Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Peru council commits to a ground-breaking decision about ground-water analysis costs
The Peru city council on Monday night decided by way of discussion, to move forward and advertise for competitive bids for the service of "groundwater collection and analysis" at its closed landfill sites. EPA requires municipal landfills to abide by "Closure" and "Post Closure" regulations designed to properly isolate and monitor groundwater on and around the facilites for groundwater contamination. Peru Landfills #2 and #3 are currently in post-closure status which requires quarterly collection and analysis of groundwater from a number of sampling wells and leacheate locations. What qualifies this decision as "ground-breaking" is the sad fact that this work has been required by EPA since closure of the landfill facilities in 1996. About $45,000 per year is spent by the city of Peru for analysis services without ever having been subject to competitive bidding as is required by state statute for contracts in excess of $20,000. Not only has this work never been properly and legally "let" to the lowest qualified bidder, there has never even been a legal contract or document describing the scope of work between the city of Peru and the contractor who was "given" the work from day one up to the present time. A span of more than fifteen years void of a legal contract and without the due-diligence of competitive bidding. That contractor was of course TEST, Inc. and the person "giving" the work was of course Don Baker. I would not be at all surprised if at least a few elected officials during the past twenty years were not even made aware of the city's legal obligations of closing its landfills. I suspect Don told them he was taking care of it. That "hand-shake" agreement certainly worked out well for TEST. It's obvious that some of these same elected officials of the last twenty years were also very well aware of their obligation to legally and openly bid city contracts in excess of $20,000. They just chose not to.
Recently, detailed information was provided to the current elected officials which appears to have prompted some of them to move forward with correcting the situation asap. I have been informed by three different elected officials in Peru how this simple, common sense initiative was still being resisted by at least one journeyman alderman. It is just amazing how difficult it is to change a particular mind-set. This is a huge step forward for the city of Peru. Huge.
I can hardly wait to hear some of my favorite bloggers tell us why this break-through is a bad thing for Peru.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
To all - Correction, Peru landfills currently in "Post Closure" are Peru #2 and Peru #3.
This blog regrets the error.
Steve, Are you hoping to get that company contract? Does'nt TEST already have a contract with the City? Do they bid asphalt to fill potholes or the city attorney services? The news article stated that Peru is charged for the actual cost of analysis. Not a profit margin. The city has alot of services like grass cutting, flower planting, snow removal, secretarial, more, more. They all cost over $20,000, would the city bid those services? Not a chance. But you will continue to throw waste at your favorite target TEST. Stick to your real skills. Comedy. You don't happen to TEST waste water on the side, do you?
2:16 PM
Sounds like someone hit a soft spot on your underbelly.
Its about time,. I bet I can guess who the elected official is that doesn't want it to be brought up for bids. One of Bakers Cronies.
I hope this finally goes through. Everything should go out for bids like this. Thank you!
I think that's a nice post Steve. I agree we should be sending out a lot more things for bid than we do. However, was your last statement necessary? Does there always have to be some derogatory comments? Everybody is entitled to their opinion whether we agree with each other or not.
I'm sure Steve made that comment you found offensive based on the past history of some commenters on the blog looking to slash out whenever something is being exposed relating to past history of Peru and try to wiggle out of the fact that they did not do things "according to Hoyle"
Steve: Who introduced this idea and was it voted on? If so, how did the vote go?
I can't wait until bids come in higher than the agreed to costs. Would be even better if test wins the low bid with a higher overall cost.
steve comments like that because he needs to get a life, he is so derogatory to the past administraton, does he think his comments will help his current friend/mayor-i think not, re election cant happen soon enough trust me i am not the only one that feels this way
Steve: If this has been policy since 1996 and no legal contract has existed and it is state regulated why have we waited until 2012 to address this issue?
To 2:16 p.m. - Your examples of what might or might not cost the city $20,000 or more is just silly.
Particularly the part about TEST suggesting to the council that they provide the service without making a profit. That's called "marketing" and if elected officials are unable or unwilling to see through that smoke on behalf of the taxpayers you are destined to end up with a sweet-heart deal just like the one that has been in place for over fifteen years.
Regarding the question at the end of your comment. Thank you so much for asking. The answer is "No" I do not test water or waste-water or ground-water or any other water. Although I do have a habit of sniffing my bottled water after twisting the cap off. Nor does my employer test any kind of water. Nor does anybody in family. Nor do any of my friends. Nor do I have any financial or economic or personal interest in any company or corporation that does in fact test water or waste-water or ground-water or any other water. Do you think that standard could be equalled by every elected official in Peru?
My sole interest is as a taxpayer/ratepayer in the city of Peru who expects every elected offficial in Peru to properly perform their "Due Diligence" in matters of contracts and open bidding in order to get the best possible price for whatever they are purchasing with my money.
Thanks again for asking.
