Members of the Ocean City Flooding Committee had the audacity to question the city’s spending on $629,100 worth of no-bid contracts at last week’s City Council meeting.
They did not receive a pleasant reception.
The message from City Council members was simple: we believe in public comment but not in public comment that questions our decisions or our motives for making those decisions.
Granted, the Ocean City Flooding Committee members brushed right up to the line on whether they were alleging the decisions about the contracts involving flood mitigation and remediation projects were ethical, but we don’t believe they crossed that line to accuse anyone of misconduct.
We’re not sure if that was what aggravated city council members and made City Engineer George Savastano’s “blood boil” or if it was the fact the committee members repeatedly said the city wasn’t looking out for the best interests of taxpayers with the way they were spending on the contracts, including one that had open-ended prices.
The committee members laid out reasons for hiring a better firm for the work and taking a more comprehensive approach to flooding on the island instead of a “piecemeal plan of Band-Aids.”
They did raise the specter of impropriety when they asked that the city not use firms with which they have established “personal relationships” and said that splitting up the contracts “seems a bit duplicitous.”
However, taken a different way, that implied the city was opting for the familiar.
The Ocean City Flooding Committee members didn’t help their cause in one aspect. After saying the contracts should have gone out to bid, they also said the city should have chosen a different firm to handle all the work – which meant simply choosing a different no-bid firm, albeit one they believe was better suited for all the projects.
The public comment presentation spanned multiple speakers and included handouts given to the council members.
When they had the chance, no city council member paused to consider the Ocean City Flooding Committee’s request to delay for two weeks the vote on the contracts to provide time for city officials to meet with representatives of the 4,400-member-strong committee.
Not one council member – whether of long standing or newly elected – gave the slightest indication they would give the committee members’ request any consideration or that they were interested in anything the speakers had to say.
Instead, Councilman Keith Hartzell convinced Savastano to reply to the “accusations.” And he did, at length, and intensely, after saying he didn’t know if he wanted to dignify them with a response.
Savastano said some of the committee members’ comments were “hogwash” and made the case the city has spent years on flood mitigation, that the firms hired were established and reputable, as were the city staff who reviewed them, and that taxpayers are always the highest priority as decisions are made. (Committee members acknowledged at the start of their comments that this administration has done more for flood mitigation than any administration prior. No one can argue the administration has not been extremely ambitious in making infrastructure improvements that had been ignored in previous administrations.)
Council members voted unanimously to approve all of the contracts as part of a consent agenda. A minute earlier, Council President Bob Barr rebuked the committee members. He said “public discourse is important” and if they have evidence of misconduct they should bring it forward, however they shouldn’t make accusations without evidence to back it up because it was damaging to city officials’ reputations.
It is true that if committee members were bringing up allegations of misconduct, they should have to back that up. The problem is that by rebuking them only on this aspect, it allowed council to skate by and not consider any of the larger concerns about no-bid contracts and other issues they raised.
Also, the way public comment is set up, council members and other city officials are not supposed to directly respond to issues raised there.
City officials can’t say they are fully vested in public comment if they can pick and choose to what they want to respond.
This Council, with different names and faces. (Except for Hartzell who like a Vampire won’t go) is nothing but a yes team for the Mayor. No checks and balances! And when a member of the tax paying public dares to speak up, they are publicly humiliated by this team of spenders. I’ve seen it for years now. Bob Barr? The biggest yes man of all and his reputation preceded him into Council. Savastano? I remember him well from the Perillo years. They are just so outraged to have to answer for their actions aren’t they? The whole bunch of big fish in a small bowl need to either get a backbone, be responsible or resign. And Hartzell, you are probably the worst of the bunch and set a bad tone for new people coming in. Go away!
This is why people are afraid to speak up or have decided not to be bothered participating in our city government, they know they could be ignored.or insulted. Thank you OCSentinel for publishing the unvarnished truth about what happened last week. Too be clear, Ocean City Flooding Committee, a Chapter of Higher Ground, were not suggesting anything criminal being done by this administration. We apologize if they misunderstood us. At the end of many of the resolutions in question was a statement from the city that said something like “We are going with this company because we have used them before and found their work satisfactory”. I wrote “personal relationship” based on that but in all cases I really was trying to say “previous relationship” . We noted that OC seems to be awarding multiple contracts to ACT Engineers even though they don’t have the professionals needed to fulfill the contract(s) as indicated both on their web site and in at least one of their proposals and using their founder as a meeting facilitator for things separate from any contracts they have with us and paying her separately.
In addition, we want to see an island wide plan (as we’ve been asking for for 6 years based on our knowledge of current scientific information) not a piecemeal plan and we think it would be smart to hire one company to do it all who can meet all our needs without having to hire other vendors to fill in the professional gaps ACT Engineers has, That doesn’t make sense. It also makes no sense for council to pass a resolution that leaves five line items empty. Isn’t that like giving ACT a blank check? Did they even read it? But we think any contract that’s going to cost almost a million dollars, possibly more, should go out to bid in an effort to get the best company we can for the best price we can. OCFC thinkS it is the duty of city council and this administration to be financially responsible with our money as well as forward thinking with our island. Both Mr. Barr and and Mr. Savastano said they always have the needs of the residents of OC in mind and then went on to ignore and insult those of us that asked for their attention to this issue. The council and city administration, according to their own rules as we understand them, are not supposed to answer us or engage with us during the meeting. That’s a rule I disagree with but its there. Mr. Hartzell broke that rule by insisting Mr. Savastano reply to what he thought we were saying. When I asked to be allowed to clarify that we were referring to the city’s statement within the resolution about having used these companies before, Mr. Barr shouted “NO!’ at me! I think if they are going to break the rules to insult us because they are misunderstanding what we are saying, we should have been allowed to respond. To me being a public servant means serving all of the public to the best of your ability in all you do even if the public has questions or concerns. Even if you don’t like us, it is “we the people” who are paying you to safeguard our money , resources and quality of life.