A little bit of this, that, and some PKS

I did a little research on the whole procurement issue which is simmering in town.  While it was brought to light during Monday's selectmen's meeting the issue is coming to a head between the selectmen's edict and the school department's view on the same, truth be told there is less than universal acceptance of the whole policy.

The fact that people are unhappy with something is not in and of itself a reason to jettison a policy.  Whether it makes sense is another matter.  So, does it make sense.

A bit of historical background might shed some light.  Back before we had an official town code, we had by-laws.  Up until 1991, Section 3, of Chapter IV of the Town By=laws required all purchases made by the Town of Fairhaven, or any board, official or agent acting therefor, over which the Town has control to obtain competitive bids when the cost on any purchase was estimated to exceed $2,000.00.  In 1991, the amount was up to $5,000.00. 

I am guessing the amount was upped at that time to raise the dollar amount in line somewhat with the adoption of the Uniform Procurement Act.  I note "somewhat" as the Town by-law was more restrictive than the Act.

In May of 1996, at the Annual Town Meeting, Article 32, the entire Chapter was stricken.  My "institutional" memory is the rationale being the terms and conditions of the by-law very very restrictive (there were other requirements) and in light of the state law which was applicable, given the nature of the beast of doing business on a day to day basis, the by-law was causing too many problems.

Obtaining competitive bids is not a simple or easy process.  Nor inexpensive.  Indeed, you can add 10% or more to the cost of any item (depending on value of course).  Then you have top hope you can get a vendor to comply with the bid (RFP).  It was felt that following the Procurement law provided sufficient safeguards to prevent collusion and in some cases self-dealing.

So as of right now, as far as I can discover, there is no by-law directing the how and how much for procedures and purchases.  Neither can I find anything that authorizes the Board of Selectmen, on its own initiative to create a town wide policy.  Note:  the Board is all most certainly empowered to do so for those departments and agencies under its direct jurisdiction.  The reality of that is it that jurisdiction is severely limited.  

Could be someone has found something that authorizes it, however it is clear based on Monday night's meeting the edict was issued under let us say  a "good faith" believe, not based on any actual knowledge.  If it were based on knowledge, there wouldn't be opinions sought from DOR, the AG or the IG, or Town Counsel. 

But in a nutshell there is no official authority which is on the books, allow the lower limit be imposed on a town wide basis.  If the authority exists, it is going to have to  be based on some "inherent authority" argument.  Research into how other towns deal with the matter would indicate that at least one of the towns mentioned with a so called imposed edict is not applied on a town wide basis.


A caution to everyone at this point:  while there might not be the authority to unilaterally lower the limit, there are certainly provisions of the law that require other compliance.  So everyone needs to keep that little point in mind.

Do not forget that, and do not gloss over exactly what can be required by crying foul over what cannot be done.

On the surface the procurement acts primary purpose is to insure the governmental units get the best price for services and goods.  Scratch beneath the surface and it serves a dual function as an anit-corruption law.  Both extremely valid and necessary steps.

Every penny counts and no one should get a contract based on the criteria of who you know.

What bothers me greatly about the whole thing is the reasoning as to why.  Sorry, but it doesn't make sense.  I really doesn't.  If a bill comes in for payment which has been incurred in violation of the procurement law, don't pay it.  

If a town employee charged with making the purchases cannot perform the required duty, or worse yet consistently neglects to do so, there is a solution for that too.  Compliance with the procurement law isn't anywhere as difficult as building a spaceship folks.  It can at times be cumbersome, it can at times require special attention, but I cannot imagine it being beyond the scope or comprehension of any person hired to run a department (at least for purchases up to the amount of $24,999.99).

This of course assumes a bit of training has been provided in the first place.  That training for most should be able to be taken care of simply by giving them the state manual on the law.

Sorry, lowering the limit doesn't make sense.  It increases the workload plain and simple.  Instituting a policy that should all ready be in effect that before a purchase is made the proper paperwork has to be in place and submitted, that you have to have done what you are suppose to do; insisting on it, makes a heck of a lot more sense.

Dealing with those who can't or won't comply makes a ton more sense than changing the whole procedure town wide.

Call a meeting, make it clear what has to be done.  Spell out the ramifications for failure to comply.  Hold everyone to the procedure, and do something for once about noncompliance.  If need be, codify the requirements.

If half the effort that goes into trying to force something onto people and to find the "legal basis" for doing something after you haven done it was used before the fact, we could save everyone in town a whole look of grief and "effort", not to mention legal fees.

Shifting gears ...

Had an interesting conversation with a group of people yesterday about local politics.  Someone threw out a name for a potential selectmen's candidate.  A very intriguing prospect.  Will have to do a bit more digging.

Remember folks, I am always looking for PKS (people knowing something).  Feel free to send an e-mail, or better yet comment.

PKS, I like that acronym.  Lots of potential uses for it.  Might throw out one or two other ones soon.

I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  I may not do the blog tomorrow, and won't be doing one for Christmas.  Enjoy the day and be safe!