Sunday, June 8, 2014

LATE SUNDAY- COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY



I  was confident that if I went to the Council meeting Monday night (June 9) that it would be a short one despite the long list of 41 resolutions. Post-election exhaustion would keep down too much bickering and grandstanding.  

I would have been right since the Court House will be empty while supposedly the political parties regroup. The Agenda Fixing Session is Tuesday, June 10!

Mapp is requesting the appointment of   9 to the Cultural and Heritage Commission. The Council will continue its often expressed position of cooperation with the Mayor by placing this on the agenda for approval.

Even before the 23 liquor licenses renewal resolutions are OK’d the Council will get down to the meat of the meeting.

For a change there are only 4 resolutions emanating from the Council; one approving a bingo/raffle license, one memorial resolution (Rivers), one congratulatory (Taylor) and one which must have escaped the eyes of the Council’s fiscal watchdogs. That one approved an additional $687.50 for their budget Consultants, Government Strategy Group. Although the resolution “hiring” them had a not to exceed limit it appears that there was unfunded time to appear at the Council Budget hearing meeting (3 hours + phone calls and preparation).

Two other resolutions authorize payments for commitments made and signed by Sharon in 2013. One (Z3) is for$1700.00 to Language Line Interpreter Services for “all WIC clients. This was signed by her on 8/23/13 and runs to Sept 30, 2014.

The other (Z5) with only a typewritten signature by the then Mayor is to exercise a Grant agreement with the Union County Arts Program for the Senior Center. For the period from 1/1/15 to12/31/15. Although the numbers are confusing, I believe that the City’s responsibility is only for $5,000.00.  No explanation why in 2013 a lame duck mayor would make a commitment not for 2014 but 2015.

Once again are fiscal watchdogs find no problem in approving transactions that were not in compliance with the city code; no matter how small the sums are.

There is a resolution approving a retroactive increase of 1.25% COLA for the Firemen Mutual Benevolent Association-Officers Association.

There are two resolutions awarding contracts to “Defender Emergency Production” one as low bidder $24875.00 and the other as the high of three bidders at $41927.25. All had three bidders under the “fair and open process”. There was one bidder in the first contract that was disqualified as “non- responsive” (sic) as was the two lower bidders for the other contract.  

I for one do not understand what an “un-responsive” bidder is.
Other resolutions seem to be normal business.

Of the five Ordinances introduced under first reading, one mandates the taping and broadcasting of ALL Council meetings and hearings. Another requires direct deposit of salaries for all employees except for temporary ones ad seasonal employees who can opt it.

2 comments:

  1. A non- responsive bidder does not meet all of the requirements of the bid documents. For example, if the bidder does not submit a required bid bond, then that bidder is "non-responsive." A bid package may have quite a few required documents and it is not unusual to have bidders try to sneak a bid through while missing one or more documents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Michael for the explanation. We are not too old not to learn something new.

      Delete