 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Editorials
Thursday’s Lancaster Bee, the town of Lancaster’s official newspaper, headlined their Editorial with “Supervisor followed all rules in obtaining new SUV.” Well, did he?
According to the Bee, “Giza has been criticized for buying the $27,000 vehicle through county bid instead of putting it out for public bid. He had the choice of using a pre-approved state or county bid list and if he didn’t, then the purchase would have had to go out for bids because it was greater than $10,000.”
The Bee states that that a resident (the writer) and Councilman Dan Amatura said that the purchase should have been offered in a resolution and put out for public bid.
The Bee also states that a vehicle for the supervisor was a line item in this year’s budget, to which Amatura voted “yes in November of 2007. “Since Giza followed the rules on completing the purchase, no confusion should exist.”
“Furthermore, if residents had such issues with the purchase, why didn’t they come out during the public hearing about the budget to voice their concerns?”
The Bee claims that several residents also have questioned whether the supervisor should have a town vehicle.
The Bee closes with, “We’re all for protecting taxpayer money, accountability of elected officials and questioning representatives about the town’s finances. Turning some of the questions into faux controversies is nothing but counterproductive.”
Comments
I thought that after asking some questions on the purchase of the vehicle at the last board meeting the matter would be dropped. Apparently, for some reason the Bee decided to defend the town’s action in the matter, or were used again by the town to silence its critics.
Since the Bee decided to take sides, without questioning Amatura or myself on the matter, I feel the need to respond.
August 5th town board meeting
The following were some of the comments I made and the questions I asked Supervisor Robert Giza at the last town board meeting:
Chowaniec declared that several residents had brought up in his presence the purchase of the Supervisor’s new vehicle.
Chowaniec: How were you able to receive delivery of the new vehicle when a resolution to purchase such vehicle was never put before the board for approval?
Supervisor Giza: Well, it was in the budget. We got it through a county bid.
Chowaniec: But doesn’t it state in General Municipal Law 103 that any vehicle that is purchased by the town for any department you have to go through the State’s bidding process?
Supervisor Giza: I am not aware of any law like that. When he looked over to Town Attorney John Dudziak he got a shrug of the shoulders.
Bid process
According to General Municipal Law 103, an item under a state or county bid is exempt from the public bid process. Therefore, did Giza do anything illegal by going to county bid and purchasing a Tahoe from Joe Basil Chevrolet in Depew? Technically, not! The town seems to modify its own policies and practices from time to time to suit its best interests.
But did the town indeed follow its own Town of Lancaster Procurement Policy it adopted in August 2005, where then Councilman Robert Giza voted “yes” (and who now denies knowledge of the policy).
According to section B of that document: All purchases of supplies or equipment which shall exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in the fiscal year or public works contracts over twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) shall be formally bid pursuant to Section 103 of the General Municipal Law.
It appears from language stated later that multiple bids were required to assure low purchase prices were attained. It also states in Section E of the document: A good faith effort shall be made to obtain the required number of proposals or quotations.
What is not being answered is whether the town ever inquired as to purchase price from Hoselton Chevrolet in Fairport New York which has the state bid contract?
And if Giza was truly interested in saving taxpayers money, what would have been wrong in looking at the open market where dealers today are dumping such vehicles and customers are getting anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000 in savings – especially for end of year model. In other words, was the best deal had?
Did he do the “legal” thing? Of course! Did he do the right thing to save taxpayers money? That’s what’s being asked and not answered. Why was it so important to purchase this vehicle from Joe Basil Chevrolet?
When councilman Amatura asked Giza on the nature of the purchase of the Building Inspector’s vehicle in 2007, Giza explained there was a mix up because the vehicle (Equinox) was also purchased from Joe Basil and that the county doesn’t have a contract bid for that type vehicle.
“It was corrected”, Giza says. “It was a comedy of errors.” Many of us are not laughing!
