Cheshire's political lexicon (Norton boiler 4)
In my four and a half years on the Council, there was one word that never crossed my mind in relation to local government.
At last Tuesday's Council meeting, that word was officially debuted in Cheshire's political lexicon:This Norton boiler imbroglio has already cost the taxpayers $70,000 via the screwed up bid process. There's also going to be legal fees and staff time* and of course, if the new boiler was installed last summer... we would have had a more efficient boiler that would have used less oil this past winter.
Considering the words that are being used in relation to the Boiler Imbroglio, I'm sure the Council will want to get a handle on all these additional costs.
Tim White
* staff time is money... remember how concerned some Council members were about my suggestion for the Bubble Study group... some Council members were up-in-arms over the cost of staff time.
13 comments:
I can't wait for boilergate.
Boilergate has already begun. I'm just not sure what we should call it? Boilergate would be so boilerplate! (hahaha... alright, that was bad.)
Several names have popped into my head, but I can't settle on one. Even Shenanigate (which I really liked) came to me after several other weak efforts (termgate, apologygate, etc.)
"Boiler Imbroglio" isn't anything great. Do you have suggestions besides boilergate?
Tim, Explain something if you can. Once the second bid was voted on and approved by the Town Council, where along the way and WHO decided to throw out that bid and go out for a third bid? There was no TC meeting where you guys voted to cancel the deal and go out for a third bid. Maybe I don't understand the bid process, but once you vote to accept a bid, that should be the end of it, or it should come back to the council if there's some problem.
Maybe I don't understand the bid process, but once you vote to accept a bid, that should be the end of it, or it should come back to the council if there's some problem.
See the Town Charter here, section 7-8 Purchasing - C - 6:
"If the lowest bidder meets all specifications, is responsive, and, if applicable, qualified, but the bid is not acceptable to the Manager, the Public Building Commission, or the Board of Education, the matter must be referred to the Council for its decision on whether to reject all bids, to accept a higher bid, or to take such other action as may be in the best interests of the Town."
But we don't follow Robert's Rules of Order. We follow Robert's Rules of Rubber Stamping... which have invariably led to the Boiler Imbroglio. And will undoubtedly lead to more wastes of time and money as long as we continue taking direction from staff, rather than from the voters.
these aren't the droids you're looking for. move along.
Some lame duck Town Council members might be the answer.
This is a case of "boiler busted". Here's how it happens. Carelessness on the part of paid town officials and certain boards and commission members and chair apparently open to "suggestion" allowing for last minute changes in specs to arrive at a suitable and cozy outcome for a local heating and plumbing supplier.
Here's where it usually happens...Waterbury, the DOT and state government.
We live where it must not happen!
The money should come from the public works budget. Drop the hammer!
And thats the bottom line because FUBAR says so!
3:06 I really want to be careful with this whole topic. So I edited your comment and reposted here.
Tim, I hope with this "investigation" that someone asks the question "who gave the $10,000 to the Education Foundation to fund the turf study?"
The whole thing is really beginning to stink! And we all know this turf study is going to be "fixed".
Many questions should be asked and many answers will come out when this matter is litigated.
It should also be alright to ask, "and is there any connection with who gave the money for the turf study and the bids for the boiler job." No names mentioned of course.
Hotwatergate.
I like it... definitely better than boiler imbroglio or boilergate.
Post a Comment