Opinion - Should the City of Elk Grove Sell and/or Promote Advertising on the City's Website?
By Connie Conley | Founder, Elk Grove Community Connection | June 17, 2013 The idea of selling and/or promoting local businesse...
https://www.elkgrovenews.net/2013/06/opinion-should-city-of-elk-grove-sell.html
By Connie Conley |
While
I understand that the city of
Elk Grove wants to continue to promote
our small businesses and gain extra non-tax revenue, allowing local
businesses to be promoted or advertise on a governmental website has serious
ramifications and could be very problematic.
Unfair competition: This idea would put the city in direct competition with private businesses, including our media outlets such as the the Elk Grove Citizen, The Sacramento Bee, Elk Grove Patch, Elk Grove News, Elk Grove Laguna Forum and Elk Grove Online that depend heavily on advertising revenue.
Founder,
Elk Grove Community Connection | June 17, 2013
The
idea of selling and/or promoting local businesses on the city of Elk Grove’s
website came up at the June 12, 2013, Elk Grove City Council
meeting.

We
have already seen what has occurred when we try circumventing sound
governmental processes such as the RFP process. The Elk Grove City
Council negated an RFP after getting the green light to do so from City
Attorney Jonathon Hobbs, and within a matter of days a lawsuit was filed. In one court appearance later, the
city council’s actions were deemed illegal by Sacramento Superior Court Judge
Michael Kenny, costing the taxpayers $30,000 in legal fees.
At
the June 12th council meeting, we found out at public comment about
city staff throwing out yet another RFP on the city’s copy machines and
maintenance, and then reissued another RFP written in such a way so that only
one company was now eligible -- the one company city staff recommended over
the company that scored the most points in the initial RFP and therefore,
should have been awarded the contract.
This action will most likely end up with the taxpayers having to pay
for yet another lawsuit.
It
is imperative that the Elk Grove City Council and the City Attorney not put
the taxpayers in a position whereby we are paying out additional tax dollars
on lawsuits because of unfair governmental practices. [Note: City Attorney Hobbs is on a contract;
so when we incur additional legal fees such as the RFP lawsuit, we are billed
added costs by his law firm]
The
initial question asking about allowing businesses to advertise on
the city's website on June 12th came from Vice Mayor Steve Detrick as
part of the wellness project. It
appeared that this idea received consensus from council; so that means it will
be coming back as a future agenda item.
However,
I was a bit taken aback when City Attorney Hobbs said that it was
possible to allow advertising/promotion of local businesses on an official
governmental communications website, a website which is owned by the
taxpayers. It may be legal because our city's website is a
doc.org and not a doc.gov as Federal regulations prohibit commercial
advertising on dot.gov sites, but it is ethical? Additionally, this may
well be a separation of government issue.
Here
are just a few of the concerns I have as a taxpayer:
Conflicts
of interest: Advertising
would make the city dependent on a narrow set of advertisers for a new
stream of revenue. There would be, at the very least, a serious appearance of
impropriety if a company were to spend thousands of dollars advertising on the
city’s website while seeking a zoning code amendment, has a housing project
before the Elk Grove Planning Commission, has bid on a city contract, or
has requested tax incentives, etc.
Lack
of public control: Such
advertising/promotion would give city officials the ability to raise -
and spend - money without public control.
Unfair competition: This idea would put the city in direct competition with private businesses, including our media outlets such as the the Elk Grove Citizen, The Sacramento Bee, Elk Grove Patch, Elk Grove News, Elk Grove Laguna Forum and Elk Grove Online that depend heavily on advertising revenue.
Such
businesses would be paying advertising monies to the city and may opt not to
advertise with private businesses that rely heavily on advertising
dollars to stay in business.
However, it
is very common for local government websites, including ours, to list our
local non-profits with links to their websites, but with no actual
advertising. But if the council allows local businesses to do the same,
do they have to allow all? In the
case of promoting “wellness,” that could mean a lot of things including
massage parlors, could it not?
It
is, of course, in the public’s best interest for a local government to support
the revenues of its local businesses, as long as it makes no discrimination
among them. To discriminate is
opening us taxpayers up to yet another lawsuit; even a class action
lawsuit.
Another
issue is how to control the advertising/promotion? Since the city cannot
discriminate, and this is reaching a bit as an extreme to make a
point: But do we really want to
give all the nail salons in Elk Grove the ability to advertise or be
promoted on the city's website? The E*Trade baby maybe, but certainly
not nail salons or smoke shops!
And
the Democrat I am, looking over at the other side of the aisle, the Grand Old
Party is all about getting government out of business, not putting business
into government. In this case, as
much as it pains me, I think the GOP is right when applied to this
scenario. What about an advertiser who is
also stauncher supporter a council member's
campaign?
Either
way, the idea of business either being promoted or allowed to buy advertising
on the city’s website must be part of a very large discussion and a very
careful one because of those unforeseen "unintended
consequences.”
4 comments
Craig's List does it without ads. Why can't the City?
There's a lot of funny business done by the city council in its consent calendars.
Too much rubber stamping and precious little time discussing serious issues of fiscal responsibility, fairness, and transparency.
Davis is downright giddy when he announces the opening and closing of public testimony in the very same breath.
I'm downright disgusted.
Michael is absolutely right. Davis is giddy when the public doesn't doesn't address the consent items or council matters. This council and staff have done their best to make the public feel unwanted at the podium.
They should embrace the public and their thoughts and concerns, especially when the public feels a strong enough urge to actually attend and speak publicly about their views.
I can see the scenario now...the City will OK this and then say that any business legally operating in the city can advertise. Then we'll have all the liquor stores and one certain smoke shop wanting to advertise so the world will know us and the drug and liquor capital of the world. Such a short-sited decision.
Excellent commentary Connie.
Post a Comment