1997 SPE MIN JUN 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mark McDonald, Counselor at Law, began his presentation by giving an explanation as to how he became involved in the matter being discussed. He explained the process he followed in finalizing the report before the Council. The investigative report was dated June 16, 1997 and entitled "An Investik.tation into the Bid Process LeadIng to the Award of the Waste Disposal. Coi.-itract to Taorunina, Industries and the Subsequent Adn.unistration of the Contract", and was broken down as follows: Purpose & Scope of Investigation; Witness Statements; Campaign Contribution Records; Summary of Findings & Conclusions; and Recommendations with supporting exhibits. A-ttomev McDonald and Attom.ey BIggs provided clarification to questions as raised during Attorney McDonald"s presentation, Attoni.ev Biggs referred to Page 2 of the reportand asked Attorney McDonald to respond to the questions as listed which he was directed by the City to investigate- 1- How and when was this renegotiation initiated? The renegotiation refers to the process of amendments, and it began at the end. of 1996 through the extension of the site acquisition date, -and the draw down on the $20,000 letter of credit, the switch in the billing program, commercial billing program and later the attempted amendments, such, as the Evergreen provision that brought the niatter to this point, lt was done through an ef-r-ort to put it before the City Manager without the City Attorney's approval and have it approved -in a private 'between Taormina and the City Manager's Office and put before the Council for its agreement approval in a nianner that was designed to also keep the Council from knowing what was going on - 2. When was the $20,000 penalq, for failure to obtain MRF site within the CRN,� waived? Bv whom.? On what authority? That was waived by Daryl Parrish as the final okay, that was at Malik Freeman's direction to Mr. Parri sh and it was with Mr, Freeman's understanding, so lie. states,, that Mr, Parrish was the Contract Administrator and an expert ii -.i the administration arid interpretation of co.titract revisions. That was done in December 1996. 3. Was any legal counsel sought prior to waiver of the $20,000 penaltv'� If not, why not"' No. 'W'hy not, because Mr. Parrish was an expert in contract interpretation. According to Mr. Freeman, Mr. PaiTish told Mr. Freeman that the Council did not need to be involved in. this decision, because Mr. Parrish's reading of the contract indicated that to 1\4r. Parrish. 4. Who was involved in the renegotiation process, and how was it directed? There were parties all over the place that were involved that are no longer with the City that are circumstantial ly and peri fically involved; however, Mr. Freeman,, more, directly Mr. Parri sh and Mr. Ault were involved in the renegotiation process. Ms, Bornig was involved and steadfastly followed directions to keep Julie Biggs from knowing what was going on. Those directions came from. Mr. Freeman. and Mr. Parrishand Mr. Ault. 5. Why was the matter not brought to the City Council at the beginning of the process to determine whether the Council wanted the renegotiation process to go forward?