Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayor says PR contract amendment is a technical fix; residents question use of communications consultants
Summary
Council said a recent amendment to its communications consulting contract corrects an accounting discrepancy and is not a new appropriation, while several public commenters questioned retaining a PR firm and whether the mayor’s office should keep an outside contractor.
The council discussed a consent-calendar item to amend the total authorized amount of an existing communications consulting contract (originally entered in 2020) after staff discovered an $11,632.03 calculation gap. The mayor explained the amendment was a "technical fix" that aligns the contract total with prior incremental additions and that the city was not spending $347,000 in one fiscal year as a result. "This is really a technical fix to the total authorized contract amount to make sure that we can fully spend the money that has already been allocated in my budget office budget," the mayor said.
Public commenters on Zoom and in person challenged the practice of keeping a PR firm on retainer for the mayor’s office and cited a Public Records Act review. One commenter alleged the firm had arranged interviews and helped draft commentary for the mayor, and suggested the mayor should instead rely on in-house communications staff and reallocate retainer funds to the Black Repertory Theater. The mayor and other councilmembers pushed back on specific accusations in the hearing, calling some statements inaccurate and defending the routine use of consultants in many larger California cities. The consent calendar — including this amendment — carried at roll call.
