Middletown Ohio


Find us on
 Google+ and Facebook


 

Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us
Saturday, April 27, 2024
FORUM CITY SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Holy cow! And the winner is:
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Holy cow! And the winner is:

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Holy cow! And the winner is:
    Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 6:06am

I was able to catch the last few hours of the 01/06/2009 city council meeting and I was amazed.

(Let me warn you, towards the end of this report, I will actually say something good about Mayor Lawrence P. Mulligan, Jr.!!!)

There were several hours of presentation by the three bidders, including questions by city council members.

As usual, the slide presentations were not legible for TVMiddletown viewers nor were the slides of same available in the online workbooks.

However, based strictly on the presentations (but ignoring the illegible slides), in my estimation the best presentation was made by Nelson & Associates, who were rated tops by the “committee”, by the City Manager, and were the also the lowest qualified bidder at $2.167 million. Second in my judgment, again based just on tonight’s presentation was CGI Technologies, who were rated the second choice by the “committee”, by the City Manager, and were the second lowest qualified bidder at $2.407 million. Both of these companies indicated that there might be some room to negotiate, and the City Manager’s final recommendation was for council to authorize negotiations with both firms, with Nelson as the leading contender.

Strangely enough, the worst of the three presentations (as far as proposal presentations go) was CONSOC’s, the present Section 8 administrator, and also highest of the three bidders by about a half million dollars at $2.669 was by far the most interesting!!!

CONSOC’s presentation, by their own admission, was all DEFENSIVE!!! In fact, CONSOC embarrassed city hall by pointing out (and backing up with copies of memos) that all of the supposed “issues” that led up to the administration of the Section 8 program going out for bids were BOGUS and that CONSOC was being made the SCAPEGOAT!!! After several “bushes” were quite effectively “beat around” four or five times each, it became apparent, but left unsaid, that our old friend Kommander Kohler was actually the big problem!!!

Once that fact became unavoidable, the old: “we can’t look back, we must only look forward!!” mantra began ringing out. (You know the one. We hear it every time it becomes obvious that someone at city hall should be fired or prosecuted.)

Then, right after the city manager suggested that council take a few days to mull over the three presentations, suddenly councilman Moe…oops, I mean Marconi, moves to award the contract to CONSOC, the HIGHEST BIDDER!!!.

After a short discussion, the motion carried, 4-3! The roll?? Marconi, Armbuster, Schiavone, and Becker: AYE! Scott-Jones, Ford, and Lawrence P. Mulligan, Jr.: NAY!

For the very first time since BEFORE his election, I was actually in agreement with Mr. Mulligan. Before the vote, he actually did deliver some of the financial prowess that he campaigned upon 15 months ago. He questioned the wisdom of going with the HIGHEST bidder in these troubled fiscal times. Congratulations, Mr. Mulligan, on your correct, even though hesitant, NO vote! Thumbs%20Up

PS: CITY COUNCIL is watching us! One city council member actually admitted reading “some of the city council blogs”!!! Could she have been referring to us??? 

So, will CONSOC’s bid be negotiated down, or UP? Will the “extra” half million needed to go with the HIGHEST bidder be found “tucked away in one of our other funds”? Will Kommander Kohler be called on the carpet? Will Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean be seen skulking around in the dark in CONSOC’s file room? Will anyone question the strange “bidding” process wherein the “winner“ is the HIGHEST qualified bidder??

Be sure to tune in for the next EPISODE of:

THE NUMB AND THE FECKLESS!

Back to Top
VietVet View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VietVet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 6:57am
We now know who to eliminate from City Council when their turn to run comes up. Marconi, Schiavone, Armbruster and Becker are the targets voters. I think Marconi's decision to retain CONSOC was a hurry up, " it's 11PM, let's get the heck out of here" type decision. After 6 hours, just blurt out a name, any name and let's go home. Another Marconi out of control, knee jerk reaction decision. Enough is enough of this group running the city. Mike, Lawrence P. Mulligan the Third also said the "city has a clear direction" which is a trademark remark for him when finalizing any situation. Fairly passive remark for just participating in a 6 hour deal that landed Council right back where they started- CONSOC- highest bidder with a communication problem history with city administration. Couple that with him being on the short end of the stick on the vote. No dessenting comments from him. No fight in him at all,is there? Doesn't make sense to select this company. Isn't it about time, that certain members of this Council stop letting other members push them around? There are some very strong willed characters on Council- I won't name names- (Marconi- Becker-Schiavone)( Armbruster will go along with anything, just wake him up when it's voting time) that use their stronger personalities to overrun the weaker personalities on this Council who are apparently too afraid to say anything in opposition, even when some decisions are clearly wrong. Some of you- get some    in you!
Back to Top
spiderjohn View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2749
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote spiderjohn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 9:20am
I'm with you here Vet--as long as we have BETTER candidates on the ballot.
And we had better put something of serious substance together and quickly, because I can smell rumblings under the surface where the same group that stockpiled $60,000 to run Mulligan,Becker(both of whom would have won without a dime) and Lawrence will be ramping up an organized effort to back ward candidates in tune with their current "stay the course--all is well" logic. Seems this group, through Council, is "re-aligning" the city boards and committees, eliminating a few faces and voices who they don't particularly favor, even after these same citizens have performed their volunteer responsibilities constructively.
 
