The late Thomas “TIP” O’Neil coined that phrase because he understood that a politician’s success is directly tied to his ability to understand and influence the issues of his constituents.
Last Night a majority of the City Council in an election year showed they understood the same thing and because of the efforts of the PCC and the many documented violations at the site of the Buddhist Temple being built, the Council supported the Neighborhood and sent the Manager’s pick for the LHA back for “reconsideration”.
The Manager did his job, nominating a person he thought was the best qualified and the Council did theirs under the Plan E charter and disagreed and sent it back rather than publicly embarrassing the nominee and Manager and voting it down.
I have no issue with that, it is how the system works. I disagree with my fellow blogger Dick Howe when he says that the council was /is striving to protect the interests of individuals and favored constituencies at the expense of the city as a whole. I’ll point out some would say the same thing about the Councils vote NOT to allow Mr. Daley to build 7 houses in Mr. Howe’s neighborhood. Weren’t they playing to some of their favored constituencies at the expense of the city as a whole then?
I think in both situations they were protecting the neighborhood and following the neighborhoods wishes and last night did so by telling the Manager that having a person appointed to any City Board who is connected to a site that has ongoing multiple violations isn’t the message they want to send. They don’t believe it is the best thing for the City as a whole.
I was however a bit surprised at the kvetching by Councilor Kennedy and Elliot regarding BLOGS and Bloggers knowing something before a Councilor. Especially when the Manager told him he had no idea.
If you haven’t noticed I’m not high on the Manager’s list of supporters and friends lately, having been somewhat critical of him but I will say in his and his administrations defense that I have NEVER even when I have asked, received any information from City Hall that wasn’t already known to the council and a public record. So I believe him when he says he had no idea how any blogger knew. (BTW I did tweet it wasn’t me but THANKS to the 10-12 people who thought of me right away and called, emailed or posted on FB).
The fact that the Manager explained he had talked to members of the Republican Committee to get names opens the possibility that they talked among themselves or to others and a blogger found out and called. What’s the big deal?
This whole Auditorium Issue seems to be taking on a life of its own.
I didn’t hear Mr. Taupier on City Life but have emailed him to find out exactly what his concerns are about the bidding process. Maybe he’ll answer, maybe he won’t I’ll try to catch the replay Saturday before appearing on Saturday Morning LIVE with Warren Shaw on 980 WCAP from 6:00 -10:00 am.(cheap plug I know, but I take what I can)
Mill City Management CHOSE to walk away, they were not forced out and they do and did a great job there. But being smart business people and there is no doubt that Tom McKay and company are smart people, the notion that THEY SPENT THEIR OWN PERSONAL MONEY in any way shape of form is false.
Their Management Company MAY HAVE used some of that firms money to entice promoters or paid more for an act, making less profit but to state they paid money out of their own pockets is a fantasy. They make their living running a business and certainly have not lost money doing it or would have stopped year ago. My understanding is they subcontracted everything from Security to concessions and make some money on all that.
So please they did a great job and deserve all the applause and appreciation but lets not cry they paid money out of their personal pockets.
Isn’t the job of the Administration to try and reduce cost and save money whenever possible and if the RFQ is a way of doing that isn’t that a positive thing? Hello the City subsidizes this venue for over $300,000 a year.
Nowhere is there a requirement that the Auditorium Board of Trustee’s has to be consulted to make up the RFQ.
According to what’s posted on the City of Lowell’s Web Site it states:
Overview
Advises the City Manager on issues pertaining to the Lowell Memorial Auditorium. Five (5) members are appointed by the City Manager to a five (5) year term. One member from Veteran’s Council Organization. City Council Confirmation is required. Statute Reference: C.148 Special Acts 1919; Special Acts 1989 C.427 Acts 1983.
Advises doesn’t mean they have to be contacted or consulted on who or how the RFQ /RFP is written, especially if the city is following State Law. It doesn’t specify that they have to be included in the hiring or bidding process.
The Manager has stated he will include them in reviewing the bids and listen to their imput and advise.
So can we stop the noise about members of the board having their ego’s hurt or noses out of joint because no one came to kiss their rings.
I am thinking it is, in actuality, an RFP vice an RFQ. A niggling little point, but there is a difference. RFQ if you are buying toilet paper and an RFP if you are asking for something complex and non-standard.
“RFQ’s are best suited to products and services that are as standardised and as commoditised as possible.”
“An RFP is procurement’s solicitation sent to potential suppliers with whom a creative relationship or partnership is being considered. Typically, the RFP leaves all or part of the precise structure and format of the response to the discretion of the suppliers. In fact, the creativity and innovation that suppliers choose to build into their proposals may be used to distinguish one from another.”
I would judge running the Lowell Memorial Auditorium non-trivial and thus an RFP like item.
Regards — Cliff
An RFQ is a request for qualifications whereas firms submit documentation of experience, financial capabilities and list of current contracts to make sure they’re not already overextended.
An RFP is a request for proposal, usually employed when a shortlist is established and everyone’s on a level playing field. The finalists are then invited to submit material and financial details of services offered and costs associated with executing the contract (included in the bid package); The authority (City) is usually in firm control of the process and can negotiate to smooth out the deails and address any loose ends.
The City may consolidate the processes into one. They’ve done it before and have a competent legal department.
Gerry:
I agree with your comments on the faux outrage regarding the auditorium…it is all about egos.
But on another subject, you write “both situations, they [City Councilors] were protecting the neighborhood.” If that is the case, why did CCs Elliott, Kennedy and Mercier (last night) raise that concern when it came to the building of the temple but back in September voted against “protecting the neighborhood” when they voted to support the Westview development?
So, which one do you think it is? 1. All neighborhoods are not created equal; 2. All projects are not successfully presented (spinned) as in the best interest of the City; 3. All neighborhood representative, spokesperson, leaders, activists, etc… do not have the same level of access. I am wiling to hear a fourth explanation.
Regards.
Mimi
Mimi,
Did you notice I said THE COUNIL meaning the Majority that voted that way to protect the neighborhood. I didn’t criticize any indivisual. If you want to know why Councilor’s Kennedy or Mercier voted a certain way..ask them. I spoke of the Council as a whole.
What I do think is wrong is what I feel is the growing murmer in “the bubble’ that some City Councilors or Particular Neighborhood Leaders are against minority members and always oppose anything they do.
Ted Panos on WCAP made a statement to that effect which blew me away because it was in my opinion idiotic and wrong. Especially the examples he sited.
This city and its leaders have strived to be inclusive and for Ted and the bubble to start trying to paint some has opposed to minorities is wrong and not going to do anything but cause a bigger divide in this city.
Gerry:
Please do not interpret anything I say. I am nor referring to minorities. I am referring to power and access. So, please do not misrepresent my words to fit a narrative that you are offering.
Again, I disagree with your characterization of THE COUNCIL. Of the 6 that spoke, the only two who fit into your initial description were CC Lorrey and CC Mendonca.
My 1st response was toward you, my second was a seperate rant. Sorry if i gave the imporession that one was in response to you.