Take for instance, a seemingly innocent
request last week by the county’s purchasing department to “
Take all appropriate action to accept negotiated contract
from Ernie Croucher Auctioneers for auctioneering services
pursuant to Q06-002.”
Since this auctioneering service has done
business with the county, apparently satisfactorily, for
quite some time, this should have been a “done deal.”
Not so, instead this particular agenda
item evoked more discussion than those dealing with much
larger issues.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Tom Stavinoha
brought forth an amended contract option to limit the
contract to two years; questioned the advertising costs
associated with county auctions because the auctioneer has
an existing web page which advertises forthcoming auctions
and then made sure that the auctioneering contract did not
include an automatic renewal clause at the end of the
two-year contract.
Stavinoha basically got his way and the
court, after a very lengthy discussion, agreed to a two-year
contract with a 30-day opt-out clause for the county at the
end of each year. Stavinoha had wanted an open 30-day
opt-out by both parties, but Gilbert Jalomo, the county’s
purchasing agent, reminded the court that it took some time
to prepare for an auction and should the auctioneer have a
30-day opt out option it could put the county in a serious
lurch if the firm decided to opt out in the midst of a
planned auction.
Jalomo also noted that while the
auctioneering firm has a website and does list forthcoming
auctions, the advertising costs are fully discussed by his
office and the auctioneer prior to any auction.
He noted that an auction where
automobiles and surplus county equipment is up for bids
would need more exposure while an auction for old chairs
would need less and those issues are brought up and decided
upon prior to the advertising being placed.
Apparently satisfied, the court voted on
the various changes and for at least a year the county will
continue to use the services of the firm.
Pinching pennies?
On a different note, but equally as
interesting, last week seemed to be a penny pinching session
at court. Another item, from Precinct 1 Constable A.J. Dorr,
requesting court approval to use from the county’s
contingency fund to purchase a $200 printer, also brought
scrutiny from Stavinoha.
In fact, even after the motion was
amended to a request for $106, instead of the original $200,
Stavinoha wanted to know why these funds had to come out of
contingency and couldn’t be taken from another segment of
Dorr’s existing budget.
When Jim Edwards, the county’s budget
director, explained that existing excess funds from
automobiles had actually been “swept” into the county
contingency but now had to be allocated by the court for
different use, Stavinoha seemed satisfied enough to vote for
the measure.
It is always amazing that a gazillion
dollars is allocated to various projects with nary a
whimper, but some of the tiniest requests can prompt
marathon discussions. You just never know when it comes to
who on the court has an agenda that simply doesn’t go along
with an agenda item!