Credit to Ms.Ford,Ms.Scott Jones and our Mayor for dissenting.
No problem with the others voting their mind either.
A choice was made, though is total disagreement to city-appointed committee and City Admin preference.
 
Mr.Marconi is a good man and accessible public servant who seems to vary in his direction.
Mr.Becker has vocalised strong reasoning behind his actions. I am ok with him as long as he is not part of an overwhelming like-minded majority.
 
I am telling you all(actually WARNING) that there will be an attempt by the Darth Vader group to pack this next Council,boards and committees as to where any outside thinking will be even more ignored.
 
Well--I assume that if we can find an extra $500,000 to fund COUNCIL'S choice to run localized Section 8, then we can find an extra $100,000-$200,000 to keep our excellent local Health Dept. intact.
Back to Top
Bwood View Drop Down
MUSA Resident
MUSA Resident
Avatar

Joined: Oct 29 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 122
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bwood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 11:12am
"we can't look back, we must only look forward"

Some of the worst advice anyone could ever give someone working in government. I say, always look back, find your mistakes, fix them, and never repeat them.
Looking for news or information on display technology? If so Visit the Monitor Blog
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 11:25am
Originally posted by Bwood Bwood wrote:

"we can't look back, we must only look forward"

Some of the worst advice anyone could ever give someone working in government. I say, always look back, find your mistakes, fix them, and never repeat them.
 
Thumbs%20UpThumbs%20Up BINGO, Bwood!!!
 
One can NOT fix a problem until one discovers exactly what (or WHOM) that problem IS!!!
Back to Top
VietVet View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VietVet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 12:34pm
Spider-I would like to respond to your post by addressing some of your comments to match my thinking-- Yes, credit Scott-Jones, Ford and (it's killing me to admit it?) Mulligan for the correct decision in a losing cause. Just wish they would have made an effort to emphasize their position in a more "insistent" manner. Mr. Marconi- he's my ward rep and I have spoken to him a few times. He is very cordial, both on the phone and when speaking face to face on most subjects. When he is not sitting behind that Council desk, he appears ok to approach, but I guess he puts on his "power face" during Council meetings and takes on a new demeanor of "his way or the highway" when making decisions. He loves to dominate a conversation when playing Councilman approaching the point of being obnoxious. Becker- I disagree- He IS and always was "an overwhelming like-minded majority member". I can't see any redeeming value in his approach and his thinking. He is a solid "Darth Vader" member and , based on his attitude demonstrated during his tenure as street repair committee chair, is also obnoxious, egotistical, stubborn and refuses to recognize any "outsider" opinion. I really don't like the man at all. The " Darth Vader" group can spend all the money they want on their candidates. They can exclude all outsiders on committees,boards, etc. they want. The key for the " outsiders" is to rally the non-Vader voters in such numbers as to overwhelm the Vader candidate voters with the end result being the replacement of the majority of the Council (and School Board) to gain controlling votes for another direction in all aspects of this city.( We "outsiders" all know this, of course) Perhaps, if all goes well, we can replace these people who have brought this city to it's knees. For the sake of the city, it needs to happen soon.
Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 7:04pm

Mike you are exactly right about last night.  I also happen to turn on the TV just as the Section 8 presentations started and watched all 3 of them.  Just on the presentations Nelson & Associates was by far the best choice for this contract.  On Cost I would give it to Nelson also.

Consoc's presentation was just as you described it, basically they were in defensive mode the whole time and Kohler ended up on the Hot Seat.  Personally I think he has been the driving force behind the whole Section 8 debacle all along.  Kohler has basically become the City Managers go to person I hear so I wouldn't hold my breath on Kohler leaving anytime soon.

