GN: The following is reprinted from Today’s Sun. One of their most accurate Editorials I’ve Seen!
EDITORIAL
Council apologists: Let’s wait for answers
If you’re wondering why there is so much controversy coming out of City Hall these days, look no further than Tuesday night’s City Council vote. By a 6- 3 majority, the Council refused to sanction a special meeting with City Manager Bernie Lynch to discuss how it came to be that Lowell violated the state’s public- bidding law and he didn’t know about it.
We’ve editorialized previously how this council has abdicated its Plan E government duty to hold its hired employees accountable — the manager, auditor and city clerk — and Tuesday’s vote was just another nail in the coffin, a rebuke in their sworn responsibility to protect the public first and foremost.
Basically, the majority said it is all right to inconvenience taxpayers into paying more for a fire- alarm system obtained through a “ flawed” bidding process, but it’s not OK to inconvenience the city manager into answering serious questions as to how this happened.
The inspector general makes it clear the city got a sweetheart deal on fire alarms when it arranged to circumvent public- bidding laws. It paid roughly $ 1,148 per alarm box, including installation of the system, while business owners got suckered into paying $ 2,400 for the box alone. But when the IG notified city officials on Oct. 20, 2011 — nearly 10 months ago — they all played deaf, dumb and blind.
It’s still hard to believe that those who were notified — Fire Chief Ed Pitta, Purchasing Agent Michael Vaughn, CFO Tom Moses, City Solicitor Christine O’Connor — never told Lynch. Therefore, the council never knew that, according to the IG, the city had engaged in a “ no- bid” process that put taxpayers at a decided financial disadvantage.
Burning questions from anyone to the vacationing city manager?
Not from Mayor Patrick Murphy and councilors Bill Martin, Joe Mendonca, Marty Lorrey, Vesna Nuon and Kevin Broderick.
They voted against Councilor Rita Mercier’s motion to hold a special Sept. 4 meeting with Lynch to get some answers.
Martin said the matter could wait for another 13 days, until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. No big deal in his eyes. He wasn’t forced into overpaying $ 1,300 in a non- competitive scheme.
Worse, neither Martin, the mayor or the other council apologists seemed concerned that no one told them about the IG’s ruling.
Nor did they seem upset with Lynch’s comments in which the manager accepted his staff ’s handling of the matter in which they kept him, the council and the public uninformed about the violations. Incredible.
The city’s No. 1 administrative executive is paid to know what’s going on, especially when a top state official cries foul. This is a matter of official negligence. The City Council’s decision to delay public inquiry is an insult to all citizens who deserve the right to know the truth.
The letter from the IG is almost a year old but the council’s extra week is going to make the difference? Truth is truth, irrelevant of timing.
Here is another question for the Sun. The paper covered this story when the initial orders to install these boxes went out. I believe that was at least one, possibly almost two years ago. River Valley House was the featured property owner. Why didn’t the paper follow up in all that time passed until recently? Is is possible the manager and council weren’t the only ones who missed the story? I remember comments on this issue were left on this blog months ago, did The Sun look into them?
The IG letter was available online well before the Sun reported on it last week. Who covers this story and misses that? The Springfield court case and fire chief’s order were also some time ago. Was there a city legal opinion on backing down from the fire chief’s initial order for radio boxes on 13 or more units? Seems to me there might be too much reliance by The Sun on some sources and not enough on research. If the city got a great deal, then the majority of taxpayers got a good deal too, stands to reason. The cost of the system is borne by those who use it. That seems to be the push in government on many levels these days. When that process starts to impact the larger business interests in the city, it gets coverage?
A major fire protection industry expert commented on one of the previous stories in The Sun comments section. Have any reporters reached out to him for specifics on the type of system installed, how and why the radio box system works as it does, and the bid information? How much has the city been forced to spend maintaining the old system while the large property owners dragged their feet?
The process was flawed, no doubt. Was the bid specific enough, probably not. Did it leave the process open for private industry to be innovative in their proposals? Seems that it may have. The real reasons how and why this became, and continues to be an issue, is the story. I’m not sure we will ever read it in it’s entirety in our local paper. Are there insufficient resources or does it not fit the business model?
Times like these I miss Paul Harvey.
WOW ! Blame the paper for NOT reporting a story until now. But it’s okay for the Administartion to bury a letter that states
“This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
The Council wasn’t aware of the letter until the SUN published it (or were some of them and that’s why they don’t think it’s a big deal)? so a Councilor wanted to act on it as soon has she could because the Manager took a week off this week. Can you fault the 3 Councilors who want an answer as soon as possible?
