In Oklahoma City, joint committees of the House and Senate have enacted new spending restrictions on public relations following allegations of financial misuse on self-promotion by unnamed departments. Representative Mark McBride labeled the move a “regrettable necessity”.
The restrictions will limit the budget allocated across all departments for public relations and marketing, compelling them to be more judicious with their spending. The ultimate aim is to thwart public funds from being unwisely used, especially on undeserved self-promotion.
Questions arose when an unnamed government department hired a Texas-based film production firm to deliver video content at a cost of $22.5k. An educational video, a product of this initiative, has amassed a modest 3.8k views on YouTube. Critics are questioning whether this is the best employment of taxpayers’ money, proposing instead, the use of cheaper digital awareness strategies.
In response to this spending, departments will be obligated to closely monitor their PR spending and keep the joint committees regularly updated. Furthermore, precise details concerning the implementation and observation of this limit will be discussed with the departments involved, ensuring that the restrictions are predicated not solely on allegations but on definitive proof.
A contract was also held with a DC-based PR firm for third-party communication tasks, media bookings, scriptwriting, and op-ed distribution. Despite these contracts being regarded as a regular working agreement by the involved parties, legislators have labeled the activities as “extravagant and exaggerated”.
In reaction, legislators proposed a plan to ban such spending, particularly as current law provides no restrictions on using taxpayer money for self-promotion.
Imposing stricter public relations spending in Oklahoma City
This proposal caused a significant furore among public officials, many of whom believe their communication efforts crucial.
The response from the public was divided. Some supported the cuts, citing concerns over mismanagement of funds while others argued that regular outreach from public officials was essential. As such, there was a thin line between curtailing extravagance and suppressing necessary communication channels.
The proposed legislation stipulates no funds under the department’s control should be used for promotional activities, PR, or media interviews. Following approval of the ban, the Senate passed a budget total of $3,861,909,518. McBride advocated for the reallocation of spending towards managing the welfare of teachers and students.
After various negotiations, the House decided a small budget portion should be retained for informative media purposes. The revised budget was redirected largely to students and teachers’ welfare in compliance with McBride’s initial proposition.
The impact of this decision is expected to evolve over the coming years, but the immediate response from educational institutions has been exceedingly positive. This decision marks a substantial reallocation of resources towards education, considered fundamental to national progression.