To 2:45 p.m. - I don't think my ending comment rises to the level of derogatory. I admit it is sarcastic and juvenile or childish if you prefer that term. I was always a big fan of Chicago Tribune journalist Mike Royko who used to rip the Daley political machine with an array of smart-ass comments and jabs. Now, I read John Kass (Chicago Trib) who tends to makes his feelings known in a similar fashion. I don't think it qualifies as derogatory.
I enjoy your comments Steve. They are right on. Its too bad you are not on our current council. You would bring a lot to light.
To 6:33 p.m. - The discussion Monday was a "straw poll' if you will, of aldermen weighing in on "if" the council should advertise for bids for this work. All aldermen present, with the exception of Bob Ankiewicz, indicated "verbally" that bids specs should be created and that the project should be competitively bid. Any actual "roll-call" vote to formally proceed will be on an upcoming agenda.
To 7:25 p.m. - I'm right there with you about the excitement and anticipation of seeing the bidding process play out.
Hey, just think of all the giddyness and joy we could have enjoyed if an actual contract had been bid every 3 to 5 years for the past fifteen.
So, you're hoping for higher overall costs? That's weird.
To 8:10 p.m. - It would be an understatement to say that this was one of those situations that has just been allowed to fly far below the radar of most folks for a long, long time. I can only provide you with my opinion as to why it was never conducted openly and properly.
It is liklely that some aldermen, (current and former), were not even aware of all the aspects of regulations and requirements. That's not an excuse, that's a sad reality. And, for those that did have an understanding of their obligation to do the right thing, they simply chose not to. Instead, they chose to "give" the work to a politically connected company with extremely close and personal ties to then mayor Don Baker. Ultimately, any elected official who over the years actually became aware of the situation simply chose not to make it an issue. Either because they themselves succumb to lobbying and perks provided by TEST or because they realized that this is just how Don wants it to be and "so be it".
have to agree with Steve on all of his comments. The city did not fairly bid contracts in the past. someone should pull up the ordinance that requires bidding and hold the current and former alderman to the LETTER OF THE LAW. publicly, if necessary.
Its all about interpretation of the law. I don't believe that the City Attorney was a sleep at the wheel. This is another of those conspiracy ideas that someone throws out of left field and cries fowl. Every week its another coverup. Why is it that none of these so called illegal acts every amount to anything. Nothing ever ,but bitterness toward those past and few selected current elected officials.
If the aldermen failed to follow the LETTER OF THE LAW couldn't the mayor bring up for vote or discussion? Just curious!
Good!!!! Too funny that TEST is breaking ground soon on their 1.5 million dollar building. It's about time the "perks" stopped and they come down to reality!! Things should be done the right way, this isn't chicago!
So you know this is an Administrative issue and not part of the actual TEST contract. Technically the aldermen may have never seen the results only individuals who received them quarterly which I believe would be Chamlin, maybe Clerks office and the Superintendent of public works for payment approval. Second if you have a Company reinvesting $1.5 million in a recession into Peru WHY would you work so diligently to take business away from the local economy? Steve are are you now anti-Peru, anti-small business growth, or just anti-TEST?
Kristy
Food for thought Krusty - TEST thinks no more of you than a cock roach!! Keep up the campaign!
Kristy - I suspect you have been well aware of this "arrangement" between TEST and the city since its inception. If you think it's acceptable for city officials to "pick and choose" what business dealings will be done above board and which will become a "set-aside" for preferred contractors like TEST then you and I have a fundamental disagreement.
I'm not anti-business or anti TEST.
I'm am however, anti-corruption / anti-favoritism / and anti-graft.
The only thing the city of Peru should be "giving" to TEST, Inc. is the opportunity to "earn" the city's money by competing on a level playing field with other interested service prioviders. Any other arrangement is just wrong.
It is obivious to most in the City of Peru that the new twist is to form more of those in-house jobs. Remember the union plumber the city hired? Remember the union involvement in the last few elections? Remember the newly formed 5 or 6 unions our city now has? TEST is a private company that is not a favorite within the players that would like to have their job or at least form some more of those union jobs. Those will always scream corruption or inside deals, thats a common tool for those who want to get rid of the small business private company. Job growth will only happen with the growth of the small business sector. Its proven. Why do these sour Anti-businees individuals always blast the private companies within Peru? The State of Indiana is now supporting a law that will eliminate union dues for public employees. Its time for supporting private sector jobs and outside city services. Shooting bullets and claiming favoritism, corruption, graft is a sad and desperate reality of those anti-business, conspiracy seeking individuals.
Steve,
We both are aware this issue was first acknowledged in 2009 on another blog that I am 100% certain the current administration AND his appointees read, yet the issue is 3 years in passing and FINALLY resurfacing? I am confused because why wasn't the issue immediately addressed when the Mayor or Super took office? Or Clerk or Treasurer?
