Monday, April 21st9.8°C
21625
21588

Herald Editorial

South Okanagan topics including Summerland, Naramata, Penticton, Okanagan Falls, Oliver, Osoyoos, and Keremeos.

Moderators: Jo, ferri, Merry, Triple 6

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby bipdl » Dec 28th, 2012, 11:47 pm

Unless I'm mistaken, the dude's last name happens to be Perrino... as in, the husband of the Mayor!

So, everyone, what do you think of the way the "Dumpmeister" behaves while at work?

I've never met a more disagreeable man in all my life! Am I the only person this guy has crossed swords with?

Too bad "professionalism" and "Good with the public" is no part of the RFP!!

But I digress from the original topic... I guess Summerland will get exactly what it pays for vis-a-vis the low-ball janitorial contract. Just make sure you pack your own toilet paper if you ever plan on using a municipal washroom... and NEVER touch any door handles!
'Authority' is not a reason.
The most universally violated human right is the Right To Be Treated With Dignity.
Pffft, you humans. It's amazing you've made it this far. - Prot
bipdl
Board Meister
 
Posts: 478
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts
Joined: Feb 19th, 2009, 1:52 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby johnhenry » Dec 29th, 2012, 12:29 pm

bipdl wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, the dude's last name happens to be Perrino... as in, the husband of the Mayor!

So, everyone, what do you think of the way the "Dumpmeister" behaves while at work?

I've never met a more disagreeable man in all my life! Am I the only person this guy has crossed swords with?

Too bad "professionalism" and "Good with the public" is no part of the RFP!!

But I digress from the original topic... I guess Summerland will get exactly what it pays for vis-a-vis the low-ball janitorial contract. Just make sure you pack your own toilet paper if you ever plan on using a municipal washroom... and NEVER touch any door handles!


That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Has there or should there be an investigation?
Words out of your mouth are like bullets out of a gun.
Once they are out, you can't take them back.
User avatar
johnhenry
Übergod
 
Posts: 1039
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sep 4th, 2005, 11:08 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby glassmaster » Dec 29th, 2012, 9:22 pm

Getting back to the topic thread ... out of the 8 bids submitted - the lowest bid was approx. $40,000 per year lower. Not $5,000, not $10,000 and not even $25,000 ... it was $40,000 lower per year! Peter Waterman was the only councillor that wanted to award it to the 2nd lowest bidder (stating that it was about the 3 - 4 jobs that would be lost). P.W. is all over the map when it comes to what he stands for. He certainly wasn't concerned about jobs when he consistantly voted against Kettle Valley Dried Fruit and all of the jobs that went with that. Anyone that has followed Summerland politics over the past 6 - 8 years knows that 'job creation' is not very high on Mr. Waterman's priority list. For him to be making a huge issue of the Mayor and other council members voting to accept a bid that was $40,000 less (per year) than any of the other bids is ridiculous. Then he threw out a red herring with the 'cherry picking' comment. He knows that the current landfill contract is in the best interest of the taxpayer with rates that are below comparable work that is done in other area landfills. Not only are the rates lower ... but the contract comes with a 20 year good track record. Seems to me, that in both instances, the council has acted in the best interest of the tax payer (and that is what they are supposed to do).

The real issue should be that Peter Waterman was prepared to give away $120,000 in tax payer money.
Last edited by glassmaster on Dec 30th, 2012, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
glassmaster
Übergod
 
Posts: 1017
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 10:58 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby johnhenry » Dec 29th, 2012, 11:38 pm

-fluffy- wrote:There was a rather critical editorial in yesterdays Penticton Herald in which Managing Editor James Miller takes Summerland Council to task on awarding the janitorial contract for municipal buildings to an out-of-town firm even though the winning bid was about 35% lower than the next closest bid. The bid from the outfit that had held the contract before came in at just over $110,000, the successful bid was close to $40,000 lower. Local hiring is all fine and dandy, but we're talking about a sizable chunk of taxpayers' money here. I shudder to think what sort of uproar might have ensued had council chosen to retain the local outfit at such a generous premium.


glassmaster wrote:Getting back to the topic thread ... out of the 8 bids submitted - the lowest bid was approx. $40,000 per year lower. Not $5,000, not $10,000 and not even $25,000 ... it was $40,000 lower per year! Peter Waterman was the only councillor that wanted to award it to the 2nd lowest bidder (stating that it was about the 3 - 4 jobs that would be lost). P.W. is all over the map when it comes to what he stands for. He certainly wasn't concerned about jobs when he consistantly voted against Kettle Valley Dried Fruit and all of the jobs that went with that. There are many things that Peter Waterman voted against that could have brought jobs to Summerland. To now be making a huge issue of the Mayor and other council members accepting a bid that is $40,000 less per year .... just seems like he is trying to focus some attention on himself. When Waterman pulls this kind of Rooster stance ... it just makes me think that he is planning to take another run at the Mayors chair in 2014. Anyone that has followed Summerland politics over the past 6 - 8 years knows that 'job creation' is not very high on Mr. Waterman's priority list.


