As we presented two weeks ago, Davis has been thrust into an unenviable bind by the creation of the water project – the choice, perhaps, between doing business with evil large companies and higher water rates.
There is a big advantage here, according to the city. It puts all of the risk on the company, it locks in the bid to a price certainty, and it puts most of the cost upfront. The city argued that this would also eliminate change-orders, unless they represented major changes to the project itself.
The argument from the city is that this is the best way to lock in and contain costs.
It is an expensive process upfront. The Clean Water Agency will have to pay about $250,000 apiece to evaluate the bids and decide which one is the best. However, that pales in comparison to the companies, which will have to put up around $1 million in order to be in position to win the bid.
The big disadvantage is that we have to choose between CDM Constructors, CH2M Hill and Veolia Water.
And that is where the trouble begins. Veolia has its Palestinian entanglements, and United Water, a subcontractor under CDM, with its ethical violations and indictments in Gary, Indiana.
Is there concern on the part of Davis’ representatives on the CWA, Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza? You bet.
As Stephen Souza from the Davis City Council pointed out, the charges are substantial and they create tremendous ethical and moral problems if they are true. He said that he is unsure that he wants to go through a process with a company who has done something that we may have to disqualify them for.
However, Woodland Councilmember Bill Marble, one of the directors on the board, argued that he is comfortable with the current ethical components for consideration. He argued that he agrees it is a slippery slope with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian debate – one that he does not believe a local agency can or should decide.
For him, the issue is really about providing the best product for the cities of Woodland and Davis.
And therein lies the problem. Mr. Marble does not represent the people of Davis. And with all due respect to Woodland – we are not them. Davis is a very different community, politically and culturally, than Woodland.
We hold our officials to a higher standard. I have no desire to do business with a company like United Water that puts its workers and the public at risk. And, I have no desire to do business with the likes of Veolia, who would apparently rather make money than worry about the socio-political ramifications of running segregated bus lines into the occupied territories.
At the risk of stirring up something deep between the City of Davis and the City of Woodland, let me preface what I am about to say by stating at the onset that I hold no ill-will toward Woodland or their Councilmember Bill Marble.
That said, Mr. Marble is not a representative for the City of Davis and, therefore, I have a problem, not with his views on ethical issues, but the fact that they will impact policies that impact Davis.
Let me backtrack for a second. Forget for a moment what you think of the water project. This is about the conscience of Davis, our soul. We have put forth a water policy that seems to require us to deal in an industry of giants. Companies with the resources to expend five to ten million on putting forth a bid. A project that only a handful of companies in the entire country could possibly bid on.
If Bill Marble has no problem with that, that’s fine, but I did not elect Bill Marble. Woodland did.
But therein lies the problem. We are asking the wrong body to make this decision. The body that needs to make this decision is the Davis City Council. Those are the officials who represent the people of Davis and the values that we uphold.
In order for that to happen, the City of Davis needs to draft a reasonable and comprehensive ethics policy that binds all of our future contracts. We hold environmental steward and human rights to very high standards in this community, and to me it is far more important to get this part right first and foremost, before we lock ourselves into a contract with a less-than-ethical company.
Unfortunately, other than a few comments at the CWA, there have been few efforts to bring this issue to the proper venue – the Davis City Council.
When the Vanguard met with the City of Davis and discussed this issue, the city explained to the Vanguard that this is a huge project, and the DBO is a 15-year operation period. This magnitude of project requires a big company to run it properly.
From the city’s perspective, they appear prepared to acknowledge that they might have to do business with less-than-ethical huge multinational companies in order to make this project more affordable.
I do not think the city council gets to make that decision alone, without input and discussion from the community.
It sets up a horrendous choice between cost savings to the ratepayer and environmental and social responsibility in a community that claims these mantras as part of its raison d’etre.
They point out the need for big firms to do the building and operating portions of the DBO piece. Moreover, these companies generally rely on their employees to manage these projects, but hire local labor to do the building and operating. This is why so many unions came forward to support the project.
The belief seems to exist that the city is just not going to be able to find a company of this size and expertise that comes through completely clean.
The dilemma here is very interesting. And for people concerned with social justice, it points to a big problem of having these types of large-scale projects and trying to keep the costs contained.
The Davis City Council needs to address this matter and decide with community input if that is indeed the price we are willing to pay for cheaper and cleaner water. It would be greatly ironic if we got our clean water from companies that polluted other communities and put their own employees and the public in danger.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
In the interests of keeping this discussion grounded in facts, not emotional statements, could you post evidence of the proof regarding Veolia’s discriminatory operations in Israel and the evidence that the E.coli fiasco with United water was due to company policy or negligence and not the work of a few individuals. This would give far more credibility to the “evil corporation” stance.
“The dilemma here is very interesting. And for people concerned with social justice, it points to a big problem of having these types of large-scale projects and trying to keep the costs contained.”
How is this ‘dilemma’ going to effect the bid process? Will CH2M Hill now up their bid thinking that the other two companies will be ruled out because of ethics?
If we were to rule out Veolia are we also going to stop YoloBus from operating in Davis? How far do we carry this?
Medwoman: The best information is from this article: link ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4733:commentary-is-the-choice-between-evil-large-companies-and-higher-water-rates&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Rusty: That’s a possibility.
As for Veolia and Yolo Bus, it will be interesting to see what happens as the result of this becoming more public.
[quote]And that is where the trouble begins. Veolia with its Palestinian entanglements, United Water, a subcontractor under CDM, with its ethical violations and indictments in Gary, Indiana.[/quote]
I can understand having a problem with a company that may have fudged its water quality tests, bc it directly relates to the issue at hand – what company Davis chooses to operate the surface water project. But as for Veolia:
1) It runs Yolobus, and no one seems to have a problem with that;
2) No one seems to have a problem with the fact that much of the products we buy are made in China or other third world countries that are horrific human rights violators (so certainly no socially just);
3) There is an underlying assumption here that most Davisites would somehow object to doing business with a company that does business in Israel, which is not necessarily the case;
4) The other underlying component in this argument against using Veolia is that the gov’t/country of Israel is somehow bad – which appears to me to be rank racism against the Jewish state.
[quote]That said Mr. Marble is not a representative for the city of Davis and therefore I have a problem not with his views on ethical issues, but the fact that they will impact policies that impact Davis.[/quote]
Well, let’s take this argument to its logical conclusion. That said, the Vanguard is not a representative for the city of Davis and therefore I have a problem not with its views on ethical issues if it wants to express them, but the fact that it is attempting to impact public opinion by drumming up perceived controversies so as to impact policy on the surface water project which will impact Davis for literally years to come. If anyone rides Yolobus or has no problem with Yolobus operating in Yolo County, and if anyone purchases goods made in China or India, or anywhere else where goods are made in sweat shops to be sold in America, then to be critical of Veolia bc it runs a bus system in Israel is hypocritical and unacceptably discriminatory IMHO.
[quote]I do not think the city council gets to make that decision alone without input and discussion from the community.[/quote]
In other words, another delaying tactic if the referendum does not succeed in killing this project?
[quote]The dilemma here is very interesting. And for people concerned with social justice, it points to a big problem of having these types of large-scale projects and trying to keep the costs contained.[/quote]
In other words, we should not do the surface water project if we have to hire companies that are not somehow “socially just”? Whose definition of “social justice” do we use? Who gets to define what is “socially just”? In other words, it would seem what the Vanguard is calling for is a city policy that the city may not enter into any contracts with any entity that does not adhere to a Davis “social justice” litmus test. The words for such a “policy” that come to mind are: “hypocritical”, “discriminatory”, “arrogant”, and “silly”…
[quote]As for Veolia and Yolo Bus, it will be interesting to see what happens as the result of this becoming more public.[/quote]
I predict not a thing…
Elaine:
Your arguments suffer from some problems:
“1) It runs Yolobus, and no one seems to have a problem with that;”
How many people do you think even know about this?
“2) No one seems to have a problem with the fact that much of the products we buy are made in China or other third world countries that are horrific human rights violators (so certainly no socially just);”
Really no one? That’s certainly not true.
“3) There is an underlying assumption here that most Davisites would somehow object to doing business with a company that does business in Israel, which is not necessarily the case;”
Actually there is not which is why I specifically stated: “I do not think the city council gets to make that decision alone, without input and discussion from the community.”
