Last Thursday The O’Zone ran an article titled ”Really?
Let’s Hope It’s A Trend!”.
In it we recounted the discussion in the prior
evening’s DPW subcommittee meeting surrounding the second item on the agenda.
That item read as follows:
Insofar as we had the contents of that article
vetted by two members of the subcommittee who were present at the meeting, we
felt reasonably certain that it reflected accurately the nature of the
discussion on this item.
Therefore it came as somewhat of a surprise when
Councilor Vandal, Chairman of the DPW subcommittee, read the minutes of the
meeting at Monday night’s council meeting.
I would encourage readers to contrast this summary
of the discussion with that contained in
our earlier article.
It was far from my impression that subcommittee
members dropped the desire that the work be done in-house following remarks by
Ms. Blakely. Rather, it seemed that there was a prevailing opinion that this
was the course that should be taken.
Further, there was every indication that this was
the main reason that the item was removed from the agenda. There was no mention
of Mr. Clark citing the provisions of Chapter 30B.
UPDATE (12/6/13): Here is a recording of the actual discussion at the subcommittee meeting:
UPDATE (12/6/13): Here is a recording of the actual discussion at the subcommittee meeting:
Now, it is correct that Chapter 30B does not require
the council to accept this contract. However, it does become a question of the
council appropriating the funds insofar as the subcommittee discussion
indicated that there are insufficient monies in the DPW current budget accounts
to not only fund this contract but also to pay an outstanding balance on a
prior contract to the same contractor.
Especially troubling is the fact that it has come to
our attention that the outstanding balance due to the contractor has now been
paid and that he is engaged in additional work that was planned in connection
with the contract discussed at the DPW subcommittee meeting. If the DPW did not
have the money to pay for work already done last Wednesday, where has it gotten
the money since then?
All this also raises the question as to whether or
not there should have been a competitive bid process for the work. While it was
stated in the minutes that prior contracts were less than $5,000, the contract
under discussion is for $20,000. Section 4 of Chapter 30B states in part:
Section
4. (a) Except as permitted pursuant to this section and section seven, for the
procurement of a supply or service in the amount of $5,000 or greater, but less
than $25,000, a procurement officer shall seek written or oral quotations from
no fewer than three persons customarily providing such supply or service. The
procurement officer shall record the names and addresses of all persons from
whom quotations were sought, the names of the persons submitting quotations and
the date and amount of each quotation. A governmental body may require that
procurements in amounts of less than $25,000 be based on written quotations or
be subject to the provisions of section five.
Further, the fragmenting of this work into smaller
pieces all going to the same contractor raises a question as regards Section 11of Chapter 30B:
Section
11. No person shall cause or conspire to cause the splitting or division of any
procurement, specification, invitation for bids, request for proposals,
proposal, solicitation, or quotation for the purpose of evading a requirement
of this chapter.
While the council need not approve the contract
under the terms of Chapter 30B, it does appear that there are appropriate
matters of oversight that are involved. The apparent need for questions is only
amplified by the seeming lack of detail in the minutes of the subcommittee
meeting. One could be forgiven for thinking that any reference to matters that
may raise questions had been consciously redacted from the minutes.
If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming, then a
more thorough review of procurement practices may be justified. It may even
warrant referring the matter to the attention of the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General.
Smells like FISH and a dash of tartar sauce!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the smell of fish, one element that impresses me is the loyalty that Evelyn provides Mr. Clark, especially when it comes to his editing minutes. You don"t see that kind of co-operation every day. Does anyone know if she be will be following Mr. Clark to the Cape to ease his transition? Such Loyalty should be exported with enthusiasm.
DeleteI don't know who you are "Anonymous" but you should get your facts straight before making any kind of comments. Minutes are just that "Minutes" not "hours" and therefore I do not write minutes verbatim. No one, I repeat, no one edits my minutes. If anyone is interested in the exact wording of a meeting they should attend such meeting otherwise an abbreviated version is all they are getting from me. I tape such meeting so that if anyone wants to sit there and listen to a meeting (whether it's a 5 min. meeting or a 5 hour meeting) they can do so. I am happy to provide them with a copy. So before you make "unintelligent" comments you should find out how things work. My loyalty is to the Town of Southbridge and not to any one person because at the end of the day I put my hand in front of me to receive my paycheck not behind my back.
DeleteWhile I recognize your right to defend yourself regarding what you regard as impertinent criticism, you have to concede that prior incidents have naturally given rise to a level of skepticism. In particular, I refer you to a previous article on this blog, Treating Some SouthbridgeTown Records As Trash.
DeleteI do not wish to condone inappropriate comments, but I feel that if these suspicions exist then you are better served by the opportunity to respond rather than leaving such rumors to persist unanswered.
Just because other people that took minutes were fired for not making changes does not mean that people that remain make minute changes. Vague minutes can be just as effective at keeping important input from seeing the light of history.
DeleteThe meeting mentioned in this post is an example, another is the subcom meeting in which there was discussion about the Landfill. The actual meeting is on YouTube. If a witness to that meeting read the so-called minutes, they'd see how the Clark viewpoint is favored, and that what others have to say in defense of the airport is downplayed.
Why do we even keep minutes in this day and age? Video can be taken and stored for only a fraction of expense without risking valuable input being discarded, without administration bias or laziness or fatigue at the end of the day. This is not directed at any particular minute keeper.
If someone in Town Hall was to be praised for trying hard to keep minutes very well, it would be Max.
As for the meeting about the Airport future that is on YouTube, compare it to the minutes and my point on minutes taken at the end of the day is clearly a waste of money, unless the goal is too intentionally mislead and leave an impression that is not in tune with what had been expressed.
In Evelyn's defense, her minutes are not any worse than the local newspaper reporting!
I sort of feel for Evelyn, because she is doing what she has been trained to do, and who doesn't try to please the boss, as long as it isn't illegal or immoral?
DeleteThat said, when you lay down with dogs.... (itch)