See quote above for clarification on original topic. This is not about Peter Waterman.
Words out of your mouth are like bullets out of a gun.
Once they are out, you can't take them back.
User avatar
johnhenry
Übergod
 
Posts: 1039
Likes: 4 posts
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sep 4th, 2005, 11:08 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby grammafreddy » Dec 30th, 2012, 12:28 am

bipdl wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, the dude's last name happens to be Perrino... as in, the husband of the Mayor!


johnhenry wrote:That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Has there or should there be an investigation?


That depends ... did the mayor remove herself from council chambers and abstain from participating in any discussion or in voting on this contract?
______________________________________________________

If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
User avatar
grammafreddy
Chief Sh*t Disturber
 
Posts: 28278
Likes: 1974 posts
Liked in: 691 posts
Joined: Mar 17th, 2007, 10:52 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby glassmaster » Dec 30th, 2012, 1:05 am

Ah, but this is about Peter Waterman. He was the only council member that didn't agree with giving the contract to the company that bid $40,000 less per year. He is the one that intentionally threw out the 'cherry picking' comment to create an issue. It wouldn't surprise me if PW made a point of inviting James Miller to that particular council meeting to ensure he got the coverage for what he thought could be a 'big issue'. This thread is about the James Miller Editorial. P.W. is as much a part of the editorial (and this thread) as is the Mayor ... and the other council members.

The Mayor and Council made the decision to take this contract to RFP (which was obviously a good financial decision). The new janitorial contract will save the taxpayer $120,000 over the three years.
Last edited by glassmaster on Dec 30th, 2012, 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
glassmaster
Übergod
 
Posts: 1017
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 10:58 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby bipdl » Dec 30th, 2012, 1:22 am

Can't you find anything better to do than to constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY harp on Peter Waterman?

You really sound like a broken record... over and over and over... always the same old tired shtick!

Do us all a favour and find someone else to obsess about!!!

As to the awarding of the janitorial contract: I can't help but wonder... What's not going to get done because of the lower price, and, why is there such a massive discrepancy between the accepted bid and the next highest bidder? Hmmmm.
'Authority' is not a reason.
The most universally violated human right is the Right To Be Treated With Dignity.
Pffft, you humans. It's amazing you've made it this far. - Prot
bipdl
Board Meister
 
Posts: 478
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 6 posts
Joined: Feb 19th, 2009, 1:52 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby glassmaster » Dec 30th, 2012, 2:16 am

Easy now Bipdl ... personally attacking me (because my opinion differs from yours) is not the way to go. Besides, I don't 'constantly' harp on Waterman ... that just isn't true. I only bring up Peter Waterman when it is relevant to the thread ... and he happens to be very relevant to this thread. If he puts himself in the middle of a created issue - he should expect that there will be questions and comments. He doesn't get a free pass just because Bipdl would want him to.

P.W. was the only council member that wanted to award the contract to someone that would charge the taxpayer $40,000 more per year. His reasoning was that he wanted to save the 3 - 4 jobs that went with the current holder of the contract. I don't agree with that logic ...furthermore, I think that the Mayor and the rest of council were the ones that were acting in the best interest of the Summerland taxpayers.

In regards to the red herring ... there is no 'conflict of interest' with the landfill contract. The mayor did remove herself from council chambers and she abstained from participating in any discussion ... or in any voting on the contract.
glassmaster
Übergod
 
Posts: 1017
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 10:58 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby fluffy » Dec 30th, 2012, 9:32 am

There is a pretty volatile split in Summerland between the pro-development and pro-keeping-things-the-same factions in Summerland that led to some real conflicts on and about council in past years. It looks like Mr. Waterman, having been part of the "other" side in the past, is having a tough time letting go of the fact that he now sits on a largely pro-development council. Is it that he sees any incursion from "outsiders" as a thread to Summerland's status quo? Personally, from a low-bidder perspective, it would make sense to have the new contractor hire locally rather than deal with the travel time involved in bringing a crew down from Kelowna, not to mention the advantages of having staff familiar with the particular sites involved. I wonder if Mr. Waterman stopped to consider this, or were his comments not so much pertaining to the actual issue as they were some political opportunism in casting a dark palour over councilors who supported the low bid.
quick - report this post to a mod
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15205
Likes: 9 posts
Liked in: 591 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby GIS_Dude » Dec 31st, 2012, 11:55 am

glassmaster wrote:He knows that the current landfill contract is in the best interest of the taxpayer with rates that are below comparable work that is done in other area landfills. Not only are the rates lower ... but the contract comes with a 20 year good track record. Seems to me, that in both instances, the council has acted in the best interest of the tax payer (and that is what they are supposed to do).

