly sized budget/expenditures/etc. would allow FAR more for it's chief executive to entertain and use at his discretion. I think he chose poorly how to spend that money, but I think that on principle it's an acceptable budget item.

   Also, the comparison between the PDC and "small firms owned by hard working people" in Portland is dubious. It is not a small organization, and its impact on Portland is not small either. I really think that part of why it's difficult to get truly qualified individuals to run organizations like the PDC is that people with the skills have far more flexibility and get far more respect when they don't have to deal with unrealistic expectations of the whiny-taxpayer-as-boss.

9. Dave Lister on 28 Jun 2005

   I wasn't trying to compare PDC with small business. The original thread was "running government like a business". My point was that small business has to watch the bottom line. PDC doesn't.

10. Cab on 28 Jun 2005

    The bigger story is why the Oregonian would dig into THIS story. They have been so bad at investigative journalism for some time now and this is the best they can do? Are they so cowed that they can only pile on a government body down on its luck. Far more important stories out there that need some researching.

11. Larry on 28 Jun 2005

    In reply to several of the comments here, here's my 2 cents on why this is bad news....

    #1) The PDC is not a business that makes it's money off producing and/or selling something. Private businesses can spend their money any way they want (within reason, of course) The PDC gets their money from me, the taxpayer, and I don't want them spending money in this manner.

    #2) It wasn't 12k over 3 years. That was just the amount of reimbursements that he submitted that was OVER the $1250/month stipend that he already received for entertaining purposes.

    #3) His quote cracked me up - In order to run the PDC as a business, he has to establish relationships with developers, etc. Wait a minute... the PDC is the one holding the cards here.... the developers are the ones that should be wining and dining. He has it exactly backwords. When I go to NYC to visit a potential client, and we go to lunch, guess who buys? Me, of course! Any sort of claim on his part that he's "establishing relationships" is bunk. He just felt entitled to spend as much money as he felt like. For example, why did he buy several meals for a lady who was soliciting the city to build an "Italian" area of the city? She's coming in, asking for something, so then HE buys HER meals? And then he says "She was looking for some help and I was glad to provide it" R I G H T. I'm buying that one.

    4) And if I haven't convinced you that he should not be spending my tax money to smooze with high-dollar developers, then why was he also using these funds on staff only dinners?

    It's financial mismanagement, pure and simple.

    Larry
    

12. Isaac Laquedem on 28 Jun 2005

    I agree that the overall dollar amount that Mr. Mazziotti spent on entertainment isn't out of line. My question is whether he spent it wisely: is it better to spend $3000/year by taking 20 people to dinner at $150/dinner, or by taking 100 people to lunch at $30/lunch?

13. panchopdx on 28 Jun 2005

    Sorry just reread the story.

    If you add his $12k+ in overages for the last 4 years to his alotted entertainment expense account ($15k per year for 4 years) that is quite a number.

    But I still bet it pales in comparison to the amount of expenses spent to wine and dine PDC officials.

14. Paul Gronke on 28 Jun 2005

    $21 per person for a dinner allowance is a joke.

    Mazziotti mistake here was in so badly overstepping the PDC's own guidelines, especially w.r.t. alcohol purchases, and in establishing dubious patterns of entertainment expenses with specific individuals (such as the woman who wants to open a Little Italy and Don gives her personal advice).

15. Steve Schopp on 29 Jun 2005

    Cab said ----"Are they so cowed that they can only pile on a government body down on its luck."------

    OK Cab, you are either Vera or Homer. Which is it?

    Down on it's luck? That's it at the PDC? Bad luck?

    Bad luck that the public is finding out how they operate?

16. Cab on 29 Jun 2005

    Actually Stevie I think everyone knows Governments and Corporations are all playing fast and loose with Money. Its all about the degree to which both are doing it. My point, which you usually miss do to your hatred of any organization trying to create progress and change (god don't you wish everything would just stay like it was when you where in High school? the good ole days), is that the Oregonian could have put their time and research on something more important. It didn't take courage to jump on an organization when its down especially on a story as nitpicking as this one.