“4) The other underlying component in this argument against using Veolia is that the gov’t/country of Israel is somehow bad – which appears to me to be rank racism against the Jewish state.”
Apparently I’m now racist against my own people. Nice.
“That said, the Vanguard is not a representative for the city of Davis and therefore I have a problem not with its views on ethical issues if it wants to express them, but the fact that it is attempting to impact public opinion by drumming up perceived controversies so as to impact policy on the surface water project which will impact Davis for literally years to come.”
We don’t get a vote, Bill Marble does.
I don’t want to give up local control of this essential public utility. To Woodland, to the JPA, or to some multinational company.
Put it to a vote: Davis voters will find the truth for themselves and get it right.
Who determines what our political ethics are? The city council? If so, whether or not we work with a corporation comes down to what five people’s political leanings are? Was United Water’s problem the fault of just a rogue employee? I think going this route opens up a whole can of worms which could eventually lead to a witch hunt. I mean how many other companies that we deal with might have had some dirt in their past. If, and that’s a big ‘if’ right now, we now go forward with this project we shouldn’t tie the hands of the companies bidding as who knows how that will effect the bid process. I say it will only hurt us.
If you want to avoid Bill Marbles controlling your water supply and rates, you had better get your completed referendum petitions here to my law offices at 430 D St not later than tomorrow!
The concerns about Veolia Water are based on incorrect assertions made by Israel haters and repeated by local extremists. In particular, the claim made in the Vanguard that “Veolia operates buses that are only for Jewish passengers who travel on Jewish-only roads.”, is demonstrably incorrect and should be retracted. I have my own opinion about the motives of those repeating such accusations, but you can draw your own.
See for example the Washington Post at
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012704853.html?referrer=emailarticle[/url]
and also
[url]http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=38&x_article=1791[/url]
[i]The city argued that this would also eliminate change-orders, unless they represented major changes to the project itself.[/i]
Horse-hockey. There are simply too many variables in a project of this size and scope.
[quote]ERM: “2) No one seems to have a problem with the fact that much of the products we buy are made in China or other third world countries that are horrific human rights violators (so certainly no socially just);”
DMG: Really no one? That’s certainly not true. [/quote]
Look at the labels of all the objects in your house. How many were made in China or other third world countries that violate human rights? This will almost certainly be true in every household, IMO. It is virtually impossible, for instance, to buy a techno gadget make entirely in the USA. Like it or not, we are interdependent for components from all over the world, trading with nations that are human rights violators.
[quote]ERM: “4) The other underlying component in this argument against using Veolia is that the gov’t/country of Israel is somehow bad – which appears to me to be rank racism against the Jewish state.”
DMG: Apparently I’m now racist against my own people. Nice. [/quote]
You implied the city of Davis should not use Veolia for social justice reasons, not me…
[quote]“That said, the Vanguard is not a representative for the city of Davis and therefore I have a problem not with its views on ethical issues if it wants to express them, but the fact that it is attempting to impact public opinion by drumming up perceived controversies so as to impact policy on the surface water project which will impact Davis for literally years to come.”
We don’t get a vote, Bill Marble does.[/quote]
You have conjured up various issues to delay/kill the surface water project, and now bc of it get a vote in the referendum…
[i]The belief seems to exist that the city is just not going to be able to find a company of this size and expertise that comes through completely clean.
[/i]
You keep mentioning the problems with two of them (one of which I believe is a non-issue). But there are three bidding. Is there something wrong with CH2M Hill?
Wikipedia:
The firm was named by Fortune magazine as [b]one of the top 100 companies to work for[/b] in 2011, marking the company’s fifth time on the list.[32] In October 2009, the company’s Canadian division, CH2M Hill Canada Ltd., was named one of “Canada’s Top 100 Employers” by Mediacorp Canada Inc., and was featured in Maclean’s newsmagazine. Later that month, CH2M Hill Canada Ltd. was also named one of Greater Toronto’s Top Employers, which was announced by the Toronto Star newspaper.[33]
In 2009, CH2M Hill became the first company in the heavily male-dominated engineering and construction industry to receive the Catalyst Award in [b]recognition of its efforts to develop and advance women[/b] in the company.[34] The firm also was named[b] one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies [/b]by Ethisphere Institute for three consecutive years (2009, 2010, 2011).[35]
This seems to be David Greenwald’s proposal: [i]”The City of Davis needs to draft a reasonable and comprehensive ethics policy that binds all of our future contracts. We hold environmental steward and human rights to very high standards in this community, and to me it is far more important to get this part right first and foremost, before we lock ourselves into a contract with a less-than-ethical company.”[/i]
I would not oppose this in general. However, you have repeatedly said that Veolia’s work in Israel makes them “less than ethical.” But you have never once demonstrated anything factually that Veolia has done wrong in Israel. You have unfortunately not examined the matter, but instead repeated the lies of anti-Semites who hate Israel.
The much bigger, real problem of Veolia is with its contracts in Novato and in Richmond. Those don’t have anything to do with the lies of the anti-Semites in Davis or elsewhere. They have to do with Veolia not providing very good service to nearby communities.
I would add this to our ethics guidelines: a price tag. It might not be in any case the decisive number, but if you are going to rate a company’s track record on ethics–assuming you will stop lying or repeating lies about the company in question–we should know exactly how much this policy will cost us. You say over and over you favor transparency. This is an issue which demands transparency. If it will cost the people of Davis say $5 million per year every year to not consider a certain company because the City decides its ethics record is poor, then we should make that decision knowing how much it will cost. Those $5 million lost might result in cutting programs that serve the needy in our community. We ought to know the trade-offs.
What you have left out is also exceedingly important: the ethics of our members of the City Council. We have a bad history in this respect. Is it ethical for a member of the Council to take money from a developer and then to vote in favor of that developer’s project? Absolutely not. But it happens all the time. The same thing with those who take money from the firefighters: is it ethical of a member of the City Council to accept money from Local 3494 and then vote on a large compensation increase for those individuals who gave the member of the Council $4,600 in his election efforts? Absolutely not.
[i]”the claim made in the Vanguard that “Veolia operates buses that are only for Jewish passengers who travel on Jewish-only roads.”, is demonstrably incorrect and should be retracted.”[/i]
Not only is what David Greenwald wrote about Veolia a total lie–there is no such thing as a road like he described–Greenwald does not even understand what the actual controversy was.
The actual controversy was this: Veolia won a $500 million contract to build and operate the subway system in Jerusalem. That would not have been a big deal, but the design of the system included trains which would go to East Jerusalem, where the majority of residents are Jewish, but where the Palestinians aspire to house their national capital.
So once Veolia agree to start this construction project, the anti-Semites (in the form of the BDS movement) decided to “boycott Veolia because it is building a subway in ‘occupied’ East Jerusalem.”
That was the controversy. It had nothing to do with some “Jewish road” which David Greenwald pulled out of some factless anti-Semitic website.
What David Greenwald, who apparently has never followed this issue, does not seem to know, is that Veolia itself has since withdraw from the subway construction project ([url]http://www.railwayinsider.eu/wp/archives/12900[/url]).
I find it impossible to believe that , in a country the size of the United States, that there are only three companys with the resources to Design, Build, and Operate a water import system for a couple of smallish towns in Californias Central Valley. Who is providing these kind of services for the other 99.9% of the country? It’s time for the CWP to go back to the drawing board.
[i]”That was the controversy. It had nothing to do with some “Jewish road” which David Greenwald pulled out of some factless anti-Semitic website.”[/i]
I should add this: the Davis BDS group of anti-Semites (the source of information which Greenwald relied on for his own phony story) has in fact been repeating this lie about the Jewish only roads over which Veolia does operate a bus service in Israel and the West Bank. The Davis BDS group in fact used that argument before the water works bids came up to say that Veolia should not be allowed to operate Yolo Bus.
What Greenwald needs to understand is that the controversy about the bus lines to the West Bank settlements was created by a left-wing political party in Israel, which opposes the settlements. Their friends in the lefty newspaper, Ha’Aretz, has repeated these lies for political gain. And the anti-Semites in Davis and elsewhere have jumped on them. But there is no basis in truth about the story: there are no roads in Israel or in the West Bank which exclude non-Jews.