The real issue should be that Peter Waterman was prepared to give away $120,000 in tax payer money.


I'm curious as to how you know the landfill contract is such a great value since it was never put through the RFP process?
GIS_Dude
 
Posts: 85
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 12 posts
Joined: Jul 23rd, 2009, 12:09 pm

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby glassmaster » Dec 31st, 2012, 12:48 pm

There are no hidden secrets. The Council advertised their intentions to not put this contract to RFP. That would have been the time for you & I and other interested parties to do the homework (and object if they thought it was inappropriate). There were no objections from the public to renew the contract without going to RFP. The details of the contract were/are available for the asking ... so, of course Waterman (and all parties that are interested) have those details.
It is pretty easy to check in to the prices and see that the cost of this contract is in line with other landfill contracts in the area. This contract is in line with others in the area. In addition to the $$ value ... one has to consider the 20 year track record of relialble service. Important to note, Mr. Perrino held this contract before his wife ever became the Mayor of Summerland. Further, and important to note, this contract is in one year terms. Peter Watermans objection is nothing more than sour grapes and yet another attempt to try and make the Mayor look bad. Bitterness seems to be clouding his judgement. P.W was quite willing to put an additional $40,000 per year tax burden in place ... and it would appear that he did this just to try and discredit the Mayor and his fellow council members.
Last edited by glassmaster on Jan 2nd, 2013, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
glassmaster
Übergod
 
Posts: 1017
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 10:58 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby Darkre » Dec 31st, 2012, 5:54 pm

glassmaster wrote:This is a red herring if I have ever seen one. There are no hidden secrets. The Council advertised their intentions to not put this contract to RFP. That would have been the time for you & I and other interested parties to do the homework (and object if they thought it was inappropriate). There were no objections from the public to renew the contract without going to RFP. The details of the contract were/are available for the asking ... so, of course Waterman (and all parties that are interested) have those details.
It is pretty easy to check in to the prices and see that the cost of this contract is in line with other landfill contracts in the area. This contract is in line with others in the area. In addition to the $$ value ... one has to consider the 20 year track record of relialble service. Important to note, Mr. Perrino held this contract before his wife ever became the Mayor of Summerland. Further, and important to note, this contract is in one year terms. Peter Watermans objection is nothing more than sour grapes and yet another attempt to try and make the Mayor look bad. Bitterness seems to be clouding his judgement. P.W was quite willing to put an additional $40,000 per year tax burden in place ... and it would appear that he did this just to try and discredit his fellow council members.

The Summerland company that has had the janitorial contract the past few years has done it at or below market value. This is proven if you look at the results from the RFP where all but one bid were above the one put forward by the summerland company. They have had the contract for several years and have a proven track record.

Had Summerland not put out an RFP for the janitorial contract they would be paying $40,000 more per year. Who's to say similar savings couldn't be found by putting the dump contract out for RFP's.

It would seem that your bitterness towards Peter Waterman is clouding your judgement.
Darkre
Board Meister
 
Posts: 363
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 10:27 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby glassmaster » Dec 31st, 2012, 11:56 pm

The major thrust of the Penticton Herald article and subsequent news article ... was about Peter Waterman's objection to the Janitors contract, which was a $120,000 savings to the city over a three year period. The actual decision/recommendation to go out to RFP was most likely made by staff. In the case of the Landfill Contract, it would also have been a staff recommendation to council to not take it to a RFP. Obviously Council felt very comfortable with the recommendation and advertised the matter (as is required). There were no comments or objections from the public at that time. So, here we are, six months after the fact, and you want to start objecting and speculating now?

This has nothing to do with whether I like Peter Waterman or not ... he just happens to be the one that caused this whole discussion by being the lone dissenting vote on a matter of saving $120,000 for the taxpayer. That is a fact ... not speculation.
glassmaster
Übergod
 
Posts: 1017
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jan 19th, 2010, 10:58 am

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby fluffy » Jan 1st, 2013, 6:23 am

I'd have to add, that since the savings is of such a considerable size, that Mr. Waterman's motivation in voicing the objection is highly suspect. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with who's sweeping the floors a city hall, it's about an ill-timed attempt at disparaging the Mayor and Council.
quick - report this post to a mod
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 15205
Likes: 9 posts
Liked in: 591 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Herald Editorial

Postby Captain77 » Jan 6th, 2013, 9:25 am

If the quality and cost of service are comparable - then go local. If not - go out. Pretty simple in my view.
Captain77
Fledgling
 
Posts: 105
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Oct 11th, 2011, 4:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Penticton / South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest