Just before stepping down as mayor, William Stortz issued a long memorandum raising questions about a contract awarded by the Bristol Development Authority five years ago to a real estate agent assigned to help the Bugryn family find new homes so a city industrial park could move forward.
The agent who got the contract was Ken Johnson, last year’s unsuccessful Republican mayoral candidate.
The initial contract gave Johnson $4,999 for his work -- $1 under the limit at which the agreement would require public bidding – and then Johnson picked up more than $15,000 extra for additional work on the issue later.
Stortz questioned whether Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, had done something wrong in approving the contract.
The answer came this week when the city’s personnel director, Diane Ferguson, completed a three-page, single-spaced report in which she said she “found no evidence” that Johnson’s firm “was selected for personal gain or for any other improper reason.”
"I would agree with that assessment," said city Purchasing Agent Roger Rousseau.
Ferguson did, however, recommend Rosenthal and Rousseau “should pay close attention the letter and spirit of the purchasing guidelines.” She also urged Rousseau to monitor requisitions more closely.
Stortz said Thursday that Ferguson’s report “left a lot to be desired” and failed to answer most of the questions he posed two months ago about the contracts awarded to Johnson’s firm, A Buyer’s Market.
The former mayor said he never alleged “anyone doing anything dishonestly for gain,” only that it appeared that the city’s purchasing rules were broken and the money given to Johnson without written contracts, terms or reports on what was actually done.
“I wasn’t out to bag somebody,” Stortz said, merely to explore an apparent weakness in the city’s purchasing process in hopes of making improvements that would prevent slipshod contracting in the future.
Stortz said the matter “probably won’t go further” given how long ago it happened, but he said he hopes Mayor Art Ward will take the opportunity to make some changes that would protect taxpayers in the future.
“Why can’t things be done the right way?” Stortz said.
Ward, who called Ferguson’s report “appropriate,” said he's going to ask the Board of Finance to revisit the purchasing manual to see that this kind of issue "doesn't present itself again."
"We have to try and visualize what the long-term is," said Ward.
Much depends on the interpretation of what happened back in 2002 and 2003, according to Ward, because the purchases could be looked at separately or as a group.
Ward said it may not be possible to prevent something similar from happening again.
Rousseau 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 the ones granted to Johnson were not.
Rousseau said he can't remember details because it happened a long time ago during his first months in the job. But, he said, this sort of situation "doesn't happen very often."
Rosenthal had little to say late Thursday.
"I haven't seen it," said Rosenthal. "I'll read it tomorrow."
Johnson could not be reached for comment.
Reporter Jackie Majerus contributed to this story.
Contracts awarded to A Buyer’s Market
Sept. 4, 2002 - $4,999 to help with the relocation of the Bugryn family
Jan. 21, 2003 - $5,000 to help relocate Michael and Mary Dudko
Jan. 22, 2003 - $5,000 to help relocate Frank and Mary Bugryn
Jan. 27, 2003 - $5,000 to help relocate Nellie Filipetti
Jan. 28, 2003 - $2,007 for court testimony
Aug. 11, 2003 - $650 for legal fees related to court testimony
Will the report help Rosenthal’s reappointment?
Whether the report will make it possible for Rosenthal to get reappointed and regain his job security is unclear.
"It's basically up to the City Council," said Ward.
But Ward said that no matter what, the report removes the cloud that had been hanging over Rosenthal on this issue.
Ward said he thinks it's up to the city councilors who tabled the vote on Rosenthal's reappointment last month to open the issue up again.
"It's up to somebody to take it off the table," said Ward. "If it comes off the table, then I'll present the name again." – Jackie Majerus
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
11 comments:
As I read Fergusons report, I failed to see where she answered many of the questions that were asked, including who has a copy of te agreement and why wasn't that agreement approved by the legal people.
She did not indicate that the agreement was acted on by the Council, the BDA, the BOF.
Can just anybody enter into an agreement for the city?
Very sloppy investigating!!!
And disturbing.
They are sweeping it under the rug. It's pretty obvious what happened, and what is happening.
AND WE DON'T NEED A CITY MANAGER?
I am personally incredulous (Websters dictionary 1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true) that this information is being conveyed as the "end of the story", save a caveat that the Corporation Council will look into revising the City's purchasing procedures. Quite a bit of "We really don't know what happened, but as near as we can tell, it was nothing significantly untoward." BS
- If there was a desire to do whatever it took to settle the "Bugryn" relocation situation, fine. But because this was a matter dealt with by City leaders on behalf of it's citizens, it should have then and should be now a process that was conducted transparently. It appears that $22,000 plus was spent to help the displaced families from the still undeveloped industrial park near Middle Street find a new place to hang their hats, and all we know is that is was spent on "relocation expenses", and that there is no significant or descriptive documentation to indicate what the money was actually spent on. Was it closing costs? Rent deposits? Mileage and hours canvassing options? Time spent profiling the clients and trying to ascertain their needs and desires? Moving costs? What the heck was the $22+ grand for?
