On his last business day in office, former Mayor William Stortz issued this memorandum to the City Council and Board of Finance:
TO: Distribution
FROM: William T. Stortz, Mayor
DATE: November 9, 2007
Political Campaigns are known to open the door to questions that sometimes are overlooked or taken for granted. Sometimes an issue is looked at in a way that is slightly different from the usual. That is not a bad thing. The recent campaign was no different.
One candidate raised the question of the City’s purchasing procedures, a process that presumably was functioning in an acceptable manner.
Based on the public statements made by the candidate, subsequent questions ensued, and to some extent, answers were provided by our Purchasing Agent relative to the original allegation.
At the same time, questions were raised relative to the candidates’ involvement with the City, also dealing with the acquisition and payment for services.
I received a few calls, and some direct questions.
As has been my practice, I took these calls seriously, for I feel very strongly about ensuring that the City conducts its business in a professional, ethical, and above-board manner.
In researching the issue, I found it difficult to get clear and concise answers, for many reasons. While part of that may have been because of my lack of familiarity with some of the policies, it also seems to stem from the fact that many of those that I spoke with had no idea regarding this issue.
Therefore, there may be more information available which might be uncovered as time goes by.
At issue is the manner in which the City “contracts” for certain services, in this case the use of real estate agents. That was the question raised by the candidate. That is the question raised regarding a different situation in mid-summer 2002, when the City was trying to work with the families on the Bugryn property, in an effort to help them relocate.
Apparently this came under the auspices of the Bristol Development Authority, for on August 5, 2002, Jonathan Rosenthal received a FAX from “A Buyers Market” offering to represent the BDA regarding the relocation of the Bugryns.
That FAX included a copy of an agreement, ostensibly developed by “A Buyers Market”, and it was requested that it be signed.
According to the FAX, work had already started back in July, and subsequent documentation indicates that the first payment was then made on September 16, 2002 for $1,000.00, against a purchase order set up for $4,999.00, as requested by Jonathan Rosenthal.
The questions arising from this initial activity, and subsequent activity, are:
1.) How was the representative selected?
A.) Were there bids, proposals?
B.) Was this action approved? There seems to be no documented approvals by BDA, City Council, Board of Finance.
C.) Was there, is there, an “approved list” of agents?
2.) Is there an agreement on file? Requests have been made of various departments, and the responses so far are:
A.) Comptrollers – No record
B.) City Clerk – No record
C.) Corporation Counsel – No record (verbal response)
D.) Purchasing – No record
E.) BDA – Jonathan not available, staff has been unable to find any record of signed agreement
3.) Who negotiated agreement?
4.) Why was the initial purchase order for $4,999.00, and then subsequent ones for $5,000.00? Purchasing guidelines require formal quotes if over $5,000.00, competitive verbal quotes if between $1,000.000 - $4,999.00.
As I indicated, documentation and answers have been difficult to come by.
No mention in minutes (BDA, City Council, Joint Board, Board of Finance) regarding this activity, at least with the research done to date.
No readily available signed copy of agreement. It’s been requested with various responses, no signed agreement provided yet.
No indication of competitive acquisition of services. Don’t know if this was waived and/or documented.
No record or proof of requirements such as insurance, etc., if required.
No record of approval, for form, by Corporation Counsel’s Office. Don’t know if this is/was necessary.
Of concern and interest is the fact that this project may be utilizing funds from other sources, such as state or federal. With that in mind, we must assure that all the proper approvals are required, that all proper policies are adhered to.
The City failed to do so with the Streetscape Project, and when we submitted requests for reimbursement, the inadequacies were discovered. The State allowed us to retroactively approve the various approvals by BDA, the City Council, and in some cases, both. We should not be making the same mistakes over. Also, approvals do serve a purpose; information and control. When ignored, neither need is met.
There is documentation that a formal agreement was discussed/offered back in August, 2002. There is documentation indicating that an agreement was dated January 14, 2003. However, efforts to date have failed to produce copies of such a document. Was an agreement necessary? Should one have been reviewed for form?