I’ve had it and not gonna take it anymore. I say, down with representative government. I think the CC should not be allowed to commit the city to any contract or financial responsibility unless the citizens of Davis approve each and every decision. We could have monthly special elections/referendums for the citizens to vote. All materials necessary for educating the citizens should be mailed to them 2 weeks in advance, with town hall meetings provided in the week prior to the vote. Everyone attending citizen should be provided with a 10 minute window to share their feelings and thoughts. We’ll force all contractors and bidders to present a political affiliation statement, and commit to never offending anyone
Only in this way can the citizens express their direct vote and force the world to behave as we want. Most Davis citizens have lots of extra time that they’ve been spending with kids and family – we should put it to better use micro-managing the city.
I think I’ll just keep asking this question, over and over if necessary.
You keep mentioning the problems with two of the companies. But there are three bidding. Is there something wrong with CH2M Hill? Sounds like a great company. Good to women. Ethical. Highly rated.
Is this just another non-issue being tossed up to try and prevent the water project? David: what is wrong with CH2M Hill? Why didn’t you even mention them in this article?
As long as their bid is within reason, go with them. Issue solved.
This appeared in the Davis Police Department Media Bulletin Sunday, Oct. 16, 2011:
13:54 TRESPASSING
Occurred at Target on 2nd Str., Davis. FEMALE IN THE PLOT SOLICITING FOR SIGNATURES – USING PROFANITY WITH THE STAFF AND BLOCKING THE EXITS – HAS BEEN ASKED SEVERAL TIMES TO LEAVE AND IS REFUSING – BFA 40’S WEARING PURPLE T-SHIRT – JEANS – BLK SHOES. Disposition: Service.
Is this one of Mike Harrington’s hired signature gatherers?
Don, if we go with them and they know that, where’s the competition? Surely you jest!
[i]”Is this one of Mike Harrington’s hired signature gatherers?”[/i]
I belive Davisite2, who has been hanging out with the signature gatherers, knows best:
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bNLU9vgsLgU/Tpj5y-Ng9wI/AAAAAAAAAg4/Vzqy0MDSMP0/s1600/D2.JPG[/img]
If not, perhaps Mike Harrington knows who this woman was who was “USING PROFANITY WITH THE STAFF AND BLOCKING THE EXITS”?
The water agency should get the bids first and compare them. If they are within a reasonable range of each other, ethical considerations are perfectly reasonable for the joint powers agency to take into account. If they are not within a reasonable range of each other, it is always a good idea to analyze why. I don’t suggest going with the lowest bid from a tree service or landscape contractor if it is out of line with others in the industry.
David, as I commented on your last blog entry on this item, I think you are missing the main point here.
Put aside the political issues. There is major controversy around Veolia Water’s operations of water projects.
According to the New York Times, Veolia Water has been actively involved in contributing to local elections, presumably to influence the outcome favorably to Veolia contracts in Marin County.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/us/04sfwater.html?pagewanted=print[/url]
Here is an excerpt: [quote]For its part, Veolia said it had spent $32,000 backing candidates supporting the contract in the recent board election; two won.—[b]New York Times [/b][/quote]
Also, there has been a lot of community controversy around Veolia’s handling of other water contracts. Here are some citizen activist websites laying out the charges.
David, you might want to follow up on some of these and see if there is merit.
[url]http://www.novatoflow.org/shame.html[/url]
[url]www.novatoflow.org/richmond.html[/url]
[url]http://www.novatoflow.org/environment.html
[/url]
I am not acting as an attorney here, but my personal comment is that I do think that Target’s front sidewalk is a public area pursuant to California Supreme Cout caselaw. Target contracts with Starbucks for floor lease space, so that makes two businesses at that location. Two or more equals PUBLIC AREA.
What does Michael Harrington’s 1:20 post refer to?
Mike Harrington’s post is his “no answer” to a query about the rude (using profanity with the staff and blocking exits) signature gatherer at Target over the weekend, which prompted staff to call the police for assistance. See the post further above. The fact that Mike is nit-picking about public vs. private areas implies tells me that person was indeed one of his hired signature gatherers.
Yes Ryan. Can you imagine what we’d be reading from him if someone from the other side had been doing what his employee was doing?
