Herald Editorial

[glassmaster]

Quite right Captain ... and to add some follow-up ... the "new janitorial staff" have started work as per their contract. The people that work for the new contractor live in Summerland ... and the company plans to hire more 'Summerland' people as they are needed. It is interesting to note that the 'new' janitorial company held the contract before being outbid back in 2005. To have P.W. present this as a controversy was very telling. Fluffy's comment pretty much sums it up.

[bipdl]

To have P.W. present this as a controversy was very telling.

Just can't help yourself can ya, glassy. Gotta get that malignant little dig in there.

Face it, your addicted to dissing Peter Waterman. It's "very telling" that every single one of your posts is infused with an anti-Peter Waterman slur. There IS professional help available when you decide it's time to quit being so phobic about the guy.

I don't know (nor do I care) who P.W. is other than understanding that he managed to convince enough people (who evidently agree with his views on what's best for Summerland) to elect him as a member of town council. He is, after all, merely one vote. This is more than you as an anonymous armchair critic can say for yourself. Pfffft, peanut gallery commentators on all things petty-political are pests, as if their Castanet carping will have a positive impact on anything!

Be happy! The rest of the council prevailed and the contract went to the lowest bidder. Your pocketbook is safe. End of story.

[Giants Head]

I think that Glassmaster has been getting professional help and they are making some real progress. Last year at this time he would not of been able to have a conversation about Peter Waterman without bringing up the names of David Finnis and Lorraine Bennest.

[GIS_Dude]

It is interesting to note that the 'new' janitorial company held the contract before being outbid back in 2005.

The only way this would be "interesting" is if it were actually true. You know not what you speak of.

[fluffy]

What would your take on the situation be bipdl? In the end the jobs stayed in Summerland with a savings of $40K/yr to the taxpayer. The point here is that there is no positive fiscal benefit to keeping the contract in local hands but Mr. Waterman chose to make an issue out of it, and Editor Miller chose to hop on the bandwagon with him. It certainly looks like the "issue" was just a convenient vehicle for animosity towards current mayor/council members. (Kind of the same way you're making this thread a convenient vehicle for your animosity towards glassmaster? )

[bipdl]

... the contract went to the lowest bidder. Your pocketbook is safe.

This is ALL that matters (from a town's administrative perspective)!

The rest is mere agendized vitriolic fluff (sorry, no pun intended, Fluffy!) and thinly veiled attempts at character assassination in response to pulp reportage disguised as editorial.

Tempest in a tea pot. Not worth any further thought. Over and Out!

[fluffy]

That's exactly the point. If there is a substantial savings to the taxpayer what other considerations should be relevant? The job angle may have had some impact but in retrospect it is a non-issue as the number of local jobs remains largely unchanged. This could have been discovered with a phone call had anyone been inclined to research the issue ahead of time.

It's just that, like you say, if the financial end is the only real issue, what possible motivation could there be for criticizing council's decision to award the contract as they did?

[glassmaster]

Be happy! The rest of the council prevailed and the contract went to the lowest bidder. Your pocketbook is safe. End of story.

Yes, I am happy that common sense (from the rest of council) prevailed and that the contract went to the lowest bidder. That is a good thing. However, you are asking me to sweep the biggest part of this incident under the carpet. You seem to think that politicians (or anything else for that matter) is all fair game for you ... but you lash out with personal attacks when I question Waterman's motives in voting the way he did. Your personal attacks do not diminish the real issue.

[fluffy]

I worry a bit about the deeper significance of this move by Mr. Waterman. It makes me wonder about the real roots of what motivates him as a councilor. If his driving force is to make current mayor and council look bad then to me that's a waste of a council seat. Sure he has a voice and a vote like anyone else, but when his "issue" is so blatantly contrary to the best interest of the taxpayer I really have to wonder.

[Giants Head]

Fluffy... Maybe he has concerns about due process and how contracts are handled or not handled in Summerland. I personally think that all contracts should go out to public tender as too acurately place a cost on doing the work from the private sector. With the one contract he refered too the city took the position that nobody else could possibly do a better job for less money so they didn't go out for a RFP. How do they know that if they didn't ask. I hope that the new CEO that was just hired takes a solid position on tendering work and on how all contracts will be handled in the future.

[fluffy]

I'm all for a level playing field, when special treatment is given to anyone it tends to muddy the waters. It was my understanding that in this case Mr. Waterman opposed the awarding of the janitorial contract to an out-of-town bidder despite the fact that considerable savings for Summerland's taxpayers would result.

[Giants Head]

You are correct Fluffy that is the position the P.Waterman took. I was refering to the little barb that he threw at council refering to the contract for operating the landfill that did not go to tender.

[sobrohusfat]

[French Castanut]

Are all Summerland town's employee locals? How many 6 figures salaries live outside town?

Why does it makes a difference if the janitor lives outside of Summerland? He'll work in Summerland and most likely, take a lunch in Summerland restaurants and fuel in local gas station from once in a while. And hey! It's saving the town $40,000. Now, the town should reinvest these savings locally. Do we know what investment will be made with those savings? Would be interesting to know.

So no big fuss here.