-Jonathan Rosenthal went on record, or so it seems, saying that many of the questions that arise from this situation were reliant upon his memory, and it is not reliable. The circumstances in question occurred around five years ago, and were linked to a rather highly publicised, controversial and significant endeavor by the City. It is "incredulous" to fathom that all we have at this point in time to evaluate what was or was not appropriately done with this $22,000 is a City Director's unreliable memory. When I want to do something of consequence to my home that is governed by the laws of this City, I need to have a plan, have it approved, pay a fee, have the work inspected and have it approved. If I don't, I break the law and I wind up with trouble, especially when I go to sell the place. If Jonathan Rosenthal is looking to sell his place with the people of Bristol, I would suggest he surface with some plans, some oversight and some approval for his project involving the Bugryn's relocation. Absent any of the above, Director Rosenthal might wish to rethink his ability to perform his job for the people of this City. We deserve nothing less, and the absence of succinct and reviewable information about this issue indicates he is not interested in providing it.
- The only reaction I have become privy to regarding the City's stance on this issue is that there needs to be a refinement of the purchasing proceedures. Laws and/or legal regulations are generally reformulated to react to something that has challenged the spirit of the original. In some cases, they have been reformulated for good purposes. They often restrict positive things to address the negative. The Bristol City Council is looking into changing the restrictions on City contract bids established for favorable treatment of City businesses. An "ordinance" (call it what you will - don't really know what exactly it is) was implemented regarding awarding contracts for City business that went out to bid (how ironic and example) favoring local entities. The bid size had a ceiling, and became an issue this year when a contract over the limit was awarded to an outside company and a City company was within the parameters for favorable treatment, but lost out. The contract was higher than the limit covered by the "ordinance". Laws are tricky, and sometimes they hurt us all. But they are formulated, in many cases, to address "the least common denominator". That would be someone or some entity that does something unfavorable, but within the existing laws or rules. So, you spend whatever time and money you need (not to worry, lawyers come cheap...) to figure out how to make better laws or rules to prevent further "unexpected and undesired consequences and occurrences", or, more often, attempts at circumvention. Seems like the spirit of the "law" was circumvented here, and personally, I am very sad that "we" have to do more "work" ($) to make sure it doesn't happen again. And it is as a result of a City Director's activities, at our expense...
I personally perceive that a poor job was done by the Economic Development Director of the City of Bristol in making sure that the expenditure of the $22,000+ of taxpayer money was reasonably accounted for. I am very disturbed by the lack of substance in the "review" of this expenditure provided by the Personnel Director of the City of Bristol. I am bewildered that, at least based upon the information available, the "City" will move on and address the issue as simply a reason to "clarify" a rule or law. This is clearly a very prominent display of the charachter of those involved in this circumstance, then and now. I do not think it is very favorable. I sincerely hope that the "City" will not let this be the last word on the matter, and will address the suitability of those who have contributed to the situation to continue to serve us in their capacities. I believe our trust has been betrayed.
"The hurt gets worse and the heart gets harder" Warren Zevon
Looking for some transparency and accountability - seems rather simple...
john cullen
For those who are interested, I just did a Google search of my desktop and found six stories from 2002 and 2003 that mentioned Ken Johnson's role in helping secure new housing for the Bugryns. I'll post them all later this morning. I think at the very least they show that much of this was done openly.
I don't think the city looked too hard to find documentation on this stuff since there must be stuff in the hands of lawyers since they put Johnson on the stand to talk about what he did for the city and the Bugryns.
Steve,
You feel that the city has more documentation,
Can You, will YOU, do the people a favor and produce it.
Seems like no one had any when the mayor was asking around, as he indicated in his memo.
Maybe you can help all of us>
Will you?
Stortz had 2 years to fix whatever problems he thought the purchasing department had. Why didn't he?
"Little old lady got mutilated late last night... Werewolves of London, again." -- Warren Zevon
Your point, Cullen?
If we're going to quote great rock and roll writers, and Zevon is one, let's at least make the quotes pertinent. You're just an excitable boy, Cullen...
This should be nail in Rosenthal tenure as Bristol E.D.D.Shame on City Hall ,shocked and appalled.
Why wasn't it fixed sooner..
If you read Stortz's memo, he clearly pointed out that this was an issue that was prompted by Ken Johnson's allegations and furthered by information he received following that.
Clearly it was not a topic early on in his admionistration,although he did question Rosenthal on many other issues.
Seems like there is a "code" among department heads that make discovery difficult.
Howeverm NOW that it is out and clearer, what is Ward going to do about it??????
Hey Steve,
Here is a question from a Realtor. When a buyer's agent sells a home they collect a commission from the seller. Did Ken collect this commission in addition to the fee he charged the city? A seller's agent offers a cetain percentage to a buyers agent to bring forth a ready will and able buyer. I bet Ken collected a commission and charged the city for giving him business. This needs to be looked into this a little more.
Will we get as complete a report on the Municipal energy contract, now that Johnson is president again?
Post a Comment