~by Janice Harbaugh for GreeneCountyNewsOnline
The Greene County supervisors on Oct. 12 approved an agreement allowing The SpyGlass Group, LLC of Westlake, OH, to access the county’s telecommunication records for the purpose of doing an audit. The supervisors hope to save money in the long term.
However, a careful reading of the agreement and research into SpyGlass done by GreeneCountyNewsOnline raises questions about the process and possible unintended consequences.
The agreement with SpyGlass, a telecommunications auditing company, states the county is engaging SpyGlass to “analyze its primary telecommunications service accounts (voice, data, internet, cloud services, and mobility/cellular) to seek cost recovery, service elimination, and cost reduction recommendations.”
The agreement also requires the county not to perform any other cost reduction analysis while SpyGlass is auditing the telecommunications records.
County information technologist Michelle Fields presented the agreement to the supervisors on Oct. 12 with her recommendation that an audit of telecommunications costs be done. She said the audit was free and letters of permission to release information should be sent to all the county’s telecommunications vendors.
The agreement was signed at the regular board meeting the same day by chair John Muir. In response to GCNO inquiry at the meeting, Muir stated county attorney Thomas Laehn had reviewed the agreement. Muir also said he did not think there were privacy issues involved.
GCNO obtained a copy of the agreement which is less than a page long and focuses on SpyGlass fees to the county and disclaimers of its responsibility for disruption of business due to the audit or due to recommendations of the audit.
According to the brief agreement, the audit itself appears to be free.
However, if SpyGlass finds overcharges, the county has agreed to pay 50 percent of the recovery to SpyGlass. If SpyGlass recommends cost saving actions or elimination of services, and the county follows the recommendations, the county has agreed to pay 100 percent of the savings to SpyGlass for 12 months.
The 12 months of estimated savings are paid in advance, a one-time payment within 10 days of the change in cost-saving or elimination of service.
The county’s agreement with SpyGlass did not include what kind of data would be transmitted to SpyGlass for audit, how long the audit might take, how the data transmitted would be stored, whether it would be retained for a period of time, procedures for ensuring privacy, nor a statement that the data would not be sold to other parties.
Because the agreement seemed lacking in detail other than fees SpyGlass would be given, GCNO attempted a telephone interview with a representative of SpyGlass.
Despite three calls and voice mails to the company, no representative returned calls.
The company website reveals pertinent information, however.
The company advertises its services as necessary even though providers of telecommunications services typically work with clients for free to optimize plans, services, and charges when asked.
From the SpyGlass website: “This (working with providers/vendors) is like having the fox watch the hen house. Your provider sales rep has NO financial incentive to help you clean up your bills. Lowering the amount of your bill actually lowers the sales commission they get paid related to your account. On the flip side, we only get paid if we save you money.”
Crains, a rating organization for entrepreneurship in northeast Ohio featured on the website, states SpyGlass has been in business since 2001 “providing cost consulting services to financial executives specifically in telecom services.”
A review of the Better Business Bureau of the Cleveland area reveals The SpyGlass Group has been denied accreditation due to “failure to respond to customer complaint.”
Five customer reviews on the Better Business Bureau website are mixed, with two positive scores and comments and three negative scores and comments.
The negative comments spoke of SpyGlass representatives as harassing potential clients over the telephone until they agreed to the service and being “misleading and borderline deceitful.” Positive comments involved successful recoupment of overcharges.
No information was found on the SpyGlass website concerning protection of privacy, security of data, retention of data, or whether SpyGlass sells data to other companies or organizations such as political parties.
In a telephone interview with Fields, who recommended the audit and SpyGlass, she said, “SpyGlass called the auditor’s office initially. They referred it to me.”
When asked why she recommended an outside company do an audit instead of asking vendors to review plans and charges for free, Fields said, “It (SpyGlass) was free.”
Fields said she has sent copies of two months of county telecommunications invoices to SpyGlass. Fields did not have any information about whether SpyGlass retains the county’s telecommunications information or how it is stored or used once it leaves her computer.
Fields said, “The invoices are public records. Anything in the courthouse are public records.”
“The letters sent to telecommunications vendors are so SpyGlass can talk to them and make changes in the plans or save us money,” Fields said. “We’re hoping to find any additional savings for the taxpayers.”
“We just want to make sure all plans are current,” Fields said. “We have no complaints on service.”
GCNO contacted Jamie Daubendiek, general manager at Jefferson Telecom, for comment concerning the county engaging and potentially paying a company in Ohio to audit plans and services when local telecommunications vendors typically do that for free.
Daubendiek declined to comment, citing client confidentiality. He did say, “We have a long-standing relationship with the county and would like for it to continue.”