It is a tragedy when tax dollar funds are not utilized to the greatest advantaged to our community and it is fundamental to determine what exactly is considered an advantage when determining ANY contracts with our City.
Now again why are attacking the business. Isn't it the administration who has the sole authority to change the process and ask for a quote? Why would TEST or any other business ever offer to cut their profits if they were not required to submit documents to the City?
I understand your frustration about the City and not seeking quotes, but the process is 100% better than in years past. But again this is an administrative issue no different than health insurance and pricing. If you are claiming the issue still has not been addressed 3 years later because someone dropped the ball, I would start at the offices on 4th Street for your answers.
Kristy
To 10:13 a.m. - Why are you trying to drag this discussion towards the "non-issue" of unions in Peru.
Stick to the subject matter at hand. Which is, fair and honest "competitive bidding".
Affording "all" private companies and "all" small businesses to participate. There are no city union jobs at stake here.
This is not a union issue in any shape or form. In fact, this is a "Pro-Business" initiative. Promoting the open market through competition.
Your comment is anti-intelligent, but very pro-ignorance. Well done.
Which alderman has a child working for TEST?
For years Chamlin and TEST have always been handed work - no questions asked - that's the way it has always been done, just like the current contract for TEST former Mayor Baker signed right before he left office - It's time to give others a chance! 2:28 it is Bob Ankiwiecz's daughter that works there - Kristy not sure how a business building a building worth 1.5 million is "re-investing" into the local economy?
anon 6:07 1.5 million in local costruction jobs. The payroll that small business places into the economy. Those are just a few of the advantages for our entire community. Engineering is done on a % basis, all have the same %. And a last minute contract deal done by Mayor Baker? Your on the verge of joining our local conspiracy expert! Please consider that some of the authors prefer the fiction posts. It is Comedy. I have to say that the vicious, destructive, ignorance of your comments about involving members of elected officials famalies is sad and desperate. What have you done for your community?
ANON 9:46 - sometimes it is just facts!
Kristy - Not really sure what your point is. As far as your comment about this administration being 100% better than the last in terms of "seeking quotes", I disagree. I would describe the current administration as 50% better than previously. There is still considerable reform to initiate. When you have the task of changing a culture and mind-set that had become accepted by many elected officials, complete reform will not be accomplished in just a few years. In fact, since 2005 I have been convinced that nothing less than "six" election cycles producing "first time" elected officials was the minimum necessary to completely purge the city council of the way of the past. Peru is headed in the right direction in that respect.
Your suggestion that requiring TEST to compete with other service providers amounts is an "attack on business" is a good indicator about your own current mind-set on that issue. Apparently you have some "progressing" to do as well.
Steve, your thoughts on change of government? Very comical! Throughout history governments have changed drastically. I 6 terms, as you have described democracy has been replaced by Socialism in some areas. And in other parts of our world Marxism was replaced by Democracy. If your looking to change Peru to a form of Totalitarian government (control of all aspects of government including the thoughts,ideals,information)your well on your way. Many of the residents of Peru have problems with the current tax, tax, tax, form of City governemnt that you simply blindly call "progress". Can our Seniors,unemployed and fixed income residents continue your pro-tax approach and attacks on small business? Keep up your attacks they only serve as motivation for those that want change.
To 9:39 a.m. - The control of all aspects of government(in Peru)you refer to ended in April of 2009.
What tax, tax, tax form of government are you referring to?
Give us details of all the taxes you are talking about.
Well....We're waiting!
Steve,
Back to my original administrative comment: how many election cycles and mayoral appointments has the City experienced? Who has the authority to appoint? Who has the legal authority within the City of Peru and reviews all contracts and/or ordinances? Regardless of your 6 cycle election assumption, isn't clear to you if you have the same people appointed you have the same administrative mishaps?
Kristy
I don't understand why certain people are having a problem with these contracts going out for bids, isn't that just being fair? If TEST is the lowest bid then they will get the contract if they are not then they shouldn't get it plain and simple - GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!
To 3:44 p.m. - You would think it would just make sense to people wouldn't you?
That's the "culture" and "mind-set" of some (including elected officials) that is so difficult for some people to break out of.
The really amazing thing about it is that in allowing competition TEST will be provided an equal opportunity to compete and earn the city's business.
That same courtesy and fairness had been denied to other qualified bidders.
Right vs. Wrong is not as obvious to some as it is to others.
Kristy - You continue to attempt to give a "pass" to aldermen and their respective committees who are ultimately responsible for perfoming the due diligence in these matters. Of course the mayor and others in the administration including the city attorney are responsible for making aldermen aware and also providing them the proper "ethical compass". In this case you had at least one alderman who obviously did not want this issue brought to the floor for discussion. Fortunately, the mayor and a majority of the other aldermen recognized the importance of the issue and the reluctant alderman was finally convinced to do the right thing. I think the democratic system worked very well in this case. At least thus far anyway.
