In my opinion, this is a good day for ratepayers of New Albany.
No, the argument about the monies for the Attorneys do not hold water in a decision about whether to bid out contracts. The Sewer Board needs to do what the "legislative body" (City Council) and the State Board of Accounts told them to do -- BID OUT THE CONTRACTS.
The Sewer Board can still do that thing. EMC has six more months remaining on their contract, as is and some wondered what the rush was.
Some stated they were worried Mayor England would win the election and "we would be right back where we were". What the hey does that do with state law and Charlie Pride warning the Council (have you ever checked out all of the degrees this man has)?
With all the expertise EMC mentioned they have, they should definitely have the inside track on any type of bid -- so what's the real problem?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Peace, NA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There is much that is not clear about the current situation. Lawyers with different interpretations, shouts of bribery, political grandstanding, and way too many personal conflicts.
I have two thoughts. One, the difference between the Storm Water Board and Sewer Board. I believe that the Sewer may have acted legally but I do have doubts about the SWB. I think the two cases are different.
Second, as the lawyers and the court battle this all out, the common thread is that these contracts should have been bid out. I am not speaking from a legal standpoint. It is, or should have been, the right thing to do. The "right thing" and "legal" are not always the same. I am not accusing anyone of malicious foul play and certainly not suggesting that the lowest bid is always the BEST. EMC may still have had the BEST bid(s) and been awarded the contract(s). Sure, people who hate EMC would have screamed but there are some who always scream. The way this was done has caused some doubts even among the more rational citizens of NA.
Sorry, a third thought. Sure is strange to see the Mayor and the Council President on the same side of an issue. Too bad it had to be something like this.
Thanks for writing your comments.
To me also there are differences in the issues of the two contracts; Susan and I have always felt the original EMC Contract should have been bid out under Overton's administration.
Hopefully you will or can overlook the sarcasm and lack of respect I, personally have, towards the Sewer Board's Attorney. We have felt the Sewer Board has been misinformed several times because of the conflicts of interest with this particular attorney and his association with the private contracts and developers. This problem is not only the Sewer Board's problem, it would be our problem also; but some on the Sewer Board have complete faith in this person -- we don't, and for good reasons.
EMC is simply caught between a rock and a hard place. The very reason we are having to sign the new "Consent Decree" sitting downtown (or maybe we've already signed it and it's at the State level for signature) is Appendix D. The infamous Appendix D is the five year (simply five years) EMC was to have performed maintenance within the City. First, in order to get the Bonds, EMC agreed to cut the $270,000.00 per year Council mandated to the Sewers for Appendix D, out of EDIT. Eventually we proved those monies were never returned, blah, blah, blah, but this may be one area we where we got those monies returned back to the proper department.
This is the reason Mr. Solomon resigned, because of the Robert E. Lift being pushed back in priorities. It wouldn't be such a big deal if the durn thing was fixed in 1997, paid for and everything. This particular project, for some reason, haunts the Sewer Board.
As I don't know anyone who "hates" EMC personally, I can't comment to that statement. When I spoke at Council that night, I was able to use the information provided to all citizens at the library monthly where EMC has been concentrating their efforts, and it's not downtown nor in the inner-city except with 15th St, and other miscellaneous items.
It falls down when we are under Federal Court orders to TV and Camera every line in this City. When we recently got the Mobile Home Shop on Main Street on sewers, the Sewer Board asked EMC to go ahead and TV and Camera the downtown area where Abe's Rental down to Star Drycleaners.
When I followed up on it with EMC, I was told they didn't have the money to TV every line in town. Well, I'm sorry for that, but I was at the meeting where the Sewer Board instructed them to do that thing, but when you examine their monthly books, you will see 0s for cleaning, tving or camering the downtown area. The "maintenance" is out in the fringe areas so Mr. Fifer's clients can keep coming on.
As far as your last statement, ain't it the truth?!!! There is a reason for that, also. The Sewer Board is under a lot of pressure after X amount of years of not doing the right thing by the EPA. The Council President takes this issue personally and feels he is under attack, when he's not -- thus my stressing we are simply talking business (and following the laws) -- but the involvement is too great for him not to take it personally. You're right -- he adamantly opposes Garner's administration, but not when you step on the sewers but you are insinuating, he feels, he is not doing his job.
Basically, speaking to you as a former analyst of "things" like this, some of them are simply in over their heads and taking advice from people they shouldn't be, who have their own agendas and they are simply too blind to see it (or maybe they don't want to see it), we just don't know.
What I don't understand is why a death bell tolled for someone when the Council overrode the Veto. I heard it was obvious on the face of a particular person, so I feel there is more to come and I welcome the freedom of access for it to become public (whatever "it" may be, but there's something just not right). Glad you could see it was strange.
I also agree the Stormwater issue is different, but the Stormwater still operates out of Sewers (last time I checked EMC's monthly book and our outsourced Accounting firm's records inside same). The rub is the Stormwater Board did not have a Budget approved by Council and may have negotiated with more bad legal advice.
It's still not too late to actually do what Mr. Charlie Pride with the State suggested, and we don't need to have the lawyers fight it out.
The Sewer Board can not raise rates without Council's approval, so if Council orders the Contract bid, who really has the Authority...probably where this is leading us...
It's been an issue for some time, the makeup of the Sewer Board (trying to form one calling it a "hybrid" between IC23 and IC25.
Gotta tell you, though, I am more worried about the new Consent Decree sitting wherever it's sitting. It hasn't been signed by the Federal Government yet, or it would have "tickled" the Federal Register. So, this all could just be a smoke screen to divert you from what is really, really, really important to all of us, the rate payers. Time will tell.
Sorry to wait so long to answer, but we had a BIG family reunion up in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains all weekend.
Take care.
Yvonne,
To be clear, I was just using your blog to express my opinions on the current situation. I was not really refering to any particular(unless specifically named)person or group. Well, maybe one, but that is another matter and blog. I have trouble getting published there!
Thanks for the freedom to speak on your blog.
Mark
You are welcome and I hope we continue to converse.
Funny what the paper said in the CJ about bloggers. Something about most "political" bloggers are "angry white men". Tooo funny. Didn't get to read the entire thing; simply enough to chuckle.
Peace.
Post a Comment