Dear Editor,
There should be a forensic audit of the parking meter contract with the city; first, we should take the ‘good deal’ argument off the table. The fact that something is a good deal does not mean that one should not perform due diligence. Good deals and due diligence are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, a good deal does not mean it’s the best solution or that the city is receiving the best value. Contracts should be awarded on what is determined to be the best value to the customer, in this case the city. Editor, This deal fails the most basic of tests for procuring public goods and services. As for due diligence, the team that went to Mexico has neither the experience nor the technical expertise to evaluate a proposal to install a parking meter system. No independent studies or analyses were ever conducted to determine the best solution for the city.
The Deputy Mayor was not aware of the trip to Mexico and was unaware that a contract to install parking meters in the city was fully executed. Essentially, the city paid for the car before test-driving it, and they are apparently very proud of this decision. This is beyond incompetence.
The prospective contractor paid the entire travel cost of the Mayor, the Town Clerk and two other council members for their trip to Mexico. This move clearly undermines the city officials’ objectivity. How can they be impartial?
This thing even fails the smell test. If this contract is allowed to go through, tell me on what basis would the sitting government condemn the PPP for past transgressions? Would the PPP not be entitled to invoke the now famous Oscar Clarke’s defence? “I have no apologies; I getting like Mr Harmon”. I hope the voters are watching and are observing the utter contempt with which those in power treat them.
Yours faithfully,
Yvette Short
