I posted the following comment on Blue Man in Red District, to one of two interesting posts on the letter-inquiry into Tinklenberg lobbying status -- please read the Blue Man post and comments on the other parallel item there, where Jerry and I each reflect over the letter and the Tinklenberg duck-the-issue response Larry Schumacher got from the Tinklenbergers. So, think about this, do you have an answer - who gets best of the best when several buy the promise?
Do you think they should have a lemon law for lobbyists, as they have if the Ford truck you buy is defective or fails to work as it is supposed to?
You get a remedy there. What about --- Cash back, refund, on the Tink - I like the idea but in all those minutes I never saw him give any guarantee or warranty. A careful man.
Probably Tink had an express disclaimer in his presentation -- these are situations where nobody can say for sure how others, the decision makers, will weigh relative merits of competing projects for funding dollars, etc., so forth, and trust my best efforts.
In fairness, best efforts is all a lobbyist can sell, but when you sell it to several competing municipalities, each wanting a share of a limited pool of funding dollars, who gets best of the best? That is one of the more interesting dimensions to what the Tink's been selling. So far, it's an unanswered question. Tink's dodged it.
Back to the Lemon law, I think we need one.
And, because the devil is in the details and the details are devilish, here, again, is the letter-inquiry [click each image to read, or open each in another window/tab]. Read it and weep -
