Friday, yet again

The Town Counsel debate.  Start by taking a look in the article in today's The Standard Times

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having the role of town counsel being put out for an RFP on a periodic basis.  It should be done, as with any service.  

There is also nothing wrong with the concept of "boutique" services either, and it should not be considered sacrilege to explore the concept.  

I will state this point blank, no one should have a lock on any position of such a nature.  It should always be periodically reviewed.  

As an FYI, and as a statement of fact, no I am not applying, seeking, sniffing, scratching the the dirt, looking for table scraps, or angling for any part of that "boutique" service.  So I want in clear, I have no personal stake in this matter.

As to replacing town counsel with special counsel on the turbine issue.  I am not sure where that concept came from, or the rational.  Well, we do know the literal "where", I am talking more about the idea at this point.

The whole segment at last night's meeting was a bit surreal to be honest with you.

How do you get involved in a public debate on this issue?  Seriously.  

Please save the arguments about free speech, public input, the will of the people, etc.  Hiring specific lawyers, auditors, engineers and a slew of other things shouldn't be based on public opinion. 

These aren't then types of "positions" that should ever be made to curry favor of the populace.  Indeed one of the true flashes of brilliance about the procurement laws is exempting such services from the requirements of the same.  The recognition of the fact that such services are of a level of importance that "costs" alone should not be a driving factor.

I could get into a whole dissertation on the principles, ethics, legality and a whole slew of lofty stuff. I don't see the point, nor the end benefit.  Despite all the talk that this wasn't political, at least last night's show was.

Enough on that ...

The discussion on procurement policy was interesting.  Digest version.  Selectmen: We have a procurement officer.  We have discussed the matter with the IG's office.  They recommend several things, including attendance at seminars.  Procurement Officer:  I know what I am doing.  You want me to go I will go.  Don't need to, but I will go.  Still, once you appoint me, the law says it is my discretion if I delegate any of the decision making.

Town Departments seem to be chaffing at a policy enacted not that long ago relative to the "sign off" required for purchases above $1,500.00.  Personally, I think the amounts this town should be using relative to procedure are those detailed under ch. 30B.  

I also believe that some one needs to drop the hammer down on any department not complying with C. 30B.

The debate going on is a combination of turf war, lack of comprehension, and a few other things that might be best not to mention.

In the proper nutshell however there does seem to be some legitimate issues over whether the selectmen can unilaterally impose a dollar amount lower than the applicable law on procedures to mandate.  I personally think they can, but only to those departments under their jurisdiction.  

Town Meeting definitely would have the authority to do so.  But Town Meeting hasn't been asked to do so.

This one issue needs to be resolved.  But so does the oversight problem.  Ch. 30B cannot be used to question the "wisdom" of the spending for an authorized appropriation.  It can only be used to insure compliance withe the procurement law.  

It is not a substitute for the decision making process. The criteria is whether the procurement falls within the authorization of the appropriation and the law.  Whether it makes sense isn't applicable.  Whether you disagree with it or not isn't applicable.  

As far as the extra paperwork arguments from various departments, those I don't buy.  The only extra paperwork involved as far as I can tell is the sign off form for matters between the $1,500 limit imposed and current statutory threshold.  Other than that, there is nothing being done that shouldn't have been done in the first place.

You are suppose to keep records, even under the loose "best business practice" standards.  There are things you are required to do, even under those standards.  If that extra slip of paper, in and of itself is your complaint, it is a hollow one.

Nearly all town purchases for goods or services are subject in some way, shape or form to either the requirements of C. 30B or some other statutory provisions.  There is no excuse for noncompliance. None.

If you watched the meeting last night, you heard the Town of Stoughton mentioned.  The turf wars there got so bad that there was actual litigation between town entities.

I agree there needs to be training.  Training provided to every single town department head, and board with a budget.  There needs to be a strengthening of the town by-law with clear delineation of powers, duties and responsibility.  

Enough for today on this.  I am out of time.

Be safe.