I find fault in the ones who seem not to care that the State Inspector General thinks “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell” . It seems to me that most of the ones who want to ignore it where very supportive of the IG when it came to fines for a sewer hook up!
Based on the bids presented I don’t happen to agree with the IG with regards to the specifics of this system being bad for the citizens. Maybe the businesses, didn’t get a fair shake, maybe they are the ones who should bear the cost of paying for it. The overall system cost wasn’t going to vary much, just the distribution of those costs. All other taxpayers made out fine. The bid was sloppy (who was responsible is still vague). Other than that, I’m not sure the IG is an expert on every industry standard and product. I know there is more detail than the paper gives on this issue, a few quick google searches told me that.
Some members of the administration may or may not have covered it up. That info will come out. Which Tuesday only matters if you want it to. However since the IG letter called for no discipline like the fines you mention, is the severity the same? I don’t fault the councilors for wanting an answer. I fault people for complaining about waiting a week on an issue that is in the vicinity of two years old. The council had no problem meeting every two weeks all summer. Now we have to get it done right after labor day weekend? Any damage has long since been done. Where was all this righteous indignation and calls for investigation when people had to spend the money?
I do blame the paper for what I view as reporting of convenience. Why did the Sun drop the ball all this time? Why all of a sudden is it an issue now, when the information has been out there a long time? Where is the research and detail? Of course maybe if The Column didn’t brag about airing fire department dirty laundry, some of us wouldn’t be so suspicious about why now.
Demand answers, no problem, but please make sure you present them all when you get them.
Let’s see: illegally connecting to the city sewer system in the dead of night and basically stealing service in a fraudulent way versus writing bid specs where the city’s taxpayers costs are minimized. Hmmm….give me a second….
Great points Jay.
hmm 1 ex councilor hooking up a sewer or 6 city councilors ignoring a hidden letter from the State Inspector General about a flawed bid system that charged the private citizen $1,300 more than the city paid and states “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
Why is that statement so easily ignored by the Bernie supporters? You and Jay apparently didn’t have to purchase one of the boxes so like the 6 councilors you don’t care that those who did got screwed or the city administration hid the fact that “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
If John Cox could have just gotten the DOR to put “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell” in the letter he hid from the council, Broderick & Martin apparently wouldn’t have fired him.
Let’s see: Hiding a letter that puts the City on a watch list for possible takeover by a state oversight board versus a letter that says the bidding of a fire alarm system might have been flawed and should be done differently in the future. Give me a second on that one too.
Gerry, not sure what got your undies in a knot but how about a little perspective. Your getting a bit crazed here.
Gerry, you are taking the issue a step too far when you claim “ignore”, when the only difference is whether it gets brought up again next week or the week after.
Joe,
The Manager is a great wordsmith, much better than I will ever be but in this case I chose to use that word purposely. Here is the definition from dictionaty.com
ig·nore /ɪgˈnɔr, -ˈnoʊr/ Show Spelled[ig-nawr, -nohr] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ig·nored, ig·nor·ing.
1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing
Seems to me that is exactly what these 6 Councilors did. Do you recall any one of the 6 making a public comment that they are concerned with that letter? Aside from Marty Lorrey who stated ‘I don’t know what a letter from the Inspector General means?
“… what a letter from the Inspector General means?”
The Bernie Bashers are clawing desperately to ensure that the public THINKS it means the worst possible thing, so as to precipitate the end of Lynch’s term.
What does it objectively mean? On a scale of 1-10, how serious is this IG letter? A fair person, e.g. C.Lorrey, wants to be clear. The mob, carry torches and pitchforks, want a lynching based on perception. and figure out
I’ve held my comments on this because this is a serious matter. I do no want to contribute to the blather that builds the snowball. Those that wish to flail over an IG letter, wish to hang it around Lynch neck, remove Lynch and then move on.
Lowell would be best served for the Council to slowly digest this important matter and figure out how to react. If this is truly a problem, let the Council focus on the policy behind the controversy. Once that is fixed, then they can measure the Manager in an informed light.
Lastly, Gerry you are focused on the cost of the alarm system, only. Does having it save the owner money on insurance? If a building is renting 13 units at $1000/month ($156,000/year) or collecting Condo fees of $150/month, how does the alarm cost impact them? What is the cost benefit anaysis? We seemed to be consumed with only the cost.
