Friday, April 25, 2008

The "45 day" clause (Norton boiler 3)

For me, one of the critical issues to be considered in the Norton boiler mess (that has already cost the town an additional $70,000!) is the "45 day" clause. As the Herald editorialized today:

"The Council did not act within that 45-day window and Connecticut Combustion decided to raise their price, which was well within their right since it was spelled out in plain English in the contract."
But use your own judgment on the words spoken and the documents signed. And I suggest you start by watching the Feb 13, 2008 meeting video (go to the 0:56:30 to 0:57:30 segment) to hear for yourself that the 45 day clause "wasn't obvious": Then watch this one minute clip from the April 22, 2008 meeting... to hear my questions on this 45 day clause that "wasn't obvious":Then look at this document and decide for yourself if this 45 day clause "wasn't obvious."
And now the $69,000 question... is it fair to say:
the 45 day clause wasn't obvious?
yes
no
it could be more complicated
pollcode.com free polls
Tim White

10 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

So why didn't they put the contract out for re-bidding once the bidder added the fee? The speaker in the first clip said that's what they'd do.

Tim White said...

6:33 this whole topic needs to have the light of day shed on it. But it's also a pretty sensitive topic... so I feel very strongly about partisanship here, particularly without a name.

Anonymous said...

6:33 you asked whether this was obvious or not. I didn't go to Harvard Law School and I am just one of those bitter blue collar churchgoing type of simple folks. I am starting to wonder if a certain councilperson didn;t go there either, since it wasn't obvious to her.

Anonymous said...

I don't mean to be so cynical, but I don't think town staff expects anyone, especially council members, to cross reference their statements from one meeting to the next. (ergo, they will, and do, tend to say what best suits their purpose at that moment) And let's face, most TC members pay little, if any, attention to details.

Anonymous said...

A perfect example of an issue where Matt Alteri does not want to micro-manage. Should have been this time. It is obvious of the 45 day window, it is many of the contracts. This is nothing more than a failure to do one's job, incompetence or a deliberate attempt to give a job to a local company that has not been successful in getting previous work, you the voters decide.
Ray Charles could have read and understood this contract.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that once the first bids were opened all bets are off. Now everyone knows the bid amounts. The project didn't change did it? If it didn't it leads to many questions. The company that was low bidder has a good case. How can you send out the same project out to bid 3 times???? Just because one pays taxes shoudn't give them the edge. They pay a lot of taxes because they own stuff and it's worth a lot of $$$$$.

tim white said...

I promised to tone down the rhetoric this past week. But so everyone knows, this boiler issue is (IMO) a perfect example of what will continue to happen with a Council that asks no questions... recall when I tried to get Council video on the web, there were charges of "micromanaging" flying around.

Make no mistake... this boiler imbroglio is the direct result of a "culture of no accountability" that exists and was created by a Rubber Stamp Council.

Anonymous said...

State your case and questions and let the public decide. If the public is smart they will vote the people who are incompetent out.

Tim White said...

1:57 Others are better at making the case.