Justice Department and $16 Muffins

[Kathianne]

I hope they were good!


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/-extravagant-spending-16-muffins-found-at-justice-conferences.html


$16 Muffins Found at U.S. Meetings <cite class="byline"> By Seth Stern - Sep 20, 2011 </cite>
U.S. Justice Department (http://topics.bloomberg.com/justice-department/) agencies spent too much for food at conferences, in one case serving $16 muffins and in another dishing out beef Wellington appetizers that cost $7.32 per serving, an audit found.


“Some conferences featured costly meals, refreshments, and themed breaks that we believe were indicative of wasteful or extravagant spending,” the Justice Department’s inspector general wrote in a report released today.


The inspector general reviewed a sample of 10 Justice Department conferences held between October 2007 and September 2009 at a cost of $4.4 million, a period that included the administrations of Republican George W. Bush (http://topics.bloomberg.com/george-w.-bush/) and Democrat Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/). The Justice Department spent $73.3 million on conferences in fiscal 2009, compared with $47.8 million a year earlier, according to the report.


The muffins were served at an August 2009 conference of the Executive Office for Immigration Review and the beef Wellington was offered at a February 2008 meeting hosted by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. A March 2009 conference of the Office on Violence Against Women served Cracker Jack, popcorn and candy bars at a single break, costing $32 per person, according to the report...

[Gaffer]

The injustice dept's inspector general writes a lot of reports but doesn't seem to do anything about what they find.

[ConHog]

I hope they were good!


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/-extravagant-spending-16-muffins-found-at-justice-conferences.html

Does this story surprise anyone? Government employees routinely treat taxpayer dollars as their own private piggy banks. The should start throwing them in prison for a VERY long time when they catch them.

[red states rule]

I hope they were good!


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-20/-extravagant-spending-16-muffins-found-at-justice-conferences.html



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb110920_cmyk20110919092059.jpg

[darin]

Does this story surprise anyone? Government employees routinely treat taxpayer dollars as their own private piggy banks. The should start throwing them in prison for a VERY long time when they catch them.

No we don't. No more than the general population. Probably LESS. We spend a lot of money finding ways to SAVE money. We are steeped in Lean and Six Sigma processes. We make do with less operating dollars every year. We work with private industry, collaborating to become more efficient in operations, and develop sustainable infrastructure.

Have any of you planned a conference for, say, several hundred - at least - folks?
Without debating the necessity of the conference - or any conference - sometimes refreshments can be VERY expensive.

Our current policies prevent gov't dollars used for refreshments. We often negotiate with places for inclusion of water and light refreshments as part of the room fee.

If the gov't spends too much money on stuff, it's because the government is too giving. The govt mandates use of certain vendors for cleaning supplies, for instance. If I want a can of air, I have to 'buy' it from a vendor. Vendors charge, probably, 30% more than I could pay at, say, Staples. When I want a box of pens, I must use JWOD (http://www.abilityone.gov/laws_regs/jwod_act.html) sources. I have to JUSTIFY using sources off the list of approved vendors - and even then, simply 'price' isn't enough.

We spend money because our government - BY THE PEOPLE; who continue to re-elect folks who make our policies - asks us to.

[logroller]

I think this only illustrates the inherent inefficiency of somebody spending somebody else's money on somebody else.

Nice post DMP; specified vendors do aggravate cost/benefit ratios. It reminds me of the promotional sales my daughter brings home for her school's PTA-- $16 muffins, I think that's what they charge for a box of $4 mix. Oh but its for the kids (and a private marketing company)... because that's what public schools should be teaching our kids-- get in good with the man, peddle the average product at excessive prices:: monopoly/ oligopoly guarantees profits are maximized. I'm curious about six sigma. I always wonder if the cost of qualifying doesn't undermine the intent of lowered product costs... any thoughts?

[ConHog]

No we don't. No more than the general population. Probably LESS. We spend a lot of money finding ways to SAVE money. We are steeped in Lean and Six Sigma processes. We make do with less operating dollars every year. We work with private industry, collaborating to become more efficient in operations, and develop sustainable infrastructure.