There are at least four different purchase orders, plus two more for testimony. The total paid out other than for testimony, $20,650. How does this relate to any bidding procedures? Even after the fact approval would have provided the information and the accountability.
I bring this to light to determine if, as suggested at a political forum, that the City purchasing procedures are not all above-board or if the allegations are without merit.
The allegations came from the outside, from someone seemingly aware of the policies, and someone who did show an interest. Those comments resulted in my receiving calls and comments, which prompted further questioning on my part. As indicated, answers were sparse and vague, and my time was limited. I hope that additional effort will be given to get answers, for the public deserves to know.
Some basic questions:
1.) Why $4,999.00, just under a policy limit?
2.) Why no written agreement available, certainly from four of the five departments that usually get copies?
3.) Why no approval of various levels: BDA Board, City Council, Board of Finance?
4.) In light of one other occasion where it is know that proper approvals were not obtained in a timely fashion, are there any other occasions where this occurred? Are there other situations where policies were, or may not have been followed?
Hopefully, additional review will produce information that explains all of these questions, and that the charges are without merit.
I do not have enough information to definitively say something is wrong or not. On the other hand, the questions do need to be answered.
The taxpayers need to know that we are doing our job, and that their taxes are being utilized properly.
Distribution: City Council
Board of Finance
Comptroller
File
Attached to the memorandum are a number of memos, purchase orders and payment information. I may scan and post some of them later.
*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
29 comments:
Ken Johnson did not want to talk about this today. He may on Thursday.
Roger Rousseau, the city's purchasing agent, said Stortz first asked him about last Wednesday and he provided what information he could. He said that typically a contract that would lead to more than $5,000 in payments is bid out. He said he doesn't know why this one was not.
Rousseau said he can't remember details of this because it happened a long time ago during his first months in the job.
He also said this sort of situation "doesn't happen very often."
It seems like Stortz managed in his last days to find an issue that raises questions about both Johnson and Jonathan Rosenthal, the city's development director, each of them among Stortz's favorite targets.
Funny how Stortz didn't bring this up for the entire 2 YEARS HE WAS IN OFFICE!
Are you kidding? This is all he did for those two years in office: build a case for firing Rosenthal. Anybody still wonder why nothing was accomplished during the Stortz "administration"?
this may be why Ward didn't bring up rosenthal's name. where there is smoke there is often fire.
While Stortz's diatribe must have cost the city taxpayers a few dollars in the time spent by others and himself, it does point to an interesting problem.
Our bid process is suspect. From the BDA not being able to find any documentation to the lack of proper channels being followed to the purchasing agent not "remembering". The smell comes from wherever a contract starts it's way into the city procurement system. Perhaps a topic for Charter Revision.
The bottom line for loser Stortz is that the city had an obligation to find the Bugryn's suitable housing.
The BDA was responsible for this procedure.
Unlike during your administration, the BDA chose a Bristol Realtor to do the job.
Again, you use taxpayer dollars for your personal vendettas and than you ask "what did Stortz do wrong?" there is not enough room on this blog to begin.
Republican primary 2009: Stortz vs. Huckaby, "The Battle of the Loose Screws"
Perhaps why it wasn't brought up earlier is that only during the campaign did the purchasing procedures come into question, thanks to Johnson.
Also, if Stortz was really after Rosenthal he would have been diging in the past all of his administration. Obviously he didn't until the question was raised.
Question appears to be: was something done wrong?
I think that this should be looked at very thoroughly.
As far as relocating the families: could it not have been done legally?
Ganin and Cianci did great jobs: both went to jail.
Don't worry, it will be buried.
Remember, this happened under Nicastro, and he wouldn't want this to get in the way of his next election, maybe for Senator
I agree.
The purchasing agent is close with some the people involved, and McCauley and Johnson are close.
How blatant can you be?
$1.00 under the bid requirement amount?
Talk about chutzpa!
Who can't see the wrong-ness in Stortz's actions?