I found it very interesting when Council wanted to hear from Kohler, but the City Manager about came out of her Chair and put a stop to that.  I am sure they are re-grouping now on what Kohler will say if he is ever questioned about Consoc's claims.
 
Several things I found interesting:
 
1)  It is my understanding that all 3 of the companies involved were provided the others bids and told to give their best and lowest cost to admin the program.  Consoc came in about $500k higher than the lowest qualified bid and still got the nod.  I am still shaking my head at that one.
 
2)  Understanding that the City Manager and Consultants and Committees recommendations are just that Council still chose to ignore all of them.  This puzzles me as to why even bother with any of them, is it just for show or just a waste of time or both.
 
3)  When the City Manager requested that Council chose 2 firms to negotiate with, I fail to understands Councils reluctance to do this.   The Council just once again blew her off. The way it has ended up why would Consoc even bother to negotiate other than maybe to throw in a 5% decrease just for show.  By having the lowest bidder who was also qualified negotiating at the same time you most likely would have gotten a better deal.  If this was supposedly Consoc's best price after seeing all of the other bids......I just don't get it.  I understand these funds are not coming from the General Fund but from the Federal Government, but this does not make sense in the way Council is handling it.
 
4)  A second motion was made, after Marconi's motion to go ahead with Consoc passed, asking that a second firm to be chosen by council to be negotiated with at the same time as Consoc and I fail to understand Council not passing this motion as it would have added nothing to the time that will be needed to negotiate with Consoc and probably saved some $$$$$. 
 
5)  There seems to be something going on with Consoc and Council that just isn't kosher.  I don't know what but this just seems wrong the way this has ended up.  There were no significant reasons given that I saw for choosing Consoc when they were so much higher than Nelson, other than they have been doing it for 17-19 years.  Mulligan was exactly right in his speech just before the vote and he spoke well about what he thought should happen.  Marconi ranted and Becker and Schiavone said little or nothing of substance, Armbruster well he was there.
 
For Ms. Scott-Jones you continue to talk about Forbes and each time you seem to be locked onto one thing the lack of residents with College degrees.  The Forbes article mentioned Poverty, Education, Wages, Jobs etc.  For any business coming to Middletown 22% below poverty level is a deal breaker, maintaining the Section 8 program as it currently is in Middletown adds to the bottom line of Poverty in Middletown.   When I came to Middletown poverty was at 12% and I deemed that acceptable as a business owner to operate a business in Middletown.  At 22% and most likely rising it is no longer viable for many small businesses.   If the City Council continues on it's current path it will destroy what remains of this town in short order.  Council needs to adopt a new Mantra of, "DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE" to get Middletown back on its feet.   Failure to do that will result in the demise of Middletown in the not to distant future.

 

Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 9:22pm
EnjoyExclamation
 
Section 8 CGI Presentation
 
 
Section 8 Consoc Presentation
 
 
Section 8 Nelson & Associates Presentation
 
 
 
Back to Top
MadisonMom View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Dec 09 2008
Location: MadisonTownship
Status: Offline
Points: 298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MadisonMom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 07 2009 at 10:32pm
You guys are killing !!!! So much reading........I will check out TVM. I would swear to anyone that all of you guys are politicians.
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2009 at 3:39am
Originally posted by MadisonMom MadisonMom wrote:

I would swear to anyone that all of you guys are politicians.
 
Well, I never...Shocked!!!
 
If you don't like us, FINE!!!  But there is no need to INSULT us like THAT!!! 
 
LOL LOL LOL 
Back to Top
VietVet View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VietVet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2009 at 7:12am
Gee M Mom- why don't you just tie us up on the railroad tracks and wait for the train to come. POLITICIANS??? I echo Mike's- Well, I never!!! No, some of us are just "outsiders" who haved lived in this city since the early 50's and have seen "not for the better" changes made over the years and we're not too happy about them nor with the people who created the changes.
Back to Top
VietVet View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VietVet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2009 at 7:26am
Hey Mike- saw your message on the other site. I agree with your stance. It doesn't make any sense to award the bid to CONSOC because " there's no compelling reason to change". Weak reason. As you stated, a half mil isn't a compelling reason???? In a town strapped for money???? When money is needed for roads???? When water mains are breaking on Marshall and Manchester Roads???? How about the notion that by choosing CONSOC over the lower priced services, that perhaps,just perhaps, a few people in this city are receiving fed money from CONSOC to fit into their pocket??? Or pushing Section 8 clients their way as landlords???       Naw, probably not!
Back to Top
.308 View Drop Down
MUSA Resident
MUSA Resident


Joined: Aug 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .308 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2009 at 9:37am

Like others have said when we boil this section 8 issue down to its core I think it should be pretty obvious what the citizens want. It’s not that we want everyone in the city to have a certain income level. It’s not that we object to those in need receiving assistance. It’s the disproportionate congregation of that demographic in our town.  And that’s a problem whose negative side effects reach so far and wide that they should not need enumerating.