Jack,
What I am most concerned about is that the City Administration from the Manager, CFO, Purchasing Agent and Solictitor through the City Council don’t seem to see any importance in this letter and in my opinion (which really doesn’t count nor matter to most) totally want to ignore the line I keep repeating
“This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
Had the Manager when this first came out last Thursday, stated that he thought this was a mostly an administrative letter and that while he understands the Inspector General’s conern, in his opinion the fact that the city saved over $35,000 at the expense of 100 or maybe 200 (at best) residents of a city over 100,000 and in hindsight maybe should have shared this with the council it would have ended by last Tuesday’s council meeting .
Instead he ducked the meeting because he was on vacation and the CFO showed a great deal of disrespect to a City councilor by stating he didn’t really recall the letter while most of the Councilors acted like they could care less that “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
That is what I am most upset about. The Lack of reaction from the Council and what I see has a growing arrogance and lack of profesionalism by the Manager and his staff.
This line: “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
How does the IG know that it is “not advantageous?” If we ONLY compare purchase price, then one amount IS greater than the other. But, what of all the costs the City bears in maintaining an operating “backbone” to this system? Over the next 10 years? How much due these “businesses and citizens of Lowell” potentially SAVE, if they install these devices. I know my car insurnce goes down if I install an alarm, even more if I install a Lo-Jack.
Your fury over this line is predicated on a potential misnomer of the words “not advantageous.” If the IG didn’t do the full accounting, then the City Council should take the time to factor the FULL cost/benefit analysis before they commit themselves.
…
In general, I want to discuss the idea of respect for the Council. Clearly we want to have staff and administrators that have respect for the Council as a body. Clearly, the institution of the Council is enshrined and must be addressed with a vaunted decorum.
And of course, that works both ways. Councilors must check their egos at the rail. They must flick a mental switch during the prayer and pledge of allegiance. The Council, comprised of Councilors, must repect the staff and administrators in a reciprocal manner, as decorum demands.
When the City Administration promotes itself as professional, they are not promising to endlessly turning the other cheek to bullying and exploitation. When forces conspire to undermine and subvert their efforts, they have my full support in there right of self defense.
Our City governance is arranged around a ‘tug-o-war’ between the elected and the appointed. As they tug, no one should be spitting or lobbing stink bombs.
And forget The Sun. Until Campi is gone, The Sun is a lost cause.
How does the IG know that it is “not advantageous?” Really? Your focused on just the price, what about these facts the letter also states?
In fact, the City advised this Office that one municipal user complained of “price gouging” by East Coast.
Lowell’s confused procurement did not comply with M.G.L. c.30B
In addition, the City apparently mishandled the process of evaluating the minor informality standard; and did not comply with M.G.L. c.30B rules relative to contract changes.
If Lowell had decided on the basis of price alone, the procurement might not have been considered prejudicial to competition. However, the specifications did not afford a way to meaningfully compare different systems that were proposed by vendors.
The disparity in proposal price of more than $300,000 suggests the City’s solicitation documents did not contain specificity as to what it wanted to purchase. The vagueness of the specification contributed to the myriad deficiencies this Office has found with City’s procurement.
Seems to me that offers plenty of reason other than price. According to the Manager the IG’s Office is an expert in Procurement, probably how he knows that “This was not advantageous for the businesses and citizens of Lowell”
A. I’m not a “Bernie Supporter”. He does a job. Generally I think he does his job well, but I don’t like everything he has done. I don’t care what side it comes down on as long as all the facts get out and people are properly protected as the law intends. This story is becoming about choosing sides, not the actual issue of the city’s fire alarm system needs. Was this type of system even a good idea and why was it chosen?
B. Those six councilors figured they could wait a little more than a week to get the answer. They didn’t say they didn’t want to know. How is that ignoring or abdicating? Why the mass hysteria? The council may care about what happened, but they may also care more about getting all the facts instead of a thrown together meeting coming off the last holiday weekend of the summer. I don’t know either way what is in the head of each councilor, but someone could always ask them. I’m not going to assume anything. I do know urgency doesn’t automatically mean good public policy.
C. How is a letter freely available on the internet being hidden from anyone? All those so concerned with those affected didn’t care to ask for the last two years? The issue was out there, people were complaining, who was looking? Now its an either/or, who’s side are you on debate instead of the actual complicated issue. Those who complied with the order did so already. Those who didn’t have been intentionally stalling or hedging their bets, some I think possibly based on the advice of competitors who lost the bid. People weren’t going to get a refund next Wednesday if they met Tuesday.
