greven wrote:Given this situation, it makes total sense to bring in an agency from outside the district.
But they hire local contractors for a bunch of other stuff... sometimes involving contracts worth far more.
Surely an agency that is going to develop a branding for a district is far better placed to come up with something that is truly representitive if they actually live and work in that district. That puts them in a far better position to understand the people, the local culture, the goods and the bads of the place.
I've been scratching my brain trying to work out why it is that this council repeatedly spends *huge* sums employing "consultants" and "experts" to advise them and do work -- instead of accepting the offers made by highly skilled, experienced and competent locals (such as myself) who'd be happy to do the work or contribute to a team-effort at no charge to ratepayers.
Although I'm sure this isn't the case, the only thing I can think of is that perhaps in some places (not here of course), large contracts, when awarded, occasionally attract a small token of gratitude from the companies involved -- even if only in the form of a paid lunch to celebrate the closure of the deal.
You don't get that when people are happy to do stuff for free.
Of course I am not suggesting that this happens here in the South Waikato but history shows that it has happened elsewhere.
Perhaps someone can suggest the *real* reason expensive contracts are signed to provide services that (as often as not fail to deliver on promises) even though equally good or better options are offered for free by people in the community.