One last comment about CONSOC that having worked in sales myself I can understand what they are doing. When working with a customer who has been a problem, whose job has been in one way or another considerably more difficult to manage or deliver than your average customer, you don’t really care if you get the next sale. When asked to bid the next job for that customer you raise your price. You spill the beans and blurt out how difficult the client has been to work with and you take every opportunity to point out that you have been made the scapegoat for the failings of others.

Been there, done that. And its ALWAS been a government entity as from experience few privately owned corporations ever become so mucked up to get themselves in that situation in the first place.

So if it’s more of the same I hope both sides can learn from their mistakes. Becaue something has to change.

Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2009 at 9:50am

'No compelling reason to change' Section 8 administrators

By Ed Richter

Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Four members of Middletown City Council said the deciding factor to keep the current Section 8 program administrator was that there was not a compelling reason to change.

Council voted 4-3 on Tuesday, Jan. 6, to negotiate a three-year contract with CONSOC Housing Consultants of Columbus to administer the city's $9.74 million federally funded program of 1,662 housing choice vouchers.

Councilmen Tony Marconi, Bill Becker, David Schiavone and Vice Mayor Jim Armbruster voted to reject the recommendation of City Manager Judy Gilleland after a committee review of four proposals and vendor interviews.

"The system isn't broken," Marconi said. "CONSOC was doing what they were told to do for years. There was no compelling reason to change just for the need to change.

"We're looking for the best fit for the city and the citizens and I think CONSOC is the best fit."

Schiavone said he never received any complaints from tenants or landlords.

Schiavone was upset after hearing CONSOC's representatives say the city never responded to requests for meetings on the annual administrative plan, as well as with police, court officials and the city prosecutor to discuss several issues.

Schiavone sought an answer from Planning Director Martin Kohler, but Gilleland intervened, saying the council meeting wasn't the appropriate time.

Armbruster said he "hated" to hear CONSOC was told by past city administrations to "fly under the radar" and keep a low profile. He said there are a lot of misconceptions in the community about the Section 8 program.

Becker said he was unaware the administrative plan wasn't approved in 2006, which is when he retired as city manager.

He said it was true that CONSOC was told to keep the program low key. "That's very accurate," Becker said. "We privatized it and ran it that way for years."

While CONSOC's submitted the highest bid, the four council members felt it was close to the program's actual cost and a final amount would be negotiated.

Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 08 2009 at 10:29am
Here are a couple more COMPELLING REASONS:
 
First, these pinheads have just set a terrible precedent!!!  Give me one good reason why ANY potential vendor would bother to work very hard putting together a sharp bid for this city again, knowing that they were bidding against a current vendor with whom the city is satisfied???  I know that I wouldn't.  I've put together proposals, including presentations, such as the ones presented by the two other bidders.  It takes a lot of work, and it costs a fair bit of money, especially when the potential client keeps calling for re-bids, etc.  If I was ever asked to quote to the city of Middletown against a vendor with whom they are satisfied, I guarantee you that I'd throw together a quick SWAG number, multiply it by the age of an old alligator, double it, and then throw in another ton of fat--all BEFORE I added enough profit to choke giant anaconda, then submit the bid in about a two sentence letter.
 
Second, why in the world did they even go out "for bids"???  If they have a majority who believes that, as long as the city is satisfied with a vendor, they should NOT change vendors REGARDLESS of price, then they should NEVER go out "for bids" again!!!  In the future, when they go out 'for bids" they should DIS-ALLOW bids from the current vendor, since they "see no reason to change" regardless of price unless they are dis-pleased with the current vendor!!!  They should be asking potential vendors to submit:  "REASONS (other than price) WHY WE SHOULD RUN OFF OUR PRESENT VENDOR AND FAVOR YOU WITH AN ORDER INSTEAD!!!
 
Third, what they did was certainly unethical, and probably was ILLEGAL!!!  I'll wager that there was nothing in the instructions to bidders that indicated that the award would be based on "reasons to change vendors".  It has been quite a while since I've reviewed th ORC laws regarding competitive bidding, but I am fairly certain, that "no compelling reason to change" is NOT among the allowable justifications for refusing two LOWER bids ftom QUALIFIED, RESPONSIVE bidders!!!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information