calgov2002:
 calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Posted on 05/09/2002 6:24:35 AM PDT by randita
Questions raised over another Davis gift
Donation in 2000 from firm that won huge state contract
Greg Lucas, Sacramento Bureau Chief
Thursday, May 9, 2002
Sacramento -- A company that won approval of a $453 million contract in 2000 to help California manage welfare cases gave $50,000 to Gov. Gray Davis' campaign within a day of hiring one of the governor's top fund-raisers as a lobbyist.
The contribution by Accenture, an international consulting firm, was made while the Davis administration was weighing whether to drop one of the four providers of software for the huge computer system California uses to keep track of welfare recipients.
The company says there was no link between its contribution in March 2000 and the decision later to retain all four software providers, including Accenture.
As lawmakers investigate the Davis administration's questionable $95 million contract with Oracle, Accenture's large contribution provides more ammunition for critics who say the best way to gain the governor's ear is to send a sizable check to his campaign.
"It's like anteing in to a poker game. You may not win, but you can't even play unless you ante," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "This administration has made it more pervasive and a much bigger ante."
Davis' tireless fund raising has so far created a $30 million re-election war chest.
"The governor bases his policy decisions on what's in the best interests of the citizens of the state of California and nothing else. Any innuendo or assertion otherwise is ridiculous," said Roger Salazar, Davis campaign spokesman.
EXPENSIVE PROJECT
Accenture's software is used by the State Automated Welfare System, the most expensive computer project ever undertaken by the state. The project is designed to eventually allow California's 58 counties to track welfare, food stamp and Medicaid recipients and determine benefit eligibility.
Instead of one system for the whole state, the counties use one of four. Accenture provides the system used by Riverside, San Bernardino, Merced and Stanislaus. Its product is regarded by users of the welfare system as the most effective of the four.
The decision to make the contribution to Davis came in March 2000 as the state was weighing whether it was cheaper to have fewer software providers.
As the provider serving the smallest consortium of counties, Accenture was worried that it would be the first one cut, said sources familiar with the state's review of the computer system.
In November 1999, Accenture's four counties submitted for state approval the 13-year, $453 million deal under which California taxpayers would shoulder about $130 million. The counties pay $16 million. Federal money makes up the difference.
But when the approval request reached Grantland Johnson, Health and Human Services cabinet secretary to Davis, he questioned why four software providers were needed and commissioned a study.
GOVERNOR'S FUND-RAISER
Accenture, on March 2, 2000, hired Sacramento lobbyist Darius Anderson, who has close ties to Davis and is one of the governor's chief fund-raisers. Contribution records disagree, but on either March 1 or March 3, the company gave Davis $50,000.
In July, Johnson's study was completed. It said the welfare system should stick with four software providers.
"We've never made a contribution with the expectation of receiving anything in return," said Barbara Hohbach, an Accenture spokeswoman. "Our work for the government in California has been won through competitive bidding. We won the contracts because our employees have demonstrated an understanding of our clients' needs and possess experience in these complex projects."
The company received final approval for its contract in the spring of 2001, Hohbach said.
Davis received another $25,000 contribution from Accenture in August last year -- the company's only cash contribution in 2001.
Hohbach said she did not know whether the original contribution was Accenture's idea or Anderson's. Anderson said his contract with Accenture prevented him from commenting on his work for the company.
"This contract was the first time the secretary had a chance to comment on this whole process. He simply raised the question of 'is this the best way to do it,' " said Bertha Gorman, a spokesman for Johnson.
Gorman said Johnson knew nothing about any contribution to Davis.
"That is something we don't have any involvement in at all," Gorman said. "We had no awareness of it."
Stern said it doesn't matter whether Johnson knew about the contribution.
"It's insurance. You buy insurance in case there's a crisis. It's a way to ensure your message is heard," said Stern. "It's probable they never had to go to Davis or cash in the insurance, but it was there if they needed it."
Accenture also gave the state Democratic Party $100,000 in July 2000, keyed to the party's national convention that year in Los Angeles.
Accenture has a $6.4 million contract with the Department of General Services, the bureaucracy that approved the Oracle deal now being investigated.
Accenture is also part of a team of companies bidding to create the state's $1.2 billion child-support computer network.
The team, which includes IBM, is the sole bidder for that contract.
THE COMPANY
""We've never made a contribution with the expectation of receiving anything in return.''
Barbara Hohbach,
Accenture spokeswoman
THE DAVIS CAMPAIGN
""The governor bases his policy decisions on what's in the best interests of the citizens of the state of California and nothing else. Any innuendo or assertion otherwise is ridiculous.''
Roger Salazar,
Davis campaign spokesman
THE CAMPAIGN WATCHDOG
""It's like anteing in to a poker game. You may not win but you can't even play unless you ante.''
-- Bob Stern, Center for Governmental Studies
E-mail Greg Lucas at glucas@sfchronicle.com.
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 1
Old corporate cultures don't go away. I know of a firm that bought another firm and sent most of its people packing. Part of the package was a job protection clause for about 75 people with the old company.
The 75 is down to about 50 after 7 years. Those 50 are nothing but trouble to the other employees and customers of the current company. They are in middle and semi upper management in the current company. They work like a vicious machine to protect themselves, undercut those who weren't with them in their old company, and cause a tremendous amount of the HR problems and customer complaints for the acquiring company.
calgov2002:
|
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
NEW YORK, Jan. 22, 2002 – In response to inquiries resulting from recent media coverage regarding the Andersen/Enron matter, Accenture (NYSE: ACN) today made the following statement:Some of the news coverage of the current situation facing Arthur Andersen and Enron contains misconceptions and inaccuracies about the historical relationship between Accenture and Arthur Andersen.
Accenture is not and never has been engaged in the practice of public accounting. Accenture had no involvement in Arthur Andersen's audit services, including audit services to Enron.
Accenture LLP and Arthur Andersen LLP have been separate legal entities and have operated independently since 1989.
In 1990, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission formally recognized Accenture LLP as an entity separate and distinct from Arthur Andersen LLP.
In August 2000, based on an arbitrator's decision in the International Chamber of Commerce proceedings commenced by Accenture in 1997, all remaining historical contractual ties between Arthur Andersen and Accenture were completely severed.
Dump Davis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.