Have any of you planned a conference for, say, several hundred - at least - folks?
Without debating the necessity of the conference - or any conference - sometimes refreshments can be VERY expensive.

Our current policies prevent gov't dollars used for refreshments. We often negotiate with places for inclusion of water and light refreshments as part of the room fee.

If the gov't spends too much money on stuff, it's because the government is too giving. The govt mandates use of certain vendors for cleaning supplies, for instance. If I want a can of air, I have to 'buy' it from a vendor. Vendors charge, probably, 30% more than I could pay at, say, Staples. When I want a box of pens, I must use JWOD (http://www.abilityone.gov/laws_regs/jwod_act.html) sources. I have to JUSTIFY using sources off the list of approved vendors - and even then, simply 'price' isn't enough.

We spend money because our government - BY THE PEOPLE; who continue to re-elect folks who make our policies - asks us to.


I know there is some truth to what you are saying, but I seriously doubt there is a government rule that says snacks MUST be provided at conferences. Especially $16 muffins.

[darin]

I know there is some truth to what you are saying, but I seriously doubt there is a government rule that says snacks MUST be provided at conferences. Especially $16 muffins.

Of course there's no rule like that. The last conference I put on, participants paid $10 each - which went to cover the refreshments. The $16/muffin thing - that was probably a conference organizer not negotiating for lower cost. And as I said, DA doesn't allow Gov funds for those types of things. DOJ seems to be okay with it, eh?

[SassyLady]

Of course there's no rule like that. The last conference I put on, participants paid $10 each - which went to cover the refreshments. The $16/muffin thing - that was probably a conference organizer not negotiating for lower cost. And as I said, DA doesn't allow Gov funds for those types of things. DOJ seems to be okay with it, eh?

I love you dmp, but this is exactly what we are talking about. If it were money out of that person's pocket, do you think they would have negotiated a little harder...but, because it's "government" money they don't make the connection that it is not money that grows on a tree.

I have worked my whole life in the private sector, but both of my husbands are/were government employees. Both of them worked for over 30 years at their jobs (and both were responsible for million dollar plus budgets). I've never worked more than 7 years for one employer (other than myself). They were able to take several different positions during the course of their career and move on up the ladder. I had to change jobs to keep moving up because once I was at the top there was no other place to go unless I became licensed (i.e., working for a lawyer ... can't get to the top unless a lawyer). They both have great pension plans and health plans ... I don't.

Anyway, over the years I watched them budget and spend and it always amazed me (and them) that once monies have been "earmarked" for a certain line item it can only be spent on that line item. For example ... if they were given a total budget of $1,000 and saved money on office supplies because they wanted to spend more on landscaping ... they were not allowed to interchange the money. If they were given $100 for office supplies and didn't spend it all ... oh well......too bad...it would just show that line item as under budget. So, it encourages people to spend that entire $100 on things they don't really need because they can't stand to see that money not be spent on something.

The sad thing is that they will have extra office supplies but the grass is dying because they can't put in an updated sprinkler system until they budget for it next year, or they could be over budget on that line item. And we all know what that means ... next year they will get less for their office supplies category. And, god forbid that the entire budget should be less than originally negotiated .. because the next year they won't get as much...which encourages people to spend all of it. Government spending programs are not set up to encourage people to spend wisely....because they will be punished for not spending.

Both husbands worked really hard the first couple of years to save money and make really good purchasing deals ... but then realized they were cutting their own throats. It wasn't about what was truly needed ... it was about keeping everything in the appropriate box.

Government rules/regulations/spending norms are just not rational.

[red states rule]

It is basic human nature, when somebody else is picking up the check; most people do not care what the total cost is

[SassyLady]

It is basic human nature, when somebody else is picking up the check; most people do not care what the total cost is

True ... which is why no one should offer to pick up the check until after everyone has ordered!! :laugh:

[red states rule]

True ... which is why no one should offer to pick up the check until after everyone has ordered!! :laugh:

or have seperate checks

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VA1sx-vyWVk" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>