He could have easily gave the information about what he thoguht Johnson was wrong on to the Democrats. But he chose to make the statements himself. He chose to attack his own party's mayoral candidate. It was un-necessary of him. He wanted/wants to personally get revenge on the Bristol Republican leaders and their mayoral candidate.
There's no point in trying to figure out why Stortz does what he does.
Johnson and Rousseau were in that play together, weren't they, "Annie?" I think they're buds. And Rosenthal is pals with Johnson, too.
This isn't half as bad as the Walgreens windows!
Ken needs a real job. That's why he ran for mayor. He was newly out of work, I believe, when he snagged the city contract and then got to testify. What a crock. And then he has the nerve to gripe about corruption in city contracts. No wonder Rousseau was so ticked off.
And then YOU would have charged him with helping the democrats.
He clearly kept it out of the campaign discussion.
Simply put, Ken open up a can of worms, and found himself in the middle.
Seems like Stortz wants to have things done properly, not like Bridgeport, the state under Rowland, Hartford etc.
What else will be uncovered??
Stortz you have been a disgrace to the City of bristol long enugh.
enough already with your personal vendettas.
I know you have had a hard life with the death of your son and all, and I wish you never have had to go through that, however being mean spirted and vindictive which is the way you have lived your life since than is not the way to go either.
Stop and use whatever time you have left on this earth to make it a better place. Being vindictive and vicous is not the answer.
You have given up so much of your time to the City is this truly how you wish to be remembered?
STORTZ HATES KEN FOR SOME REASON, This whole thing is wrong, time to move on!
I cannot see why when something is done in violation of city policy, and it is pointed out, that people get upset.
Yet these same people will be screaming when the city gets a black eye for an impropriety and then they will say, "how could this have happened, why didn't someone say something, do something?
Fom Steve's blog, I see questions, legitimate questions.
Where are the answers?
I am not a fan of Stortz. But he has raised the issue of how this city hands out contracts. It sounds pretty loose to me and I think it should be looked into. This Mr Russo fello who is our Purchasing Agent seems like a nice guy, but how can he "not remember" what he did on this major issue. In my opinion he is hiding something or he keeps very poor records.
Russo and Johnson are friends.
Rosenthal asked for the $4999.00 contract, Russo approved it.
Who else approved it or even saw it?
And then the "contract" went to over twenty thousand dollars.
Why kill the messenger (stortz), lets look at the mesage.
Unbelievable. Man I thought I could hold a grudge. That guy has me beat hands down. Attacking Johnson for questionable BDA contracts? Hey Bill, heres a summer school project for you. Tom Zipp was caught red handed fudging the books with money that the BDA awarded him for replacement windows at his apartment building on High Street. (The Upsonian).
This was during Couture's administration. Everything was kept hush hush and they held a meeting over it, the conclusion being that Tom should pat the money back. Zipp, Zoppo, Couture, Rosenthal are all questionable. Tell me Bill, when someone robs a bank and gets caught before he cab spend the money, do the police tell him to just give the money back and all is forgiven? Honestly, I jsut dont get you.
You all seem to forget that it was Johnson that brought the topic up and opened the doors to questions and input from those that were there.
Maybe it isn't a grudge, maybe it is jusy doing ones job.
Keep in mind that Johnson has been questioned in other areas too, areas where stortz wasn't even involved.
Wheer ther is smoke, one might find fire.
Also, maybe Rosenthal is the key figure?
STORTZ HATES KEN! TRUST ME! DONT THINK FOR ONE MOMENT THAT THIS IS ALL COINCIDENTAL
So if Ken raisied it and was getting cruified by Ward and the democrats including the Ward bloggers on this blog all I can say is
I Guess Ken was right! Huh?
Yup, and he was part of it.
Did Ken Johnson ever comment?
Or Rosenthal?
Or Russo?
Any explanation at all?
Maybe that will open people's eyes (hopefully wards too), and they will now understand what the problem was.
Seems like a good hard look should be taken at a few dfepartments. More might be uncovered.
Post a Comment