This is a little off track from the usual post, but it has been bothering me for some time now.

I consider myself a guy who likes bleeding edge technology.  I am a sucker for that new gadget, program or website.  So when I first heard about the “American Communications Network” (ACN) and video phones that are going to storm the market and change the way we communicate with our friends, I must admit, I was slightly intrigued.  And the fact that Donald Trump featured it on the Apprentice last week, had my curiosity peaked.

I have been approached by at least four people in the last month telling me I need to check this out and sign up as a reseller.  They admit up front that it is similar to a pyramid, but would prefer to call it “Multi-Level Marketing”. I haven’t seen people this aggressive since the Amway glory days.

Out of the fear of being sued, I wont call it a flat out pyramid scheme, but it sure stinks.  First of all, you need to pay $500 to join.  Then you need to go and get other people to sign up before you can start making money.  Speaking to my recruiter, I show hesitation, so he says “Donald Trump endorses it, and video phones are the future”.  Hasn’t he mentioned this like six times already?

I tell him that “The Apprentice has sucked since season three, and it seems that whoever pays the most can get there product on the show”.  The very aggressive recruiter says, “but you can save money on your phone bill, as ACN replaces Telus”.  I tell him that “I can use vonage and pay way less that what ACN is offering”.  He says that “I can make money from signing other people up including friends and family”.  I quickly do the math on the coffee stained napkin and it seems to me that I would have to sign up 128 people before I start getting a decent residual.

For every person I sign up, and switch them over from telus to ACN, I get 1% return from there phone bill.  One Percent !!!!, how many people do I need to sign up to get the initial $500 back?  But wait, this month they are offering a promotion that for every person that I sign up underneath I get $100.  Ponzi?

Now, call me crazy, but if I am going to spend $500 on something that is new to me, a simple google search is in order.  One of the first results in google comes up with a page that says the following:

“The company’s practices have not led it to be criminally charged in the United States. But civil charges have been brought against the Canadian and Australian branches of ACN for misleading marketing practices—in those countries, ACN was labeled a pyramid scheme. The company recruits their reps by selling the American dream, but hearing of pyramid schemes makes some second guess why they got their friends involved, and why they signed up at all”.  It seems to me, that the video phones and lower phone bills is all a veil to hide a scam.

I have a great idea.  I’ll tell you what, you give me $500, and I will promise you free long distance for ALL of North America for the next ten years.  You go and sign up a couple friends at $500 each, and they can have free long distance AND I will purchase all three of you video phones.  Maybe I am on to something here.

The Mayor and Alderman have spent more than budgeted on communication and education…. So what exactly is the story here? Is it that our greedy smarmy elected officials are mercilessly getting fat on the taxpayer teat?

I don’t quite see it that way. Council members, to do their job representing us, have to be able to communicate with the citizens and each other. The idea that Alderman in the past had no computers, cell phones or offices was frankly pretty unreasonable. As taxpayers we elect these people in trust to oversee billions of dollars in taxes and assets. I for one want them able to answer an e-mail or take a call.

The knee jerk reaction from tax payers when you hear about any wasteful spending is to be upset – and rightfully so. The fact is this amount of spending represents about 0.0045% of the budget. I have to admit the idea of booking flights that don’t get redeemed probably doesn’t play well in the media…Council should be held accountable for all their spending, I just think this story points to a much bigger one that is quite a bit more serious.

No, the real concern here is the manner, process and accountability built into how the city budgets and decides its spending priorities. Fact is, back in October of 2007 we the people elected a new council. That council has the right to change the spending priorities. Perhaps diverting funds previously used for endless discussion about Cosmo magazine being moved a foot higher or lower… to something more productive - like Aldermen having a computer and blackberry for basic communication. Those are reasonable considerations to debate and vote on.

The upsetting part is that here we are in March of 2009 and council has never actually released a new budget. I wonder how many local Hatters were aware of or would accept the idea that the spending priorities in place for the entire duration of our current council, the spending priorities for council TODAY was actually passed in 2005.

Garth, Cathy, Harv et all – no longer elected, no longer accountable have essentially been controlling the spending priorities of our city even though we elected other people who asked to bring changes. Council is elected for 3 year terms, and here we are 18 months or 50% into a new council and the spending is still being set by the agenda of people no longer elected.

So no, the story here isn’t so much that council spent more money than was budgeted on communications and putting an end to years of luddite representation on council – Granted it makes for a nice headline, but the bigger story in my mind – that is far more outrageous ….is that the budget itself has never been up for public debate in the time of new council. How can that be?

My view is that the multi year budget process in place currently is just…inappropriate . The process is hardly responsive to the times - the rapidly changing needs of the community gripped in a complex global economic crisis. It lacks any sense of political accountability. Council can make amendments to the budget on a case by case basis - but the default spending priorities for this past year were made by people who were NOT ELECTED to represent us in that time period. If we are going to get upset about council going over a communication budget of $27.00 - I will grab my torch and meet you down at city hall too - but I think its the budget process we should be offended by.