One of the problems that still faces the Somerset County Park Commission is its apparently sloppy practice of awarding contracts. The prognosis is not good.
The current batch of commissioners, acting as a whole, cannot seem to grasp the simplest concept that the public is able to judge its recent behavior in awarding a $225,000 contract and clearly perceive it as wholly inappropriate. That advertising contract is the latest example in the denouement of the park commission’s ongoing missteps. Three vendors were in a pool, but only one bid on the project. Doesn’t that mean that the solitary bid should not have been accepted and that the commissioners should have gone back out and found more bidders?
Was Rick Fontana, Somerset County Freeholder and liaison to the park commission, at the meeting when this occurred? If so, what did he say? If he wasn’t present, what is he doing about it? According to press reports, park commissioner Robert Horowitz seemed to be the only one present who argued forcefully and “protested the method used to solicit professionals to join a commission pool to vie for such work.”
I’ve observed Horowitz at one or two prior commission meetings, and it’s usually discernible when something is bothering him. He seems to have a sense when all is not right and he is not bashful about expressing it to his colleagues on the commission.
Interestingly enough, the same Courier News article which quoted Horowitz, disclosed that a large chunk of the contract “would pay for newspaper, magazine and signage advertising, including (to) the Courier News and Home News Tribune.” That’s a good example of getting something out on the table for all to see.
The park commissioners should be bending over backwards to choke off even the slightest appearance of what could be perceived as conduct unbecoming of public servants.
See Courier News article, “Park Commission contract generates questions.” at http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/NEWS01/801180338/1006/NEWS06
No comments:
Post a Comment