NEWS UPDATE: October 7, 2014
Because there was NOT due diligence performed when this contract was awarded, Mullett taxpayers have now been hit with an additional $2,500 dollars to replace some now "discovered" rotted roof decking and overlay with OSB sheeting.
TOTAL Cost now for this NO bid contract = $12,960.13
It was only two months ago that this blog commented on the continuing failure by Supervisor MaryAnne Gale and the Mullett Board to adopt a formal bid and procurement policy.
"Local contractors won't bid on jobs because she ignores the need for a formal, written and adhered to, bid and procurement policy. She continues to throw work and purchases to whatever name pops into her head or crony that has her favor at the moment."
This poor practice was demonstrated again when through disregard or neglect by Supervisor Gale's last two maintenance employees, an interior ceiling in the entrance of the "old school house" was found to have "fallen down" due to a roof leak. If we left our roof leak until the ceiling fell down, would the repair then become an "emergency"?
Apparently yes for Supervisor MaryAnne Gale. When the Mullett Board's usual go-to contractor was booked until late fall, she contacted ONE (1) contractor for a quote. Yes, one contractor. She followed this one contractor down the merry path and was told the damage was apparently everywhere. Not just the damaged ceiling but water damage to walls and possibly "mold"!
This one consult resulted in a "motion to have the roof replaced on the Old School" by J L Construction Co."with 29ga. metal roofing rib style, using ice and water material, trash removal and labor included at a cost of $7,957.04 and also cupola with new metal roof and siding and floor at a cost of $2,503.09."
That is a $10,460.13 job contracted for with taxpayer funds without benefit of a second opinion of the repairs needed or solicitation for competitive bids. Would you personally be so cavalier spending $10,000 of your own money? Not me. My recent personal experience with several local tree service companies, all reputable, found the exact same work requested varied in cost by over 60%. Yes, the first firm quoted 60% more than the lowest quote and none had knowledge of the other amounts quoted. That is why our local Mullett Board needs to adopt a formal bid and procurement policy.
Was this $10,000+ job competitively priced? Was it too high? Was it fair? Was it even needed as quoted? We don't know because Supervisor MaryAnne Gale was apparently too busy or too disinterested to seek a second opinion.
Immediately following the Mullett Board's decision to award a $10,000+ no bid contract, Supervisor MaryAnne Gale and the Board does a flip-flop. After awarding several no-bid jobs to one local tree service, they decide this time to seek bids from three "selected" area tree services. Why? Because another tree service company rightfully asked why is all the business going to one tree company? Why MaryAnne? Can you answer why? Is it cronyism or another example of Supervisor MaryAnne Gale's "disservice" to the taxpayers of Mullett Township?
It is definitely not the definition of "fiduciary duty", spending money as of it were their own, as defined and required by law.
From US Legal.com:
"governments at the local, state, and federal level are all obligated to adhere to a significant body of law designed to ensure that 1) taxpayer money is spent wisely, 2) contracts are not awarded for less-than-legitimate reasons, and 3) all businesses are provided with a fair opportunity to make their case for the contract in question. Because government buyers are expected to spend taxpayer money wisely, their purchases are usually subject to significant oversight. Formal procurement rules are established to prevent both the reality and appearance of favoritism."
