What
you see isn’t always what you getSometimes
what you see isn’t always what you get. 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!