hans
Newbie
Posts: 39
|
Post by hans on Jan 7, 2009 7:51:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snickers on Jan 7, 2009 8:42:00 GMT -5
The OD doesn't want to hear what we think. They only want to tell us what to think.
Fortunately, they are failing miserably.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 7, 2009 9:23:17 GMT -5
So .... lucky you, Snickers. You get to discuss the story here among intelligent gentlemen and women, instead of the rabble of wingnuts on the OD forums.  Here's a thought. Pubic agencies with which I've been familiar often take steps to avoid public bids and having to deal with businesses they would rather avoid. I did it when I worked for a school system. I knew who the lowest bidder would be on particular projects and I knew why he would be lowest. And yes, I paid more than was customary to some vendors (although not 40% more) to get the service I wanted, and because I could trust their work. And the reason they cost more was because they didn't hire "day laborers." An overly rigorous audit of my operation would have found me wanting in regards to the letter of the law, (but not the spirit) and I would have defended it to the point of quitting. Most of my counterparts felt the same. Knowing that, state agencies normally step lightly when they go after offenders. So, bottom line is that there probably was something wrong with the agency mentioned in the story, but it must have been egregious. |
|
|
|
Post by snickers on Jan 7, 2009 21:04:16 GMT -5
Dave, assuming what you assert is truthful, there MUST be an avenue through which you could hire the better contractor for the job.
I'm sorry, but after what we've seen just over the past few months, I have a really hard time simply assuming The Best of Rome's "Public Servants".
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 7, 2009 23:20:59 GMT -5
Snickers, yes, there is an avenue to hire the preferred contractor. But it takes forever and slows down the process considerably. Also, contractors will low ball a bid just to get in the door, and make it up in the future, if possible. If your furnace breaks tonight and two plumbers come to the door ... one who because of previous experience, you really don't want to deal with ... how would you feel if a state bureaucracy required you hire the lowest bidder? Probably the same way I'd have felt if I had to hire a guy with a deflated price who needed too much supervision when laying out cable and covered his mistakes rather than fixing them.
Re Rome ... granted. But my point was that honest administrators often play close to the line to get the job done right for the taxpayer. Your Rome school district public servants were outright stealing. And if I were the D.A., those guys would be sitting in a jail cell now. Your DA flubbed that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 7, 2009 23:23:27 GMT -5
Dave, assuming what you assert is truthful, I think you meant to say, "assuming what you assert is accurate..." I am never untruthful. |
|
|
|
Post by snickers on Jan 8, 2009 8:20:53 GMT -5
Dave, I humbly beg your forgiveness. I never meant to imply anything of the sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 8, 2009 12:47:51 GMT -5
Getting a little testy, are we? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jan 8, 2009 13:29:17 GMT -5
Being a retired government manager, I can only say that there are times when it is necessary to use different avenues to accomplish a feat in the BEST INTEREST of the taxpayer.
The federal supply system was quite "fool proof" in it's control over fraudulent purchasing and patronage of favorite vendors. There was however room in the system to pursue different avenues of procurement, depending on the item or service needed, and the costs.
In the Department of Defense, there is a "mission" to be considered. We sometimes had "mission critical" items to purchase, and there had to be different avenues pursued to insure that the integrity of the mission was maintained, while expediently obtaining the material or service needed.
I worked for a woman whose integrity was beyond reproach. She was educated, and experienced in every facet of government procurement and logistics, and to the best of my knowledge, she is still employed at Rome Labs since the base closure. Many times when I was stumped or hit a brick wall in attempting to obtain something critical to the accomplishment of our mission, she was knowledgeable enough to know an "expedient" manner in which to procure it, and always within regulations and legal means.
ALL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING IS NOT CROOKED OR TAINTED! Some of us that worked in government positions actually had the best interests of our country and taxpayers in mind in performing our duties.
To imply that all procurement streams are polluted with patronage and personal agendas is a major misnomer. What is needed on a state level is for the politics to be barred from procurement through more stringent means of tracking and awarding of contracts. There is still problems and patronage on the federal level, and I am not naive enough to believe any different, but having worked with the system for 25 years, I can assure you that there is very little room for misdeeds in federal procurement at the agency level. The state and local government needs to simply tailor their procedures to mirror the federal programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 8, 2009 16:44:51 GMT -5
To imply that all procurement streams are polluted with patronage and personal agendas is a major misnomer. I not sure anyone implied that, Clip. And you're correct about the controls in place to monitor and alert for mismanagement of funds. Which is why I cannot understand how the hell the two Rome School District employees got as far as they did stealing from the district. Or that they received only 5 years probation for such an flagrant offense. www.wktv.com/news/local/30569484.html |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 8, 2009 20:28:31 GMT -5
Dave, it probably has something to do with a plea bargaining since they plead guilty instead of going to trial, saving the tax payer money, and for the amount of money they stole.  They probably won't see any prison time. 
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 8, 2009 22:00:52 GMT -5
Dave, it probably has something to do with a plea bargaining since they plead guilty instead of going to trial, saving the tax payer money, and for the amount of money they stole. They probably won't see any prison time. You could be right, Bobbbiez. I won't beat this to death, but it seems the Rome guys were caught red-handed, and so I don't know why the DA might think he could possibly lose the case, one reason for taking a plea, unless the pair was "over indicted." And sure, the county will save money by avoiding a trial, but I would think this case should have been used as an example and a warning to public officials everywhere. Here officials are moaning they don't have public confidence, and there goes the DA throwing out an excellent opportunity to show someone is watching and is willing to punish. Without jail time, the criminals inspire the same eye-rolling derision as convicted company executives whose fines are paid by their board of directors, financed by canceling the Christmas Bonus for the rest of the employees. How old is this MacNamarra dude, by the way? Did I go to school with him or a brother? |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 8, 2009 22:20:21 GMT -5
Dave, by all means, I do totally agree with you. Just the way the system works. I don't agree with any plea bargaining. I firmly believe, "you do the crime, you do the time." Guess the system has to change and maybe there will be less crimes if one knows they'll do the max if caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jan 8, 2009 23:50:22 GMT -5
I was not saying that anyone implied that in this particular case. I was just saying that it is OFTEN implied that any sort of government bidding process is rigged and crooked. Some strategizing and playing of the game is sometimes necessary to accomplish the end result that is needed, but it can, and is, done within the parameters of the rules and regulations in most cases.
What has happened at DDSO is not the norm. That is all I was implying, but I guess I was rather vague in my meaning of the statement. Those involved should be prosecuted and fired. They give other government workers a bad name. You worked for a school district Dave. YOU were honest. I worked for the feds, and I was honest. It is the political system that covers the asses of the crooks like these that perpetuates the criminal use of the contracting system. Burn a few asses and the crap will come to a halt. Giving Joe Blow a contract will not be so damned glorious if you face 5 to 15 when caught up in a scandal.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Jan 12, 2009 17:38:18 GMT -5
How old is this MacNamarra dude, by the way? Did I go to school with him or a brother? Probably his grandfather. He's quite young -- and he continues to make what I think are serious blunders. |
|