17. Larry on 29 Jun 2005

    Cab - let me jump in your debate with Steve. I disagree heartily with you that this is "nitpicking". We're talking about $20k a year in expenses - maybe that seems like a small amount, when juxtaposed against the PDC's budget, but if find 2 more cases of "nitpicking", you've got the money to add a teacher somewhere. And I can imagine that there are PLENTY of these cases just waiting to be found.

    I'm glad to see the Boregonian find this... and I hope they find more (assuming they exist). To me, the important aspect is that the more cases they find of outright fraud and waste, whatever the dollar amount, the more we see how pervasive it is in the system. Like you, I can perhaps forgive a case or two of these sort of things as the realities of business/human nature. But when you see that it's running all throughout the organization, then that gets my attention and ire.
    

18. cab on 29 Jun 2005

    I guess my point was, where was the Oregonian when PGE was ripping off the public for millions of dollars? I understand waste is waste, but after the miserable performance by the ORegonian over the last few years, I think they could and should be spending valuable research resources on more pressing scams.

19. Steve Schopp on 29 Jun 2005

    Larry said---"But when you see that it's running all throughout the organization, then that gets my attention and ire."----

    I think the greater point here is are we to expect that these individuals, so lacking in judgment and ethics with these lesser matters, do then somehow excel in matters of greater importance?

    I think not. With such rotten management and mischievous goings on it is perfectly reasonable to suspect there have been less than sound decisions made in the publics interest.
    Let's us understand that these same people, Mazziotti and company, have been pulling the trigger on major city commitments involving decades and hundred of millions of tax dollars.
    I find it unfathomable that the stench is coming solely from the reported maleficence.
    Follow the money I say to the Auditor and the stench will worsen.

    Cab, I don't know what you are talking about. Something about me not wanting change and high school?????????
    Wake up.

20. JVK on 30 Jun 2005

    It's not unreasonable. Schmooze money is important if you want to play ball, and business folk know it. That's the price of cash.

21. PDC Staff on 01 Jul 2005

    We're relieved that he's gone.
    

22. Larry on 01 Jul 2005

    PDC Staff -

    You authored one of the best and most timely one-line comments I've had the pleasure to read.

23. Brian on 26 Jul 2005

    Despite this thread having died some time ago, I'll risk the flames that my post will likely incite to resurrect it and share my two cents even though my thoughts are a bit off-topic. I don't live in Portland and I don't know anything about the PDC, but I personally and professionally knew Don Mazziotti for nearly six (6) years having worked directly for him. And other than PDC Staff, I would guess that affords me a unique perspective and insight that no other posters in this thread can claim.

    In all candor, Don was intimidating to the point of bullying at times; opinionated to a fault at times; devoid of empathy at times; and demanding to the point of making me want to quit at my job at times. He was also highly intelligent, charming (when he wanted to be!), deeply appreciative of talent and willing to help me and others to develop it, fun (when he wanted to be!), and intensely passionate about his work and the communities and businesses with which he worked.

    What I observed week-in and week-out was a business and government executive who built a small company from nothing; infused it with a vision and purpose; worked shoulder-to-shoulder with small communities that were lucky if they had an annual budget even a twentieth of the size of the PDC; personally facilitated community-wide meetings and participated directly in forging consensus and solutions; used his experience to focus state and federal government resources on small-town opportunities that never would have garnered such attention otherwise; and insisted upon paying himself a pittance in deference to his partners and others in the firm.

    I won't pretend to know enough about the PDC or Don's tenure there to make any specific comment to the topic at hand other than I find it highly unlikely that Don purposefully orchestrated a plot to fleece the public trust and coffers, as is suggested by a number of thinly veiled accusations. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

    Don is not, by a long stretch, my idol. I haven't even kept in touch with him since our parting nearly ten (10) years ago. But I would be foolish not to acknowledge his impact. I myself started and continue to own a business advisory and finance company, a recycling company, and wireless optical technology manufacturing company.

    You may not like his methods (I didn't like all of them). You may not like his results (I disagreed with some of them). You may not like even him (and I remember some of those days)! But in my experience, he succeeded where most fail in business and government because he listened, saw creativity and possibility where others did not, and dared to make decisions even when they weren't popular.