“NORMALLY, the state or county is the cheapest way to go,” says Giza. That is normally true, but the town has purchased police cars for less than state bid from Delacy Ford. The smart thing, the right thing would have been to test the open market. Why indeed was Joe Basil Chevrolet chosen?
Did the Bee reporter ever call the state or county to check on the bids?
Did the Bee reporter ever speak with Amatura? I don’t remember him saying at anytime during the recent board meeting that the purchase was illegal.
As I did, he questioned the bid process and said that in the past the town received lower bids by having multiple bids and that the town should have approved the purchase by resolution as that was the normal procedure.
The smart thing, the right thing would have been to test the open market. Why indeed did the bid go through the county and the purchase contract go to Joe Basil Chevrolet?
Purchase by resolution
It is indeed the norm for the Town Board to approve purchases over $5,000, to approve contracts, etc. by resolution. There have been several instances in the past where contracts were entered into without board resolution that needed later correction.
Purchases of police vehicles, highway vehicles and equipment all come through the bidding process and then approved by resolution.
An example of such process was the request by the highway department for a new truck. Highway Superintendent Richard Reese wrote to the Town Board the following on December 11, 2007:
As per the budget for 2008, I budgeted for the purchase of a new truck to replace the truck we use to tow the chipper. At this time, I am requesting that a resolution be sponsored to purchase a new 2008 Chevrolet 4500.
Supervisor Giza and our Town Attorney state the money to buy the Supervisor’s vehicle was in the budget and that by approving the budget Councilman Amatura should have known that he was approving the purchase. By past practices, I believe the purchase should have to be approved formally by resolution.
However, for the Bee to declare that residents had an opportunity to comment on the purchase of the vehicle at budget time is ludicrous; especially when the expenditure is listed in line item form?
Under budget line A1220.220, $25,000 was budgeted for the purchase of “Passenger Vehicle” in the Supervisor portion of the budget; no explanation given as to nature of vehicle or use. At the time, it was a reasonable request and there was no need for challenge.
Challenges to purchase
To my knowledge, no one has challenged Supervisor Giza on his need for a take home vehicle. They do take issue with a seven year-old vehicle having 70,000 miles on it. It appears to some that the vehicle was being used for more than work related travel.
The Bee found it necessary to point out that residents expect the Supervisor to be on call 24/7 and even call him at home during all hours. Perhaps he shouldn’t make himself so available by telling everyone he meets, including students at board meetings, “Stop in my office anytime, on anything or call me.”
Had residents the opportunity to voice concerns on the purchase of a $32,000 Tahoe, they would most likely have asked:
• Why a gas guzzling, $32,000 vehicle with all the bells and whistles?
• Why does the Supervisor need a tank-like vehicle to go into places that should be under the jurisdiction and management of town departments assigned for such matters? Customarily, managers report to CEOS. Shouldn’t this be considered micromanaging?
• Was there only one bid, as it appears to be the case?
• Why a county bid? Is it because the state bid contract doesn’t cover Tahoes?
• Outside of the Lancaster purchase, how many other contract bids has the county received for a Tahoe?
• What was so wrong with the Durango that it was not serviceable, drivable and brought only $4,000 in trade in on the purchase of a $32,000 vehicle?
But according to the Lancaster Bee, “Turning some of those questions into faux controversies is nothing but counterproductive.”
At a time when the economy is in decline, when the state is in fiscal crisis, when people are expected to do more with less, when other municipalities are questioning the reasoning and use of take home vehicles and associated costs, when town budget time is near, it is considered by the Bee counterproductive for taxpayers to question why their tax dollar are being spent for a SUV that sticker prices in the low $30’s to mid $40’s.
The Bee should consider spending more ink on what takes place at Town and Village(s) board meetings instead of defending the Supervisor on matters such as this!
© Copyright 2008 by Speakupwny.com
Top of Page
|
|
|
Editorials
Latest Headlines
|
|
Buffalo NY Web hosting By OnLineMedia, Inc
www.olm1.com
Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com
[where: 14206]
|