David
I’m sorry that I wasn’t more clear with my request for more information this morning. What I was requesting was not a link to your previous article which I had already read, but rather some substantiation of the claims about Veiola, and specific information about E.coligate
to include whether this is likely to be limited to the two individuals under indictment or whether there is information to suggest it might be more widespread.
I think that having some kind of ethical standard is of value since much of the debate that we hear about on this blog, in the Enterprise both letters and in the opinions section seems to be centered around someone’s perceived unethical behavior. Unfortunately a lot of this seems to boil down to if someone is in agreement with my position, they are acting ethically ( or at least I will choose not to comment on their actions)
but I will be very quick to point out the lack of unethical behavior of my opponents. I am not sure how we would even begin to come to agreement on what would represent an ethical behavior standard. I would love to hear people’s opinions on how we might approach developing such a standard.
[quote]Davis is a very different community, politically and culturally, than Woodland.[/quote]
True. Woodland seems to be a community that is willing to pay a buck a day more for clean, reliable surface water.
[quote][i]”For (Bill Marble, the issue is really about providing the best product for the cities of Woodland and Davis.
And therein lies the problem….
Davis is a very different community, politically and culturally, than Woodland.
We hold our officials to a higher standard.”[/i][/quote]What, pray tell, is the higher standard to which we hold our officials, generally or with respect to this project? Please be specific, rather than just saying than “Davis is better than Woodland; our residents are better and, therefore, our officials have to be better and have higher standards.” And, please don’t make racist implications.[quote][i]”Mr. Marble is not a representative for the City of Davis and, therefore, I have a problem, not with his views on ethical issues, but the fact that they will impact policies that impact Davis.”[/i][/quote]What in the world does this mean? Mr. Marble is one of six directors on the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, charged with “implementing and overseeing a regional surface water supply project to improve water quality” for more than two-thirds of Yolo’s urban population.
Of course, Mr. Marble represents the entire project area (including Davis) on a joint-powers project like this one. Shouldn’t we expect the agency’s appointed board members to cooperate in their WDCWA responsibilities–to consider (and to work to meet the needs) of the entire project area instead of fighting to protect individual communities’ “cultural differences,” whatever that could be in a a water/sewer project.
If you’re demanding our agency appointees to concentrate on taking stands based on the two cities alleged differences instead of providing the “best product for the cities of Woodland and Davis,” I’m afraid you’re accusing the wrong community of having inferior standards.
The only thing I can see resulting from agency officials spending their time fighting out issues based on their cities’ alleged cultural and political differences (instead of focusing, like Mr. Marble, on getting “the best product” for our two cities) is delay and potential collapse of the project.
You say “Davis Needs An Ethics Policy For Dealing with Business Contracts.” I’d like to know what you intend to codify. At this point, and given the vagueness of your solutions, I’d have to say “no, thanks, absolutely not!”
[i][quote]“Veolia has its Palestinian entanglements….It sets up a horrendous choice between cost savings to the ratepayer and environmental and social responsibility in a community that claims these mantras as part of its raison d’être.”[/quote][/i]What do you believe Veolia has done to warrant your social responsibility anxieties?
Don: In answer to your question, if you eliminate two of the three from consideration, you are left with a non-competitive bid process.
[quote]Don: In answer to your question, if you eliminate two of the three from consideration, you are left with a non-competitive bid process.[/quote]
Two is still competition… or is there something I am missing?
Depends on where you view Veolia. But regardless the CWA was making the point that we need three to do this process properly.
The joint powers agency should not adopt an ethics policy, nor should the City of Davis. They should allow the bids to go forward and compare them. Then the performance problems with one company can certainly be a consideration in the final decision.
[i][quote]“The joint powers agency should not adopt an ethics policy, nor should the City of Davis. They should allow the bids to go forward and compare them. Then the performance problems with one company can certainly be a consideration in the final decision.”[/quote][/i]Agreed. Agonizing now about made-up sins or allegations will just delay the project.
Why should David’s “ethics,” whatever they might be (and, nobody knows since he refuses to share the ones he wants codified) override the eligibility conditions already established by the board we’ve selected to oversee this project? How much weight should Davis and the joint powers agency we have established to the outright lies and propaganda that’s been presented here as unquestioned fact?
