Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Light on the Subject

The Town's Procurement Policy is entitled Administration Policy No. 50. It was adopted on June 11, 1997 and revised on March 25,2003. There are thirty pages but it ends on page twenty-nine. That's just one of those little mysteries that happen occasionally.

The stuff relevant to the question of whether staff improperly authorized spending of $438,000 is on
page 17 - Section 4 - Clause C., under the heading Emergency Procurement; You'll have to scroll down to it as the Town's website doesn't let me link directly to that section.

C. EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT
Notwithstanding the provisions of this policy, the following shall only apply in case of an emergency, when an event occurs that is determined by a Department Head or the CAO to be:


  • a threat to public health
  • the maintenance of essential Town services
  • the welfare of persons or of public property or
  • the security of the Town's interests and the occurrence requires the immediate delivery of goods or services and time does not permit for competitive bids

The above criteria are to be applied on the basis of:
(i) Procurement under $50,000:
Wherever feasible, the Purchasing Co-ordinator, upon the recommendation of the Department Head, shall secure by the most open market procedure at the lowest obtainable price, any goods and services required.
A purchase order shall be issued.

(ii) Procurement Over $50,000:
The Department Head shall obtain the prior approval of the CAO.
An information report shall be submitted to Council explaining the actions taken and the reason(s) therefore.
A purchase order shall be issued.


As can be seen from the Memorandum of May 14th, 2007 (posted
in the Blog), Mayor and Council did receive a report outlining the circumstances. Three days later it went to the Leisure Services Committee and was then adopted at the second Council Meeting in May 2007. From the various factors noted in the memorandum, the matter was urgent. Immediate attention was required. Tenders were called, bids received and the contract issued by the architects who were the acknowledged responsible party.

There's more. Page 20 of the procurement policy has a section that relates to Reporting:

2. Council approval is required where the:


  • value of the goods and services is over $50,000, or
  • purchase is for vehicles or heavy equipment, or
  • purchasing policy is being waived, or
  • acquisition exceeds the approved capital budget amount by more than 10%, or
  • lowest responsive vendor submission is not being recommended, or
  • there was no provision in the budget for the item, or
  • CAO requests that a report be presented for Council consideration and approval
Based on the above criteria, a purchase order shall be issued and/or contract executed by the Mayor and Clerk in accordance to the reporting guidelines in this policy.

The expenditure did not exceed funds available in the capital budget. Funds were available. Responsibility had been acknowledged by the architects.

In light of the various factors, clearly the CAO did have authority to make the decision. The merits of the decision is established by the fact it was made by a management team of the CAO, Director of Finance and Director of Leisure Services.

Council was informed. Tenders were called and properly awarded. A purchasing order was issued. Good and services received by the town were to the value expended. At no time was the town's interest at risk.

I had been back on council four months after a considerable absence when the procurement policy was revised. It was thoroughly discussed. After years of involvement in a particular field, one acquires a sense of the rightness of things.

People sufficiently interested to read and comment need accurate information supported by documentation to make a judgement - particularly when written statements to the contrary to the facts are made and distributed by an official who certainly knows better.

In my judgement, something shameful and grossly unjust has happened at the hands of Aurora Council. Substantial public resources for legal services were expended to accomplish a cruel objective. It happened on my watch. I was not able to stop it. What I do here will not reverse it or correct it. Still a person must try.

6 comments:

  1. well this puts a whole new wrinkle in things

    I don't know about anyone else but I am really confused

    so what actually happened???

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds to me like they fired John Rogers for not following procedure and Councillor Buck just proved that he DID follow procedure. And yet our illustrious Mayor continues to use our money to put ads in both papers indicating that it was staff's 'FAULT' but she has corrected it by tightening up the procedures. If I'm reading this right, Councillor Buck just proved to me that there was nothing wrong with the procedure followed. How many times can I say procedure in one comment? Good job, Ev!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My internal musings now stand correct. The former CAO did NOTHING wrong as we can see through Ms. Buck's posting. All written procedures have been followed. Even the auditor that the Mayor talks about in her ad in the local papers has said that the procedure is valid.

    Mr. Rogers, I trust that you have retained council because I feel that you have a strong case against the Corporation for wrongful dismissal. If nothing else, your reputation has been tarnished by the Mayor directly and through her quotes in the press.

    Ms. Buck, I feel that we need to get the Minister of Municipal Affairs involved now as we clearly have a Mayor and at least 5/8 of sitting councillors that have conspired to hide their incompetance and blame Town staff instead. Where do we go from here on this issue, this must stop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The facts according to Councillor Buck are that procedures were followed, that the architects received the bids and they issued the contract. So who directed the purchasing manager for the Town to issue the Purchase Order? I don't see that in the procedures cited by Councillor Buck, that the Town is to issue Purchase Orders for work contracted by outside contractors, to correct work they admit is faulty and their responsibility.

    I'm sure that the contractor who did the repair work wouldn't of started without a Purchase Order. And if the work was urgent, I'm sure staff would have advised the council work needs to be done, but the architects responsible won't issue a Purchase Order, so know we must make a decision, complete the work now and chase those responsible later. I haven't seen that in any report from staff.

    A reasonable person will conclude that staff issuing Purchase Orders on behalf of outside firms is a problem, and certainly not following the procedure put for by Councillor Buck. And as for the Mayor and other councillors endorsing the payment at this stage of the game is not an admission that they agreed with the actions taken by staff - what were they to say, we're not going to pay the contractor who did the work at our property as set out in our Purchase Order. Pretty hard position to defend. The Mayor did the reasonable thing. The question that remains unanswered - why did staff issue the Purchase Order without council's knowledge or approval?

    Councillor Buck's portrayal of the facts is slanted and unfortunately a lot of her readers can't see past the fog see creates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The contractor was awarded a contract to work on a town owned facility - he used labour and materials on this project. The project was completed according to all the specs, and on time. The Architects didn't fully honour their commitment. I don't think the contractor should have been the loser in a dispute between the town and the architects? How would that be fair?

    As for the Mayor and Councillor MacEachern, they can fool some of the people some of the time but they can't fool all of the people all of the time. And their time for fooling people is just about over.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To Anonymous 7:47 Jumbo jet comes to mind when I put the number to the blogger! How are Councillors Buck's facts slanted they have come from the Town's web site. I guess that also means the town has a slant on the facts they put out for all to see. Where are your facts to prove Councillor Buck wrong, you write nothing to back yourself up!

    ReplyDelete

If you've got a comment, this is the place to leave it for me. Please feel free to leave your name, or even just an email address if you'd like a response. You can also email me directly.