You seem to want to pick and choose between the mayor and aldermen as to who should be responsible for what.
I hold them all equally responsible for everything.
Steve
If that is true and you are such an upstanding citizen and you were aware this activity was occuring since 2005; why wait until 2011 to bring it to the attention of the council? Why sit back an allow the tax payer money to to wasted if you are such a responsible upstanding citizen who wishes to hold all accountable? Since you sat in the back room along with your candidate (now Mayor Harl) silent for many years; couldn't one say you contributed to the same system that failed the tax payer?
If the Mayor appoints the City attorney and the City attorney's sole function is to ADVISE the aldermen on legal issues including contracts, could one conclude that if the aldermen were not advised by the city attorney than the Mayor is to blame because he AGAIN appointed the City attorney?
I am not debating the issue of the best price for the best service; BUT one must FIRST determine what service is being render for the price. It would be another blunder to switch "services" and discover the "motor" was not included in the price!
Kristy
Kristy I can't help noticing or mentioning that when Mayor Baker was running you did nothing but bad mouth and slander TEST, Chamlin, Janko and others on your Blog not to mention you took TEST to court and sued them....now all of a sudden you are so in supportive of them, why?????
How much would it cost to hire someone or train a current city employee to do the testing? Or maybe train two or three people. We are already paying there payroll. How much would that save tax payers?
And to answer the question about the 1.5 million dollar building, is that like vissering building the City Hall? How much of that money was spent in Peru? They are union though, so that makes it ok.
3:11 This is not about me, TEST, Mayor Baker, Janko, Chamlin, etc.
WE THE TAX PAYERS deserve a simple answer on ACCOUNTABILITY. If your plea is for "courtesy and fairness" as stated above; perhaps it would have been "fair" for the administration to provide ACCOUNTABILITY to the taxpayers a bit sooner on this issue if indeed it existed since 2005? Please try to defend why this issue is finally surfacing?
Kristy
Kristy you of all people would know, you worked there! Has that contract ever been bid?
12:54
In the past, TEST would submit a two year (usually) price quote for the landfill to the Superintedent of Public Works. I know this for a fact, but I am not certain of the procedure after I resigned in 2004.
I suspect Kristy has been aware of this "sweet-heart deal" between TEST and the city since probably 1996. But, that's not really important.
What Kristy is not aware of is what it actually takes to bring about real reform in Peru. She wants me to explain why this situation was not addressed sooner then now. It's not complicated Kristy. It was not addressed before because certain elected officials did not want it addressed. But there now exists a majority of elected officials who were made aware of the issue and have since decided to correct it.
Its simple arithmetic. More elected officals who want to do things right and less elected officials who want to continue to do things "the way we always have".
There is one virtue I have been forced to embrace since becoming an activist in Peru politics and that is "patience".
Kristy demands "ACCOUNTABILITY".
OK, sounds good. I'm all for that.
I hope she will share some of that "accountability" with the rest of us when the city council provides that to her.
In the meantime those of us who understand the critical signifigance of the decision to bid the groundwater analysis will allow ourselves a few moments to savor what amounts to another victory in the war for reform that remains far from over.
I agree with your statement Steve but I still don't understand why the mayor and the city attorney did not bring this topic up when the new regime took office in 2009? Why wait until 2012? You say because the previous aldermen did not agree with this process but was it presented (by the mayor or attorney) to them and voted on prior to today?
Steve
I told you in my 9:37 comment the procedure at TEST; and you are mistaken it is important because is clarifies your misconceptions on how (if) quotations for the landfills were addressed. However I am not certain the protocol once it left my desk and traveled through the City. Please recall Steve I did not move into Peru until 2007 and decided to become a TRUE community activist in late 2008. How long have you lived in Peru (do you live in Peru) and how long have you been an activist (not politically)? Trust me that sir is the difference between your idea of an "activist" and mine. I fight for a cause and you are fighting for votes for your party.
Again Steve, your explanation "more elected officials" is nothing more than a cat covering up catshit. Harl (not you) was voted in to cleanup the litter box not stink it up for "6 more election cycles!". Ring ring...the over-taxed residents called in animal control and want accountability now from that stray cat.
Kristy
To 10:42 a.m. - I don't know when either the mayor or the city attorney or even the aldermen for that matter actually became aware of the situation. All I know for sure is it is moving in the right direction now. I'm sure there were some very interesting conversations outside of any open meetings leading up to it.
Thanks for clarifying all that for me Kristy. Yeah, it all makes sense now. Crystal clear.
Kristy you were renting in Peru in 2006
6:15 thank you, I meant when I purchased my house.
How could I forget as a renter; the apartment I previously lived in burnt down a few weeks prior to the election in 2009!
Kristy
Post a Comment