D. Did the business owners get screwed? They are required by law to have an automatic means of notifying the fire department. These boxes need a relay network backbone to operate. The more boxes in the system, the better. I didn’t have to buy the box, but they didn’t have to buy an apartment building or condo. I know when I bought and sold a home I had to pay for fire inspections, whether I liked it or not. These laws didn’t come on the books overnight. I don’t know what the breakdown is between large and /or absentee landlords and condo associations. Does anyone? We are talking about buildings with more than 13 apartments. This isn’t the little guy. The little guys didn’t have the financial means to fight this. Why did that interpretation of the fire code change 180 degrees midstream? Was it legal precedent or the threat of more stall tactics and litigation? How many properties NOT required by the original order decided this was the best system for them anyway? Does anyone know?
I agree with the IG that for the city the request for proposals/bid doesn’t appear well put together. I’d like to know why too. How is there even a doubt about it being a proprietary system? These boxes operate on the city’s radio channel, monitored by city personnel, it already was proprietary when it was the city’s wired system. Regardless, the vendor who provided this so called “sweetheart” solution did so with minimal impact on the vast majority of the taxpayers, specifically the ones not affected by this law and not required to pay for a system of improvements to benefit private property. We pay taxes to get the same response level from the fire department, we don’t all get to have the city be our personal alarm company.
Thanks for the reminder why I shouldn’t bother to post Gerry. One line doesn’t sum it up.
Sorry i huirt your feelings jay. damn i should’t ask questions, i should be like Bill martin and ignore it.
I say to you what i said to Joe.
ig·nore /ɪgˈnɔr, -ˈnoʊr/ Show Spelled[ig-nawr, -nohr] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ig·nored, ig·nor·ing.
1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing
Seems to me that is exactly what these 6 Councilors did. Do you recall any one of the 6 making a public comment that they are concerned with that letter? Aside from Marty Lorrey who stated ‘I don’t know what a letter from the Inspector General means?
I’m with Gerry on this one. How can this go on for 10 months without the Manager finding out about it. Surely someone must have told him If not, then whomever knew, should be fired faster than Carney was.
Feelings are still intact. No problem with questions, I ask a lot of them myself. I differ in what I think the questions really are and the best manner to ask them. I just think the entire story is not summed up by one line and one definition. It is never that simple in my opinion. I try to seperate doing what is required of you for your job from who the people are. I like to belive that can be accomplished.
i know this is besides the point – not even in vicinity of the point but I wanted to ask Jack… “A LYNCHING?” Was that intentional because if it was, I admire the pun!
I try to have fun with the language we have. Blog on!
My,My, My…it seems the Yes man,Yes King Bobbleheads are having a real tough time bobbeling this away. Gerry, no amount of babble can detract from the fact that you are absolutely right on this one. And the cries for “objectivity” coming now from those as to whom it does not exist? Please.
Sempai Jack was at the council meeting tuesday night and must have felt like hiding anywhere he could find. That was the most disgusting and ridiculous display of incompetent babble I have ever seen, and would have been hilarious if it was not being perpetrated under the pretense of “professional management.” I am hoping that people outside of Lowell did not see the display because with the exception of our top-two vote getters the whole charade reflected very poorly on our city.
With gun battles blazing on Bridge Street and Our New Hope ascending in Tampa, we can hope and pray that it is Bye, Bye ,Barak for our nation’s survival. Then, on November 7, 2012, we can turn our attention much closer to home and end the Mercenary Monarchy in Lowell.
Thomas A. Wirtanen
Sensei,
Please get off the train to Bubaville.
Dear Sempai Jack: Arigato Goyzamus, you are clever beyond words. We could use about 40 million of you in the Republican Party.
Business, balance and back to basics! I am a pillar of Bubaville!
Sensei Tom
If the train was headed to Kriegerville, I wouldn’t spend time trying to derail it. Our system only works with the full force of Shifu 老子’s tug-o-war. We need a “loyal opposition,” not a boil.
Further, embracing the machine Democrats, like John Cox, is unsightly. It makes no sense that you shun reform efforts. Unless, it’s because you see us reform Dems as “stepping on your toes.”
No, Sempai. As will be conclusively demonstrated, the Democrats are in desperate need of reform, as the Warren campaign conclusively demonstrates. But you are not alone, as particularly here at home, the Republican firing squads are still forming in circles and shooting towards the middle. This is a watershed election, but the “big tent” reality for both parties is at present more of a cacophony than anything resembling party unity. It will be the efficiency of the Democrat machine and media control vs. the bankruptcy of their record and the appeal of pragmatic conservatism.
Sensei Tom