David cares not enough to take a look at the facts–even when they’ve been offered up to him when he’s previously tossed these same lies into his justification for delaying. Faced with convincing proof of the falsehoods, why repeat them–simply since doing so supports the idea of delaying in order to coming up with yet another ethics-related undertaking for our right-as-rain community?
“How much weight should Davis and the joint powers agency we have established [u][i]give[/i][/u] to the outright lies and propaganda that’s been presented here as unquestioned fact?”
[i][quote]“Depends on where you view Veolia.”[/quote][/i]I guess that would make a difference about whether you see competition here. Also depends on where you view CH2M HILL, doesn’t it?
Come to think of it, where [u]do[/u] you view these two companies? You’ve never said. You’ve only hinted that they make things difficult–or they [u]should[/u] make it difficult for the decision-makers, a situation that could be improved by implementing some kind of ethics policy to keep lower-class Woodlanders from telling higher-standard Davisites what we have to do or should do.
(Come to think of it yet again, it also depends on how you view the fourth company, right? The one that some unknown person doesn’t want to allow to bid because the firm might make things awkward by coming in with a significantly lower bid than the others. The one whose involvement might encourage the other three to come in lower! Where do you view this fourth outfit, as well?)
Basic question everyone is missing when you limit the discussion to ethics in contracting. First, you have to have professional staff working for the taxpayers who actually spend two hours looking into who these prospective bidders are. Two hours on United Water would have found their significant legal issues that should have stuck them from the list; the electeds should never even have heard of United Water for this project. What I want to know is: who the heck brought us United Water?
I think there are fundamental problems in the way that our staff look at this project, and their lack of focus, duty to the taxpayers, or something. I just dont get it: WHY IS UNITED WATER EVEN ON THE LIST?
Dear Mayor and the City Council: I want to know: WHY IS UNITED WATER EVEN ON THE LIST? Why didn’t you guys have a staff member with access to Pacer Federal Court Dockets, and to Lexis, do the simplest name search for litigation and issues?
Actually, in all of the things I have seen about this project, the one I really want to know about is: WHY IS UNITED WATER EVEN ON THE LIST?
If I were the City Manager, I would really want to know who let that one go by.
United Water was indicted last year in Indiana, and the Atlanta Mayor corruption issues are years old.
“First, you have to have professional staff working for the taxpayers who actually spend two hours looking into who these prospective bidders are. Two hours on United Water would have found their significant legal issues that should have stuck them from the list”
Heck, a five minute Google search would have done it.
So Mike supports staff filtering which proposals are forwarded to the Council. If a company submits a proposal, which meets the RFP requirements, staff are supposed to vet them and, based on their two-minute or two-hour Google search, a search for “litigation issues,” etc., are supposed to reject them and not pass them on to the City Council. Staff would then present only the Proposals that staff like. Is this what you are proposing, Mike?
“Only in this way can the citizens express their direct vote and force the world to behave as we want. Most Davis citizens have lots of extra time that they’ve been spending with kids and family – we should put it to better use micro-managing the city.”
Adam, I agree. This is a much better use of our time than spending it with our families, coaching youth sports, helping out in the classroom or working to grow our companies so we can create some more jobs. Davis Democracy is a wonderful thing… we can elect people to represent us and then make all the decisions for them and then blame them when we are wrong.
[i]”I would add this to our ethics guidelines: a price tag. It might not be in any case the decisive number, but if you are going to rate a company’s track record on ethics–assuming you will stop lying or repeating lies about the company in question–we should know exactly how much this policy will cost us.”[/i]
Rich, that is a very good point. Reduce the number of companies allowed to bid and the risks for higher project costs increase.
I will never understand the anti-Israel crap oozing from so many semi-rational people in this town.
[quote]Adam, I agree. This is a much better use of our time than spending it with our families, coaching youth sports, helping out in the classroom or working to grow our companies so we can create some more jobs. Davis Democracy is a wonderful thing… we can elect people to represent us and then make all the decisions for them and then blame them when we are wrong.[/quote]
LOL
“the claim made in the Vanguard that “Veolia operates buses that are only for Jewish passengers who travel on Jewish-only roads.”, is demonstrably incorrect and should be retracted.”
Since racism is tolerated on this blog it should be no surprise that it is not retracted or deleted when observed.