under the table deal with sanitation contract

Posted in the Barling Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 167 Comments Last updated Aug 15, 2012
First Prev
of 9
Next Last
James Bowman

Fort Smith, AR

#1 Jun 16, 2012
the trash contract was pulled again on this last council meeting,(June). The municipal league has told the council they have to take the lowest bid, so Rod Powell pulled the bids AGAIN!!!!!!!

He is hoping to frustrate all the other bidders until MSG Waste,(His fireman buddy), is the only one left, then give him the bid.

On the second round of bids MSG Waste was once again the highest bidder. If he is given the contract, it will cost the people of Greenwood AN ADDITIONAL $134,000 MORE FOR SANITATION SERVICES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. DOES THE COUNCIL WORK FOR THE PEOPLE OR THEIR FIREMEN BUDDIES???
Jim

Springdale, AR

#2 Jun 16, 2012
MSG has the best service.
Jessica

Fort Smith, AR

#3 Jun 16, 2012
James Bowman wrote:
the trash contract was pulled again on this last council meeting,(June). The municipal league has told the council they have to take the lowest bid, so Rod Powell pulled the bids AGAIN!!!!!!!
He is hoping to frustrate all the other bidders until MSG Waste,(His fireman buddy), is the only one left, then give him the bid.
On the second round of bids MSG Waste was once again the highest bidder. If he is given the contract, it will cost the people of Greenwood AN ADDITIONAL $134,000 MORE FOR SANITATION SERVICES. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. DOES THE COUNCIL WORK FOR THE PEOPLE OR THEIR FIREMEN BUDDIES???
Do you really think this is a surprise? How many times has Rod Powell tossed the people of Greenwood to the side and did whatever for his beloved Firemen Buddies?
Liberty fo All

Fort Smith, AR

#4 Jun 17, 2012
Jim wrote:
MSG has the best service.
What part of the FUCKING law does your stupid ass understand? They have to take the lowest bid unless there is an overwhelming and compel;ling reason to reject that bid. Just because Rod Powell wants one of his buddies to get rich off the city of Greenwood and all his crony buddies are in on the deal you can't usurp the law.

Oh. Wait a minute. The Greenwood city council does that all the time.

My bad!

Hell is coming.....Have a happy Fourth of July!
Liberty fo All

Fort Smith, AR

#5 Jun 17, 2012
Jim wrote:
MSG has the best service.
Hey...at Freedom Fest this year I'm sure that Bono and U2 would do a better job providing entertainment than Wally the Clown and the Water Head Bluegrass Band, but you CAN'T freaking afford the Joshua Tree. Now, if the firebugs and their cronies wanted U2 they'd find away to get it done, but the shit would still cost way too much.
G wood

Centerville, AR

#6 Jun 17, 2012
Thunder but is not going to like that Liberty.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#7 Jun 17, 2012
Liberty fo All wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of the FUCKING law does your stupid ass understand? They have to take the lowest bid unless there is an overwhelming and compel;ling reason to reject that bid. Just because Rod Powell wants one of his buddies to get rich off the city of Greenwood and all his crony buddies are in on the deal you can't usurp the law.
Oh. Wait a minute. The Greenwood city council does that all the time.
My bad!
Hell is coming.....Have a happy Fourth of July!
Why don't you guys understand that there IS a compelling reason??? Here it is 1) local company, I've referenced the stats of doing business locally in another thread, I suggest looking it up 2) best service, not even close. On a two day a week route you think Alma or WM are going to make a special trip over for a missed pick up? 3) they have the most legit bid. Not to mention all the other things they provide and the city never, ever sees a charge for (ask Del when the last time the city paid a bill for the city roll off that MSG provides)

For the trash purposes of the bid they have the same one that won it 4 years ago. Same one, all they did was change the dates basically. Not one time did they raise rates. How is WM going to do it cheaper now that they did before? You expect Alma to drive over here for less than a Greenwood Co. can do it? The answer is no they can't, this beating of MSG's bid is bullshit and you guys know it. They're attempting to win the bid and then comes the fuel surcharges and what ever else they can get away with. By the way the difference as it stands right now is only about 90 cents per family per month, so around $10 per month. James why don't you show us how you arrived at the $134,000 figure???

If Mike wasn't a fireman this wouldn't even be an issue, which is really really sad.

To those with their head not up Del's butt, here's the deal. Del didn't consult the council prior to putting the trash contract up for bid. The council had talked previously about obtaining consolidated bids for both trash and recycle business since the recycle bins were received since the last trash contract.

All Del had to do was consult the council, novel idea I know, and all this mess would have been avoided. Now the city is very possibly facing a lawsuit due to Del's actions. Outside of Del's inner circle you can't find anyone that agrees with Del's actions, hell even Gary Campbell asked why they were getting bids...

Yet another example of Del not having the city's best interest at heart. This is anti-Greenwood and there isn't any way around it.
G wood

Centerville, AR

#8 Jun 17, 2012
It is the law Thunder but the law something you and your clan know nothing about.
Donny

Springdale, AR

#9 Jun 17, 2012
G wood wrote:
It is the law Thunder but the law something you and your clan know nothing about.
You are so predictable!
Jim

Euless, TX

#10 Jun 18, 2012
G wood wrote:
It is the law Thunder but the law something you and your clan know nothing about.
Straight from the mind of G oober.
Greenwood

Fort Smith, AR

#11 Jun 18, 2012
blinded by ignorance wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you guys understand that there IS a compelling reason??? Here it is 1) local company, I've referenced the stats of doing business locally in another thread, I suggest looking it up 2) best service, not even close. On a two day a week route you think Alma or WM are going to make a special trip over for a missed pick up? 3) they have the most legit bid. Not to mention all the other things they provide and the city never, ever sees a charge for (ask Del when the last time the city paid a bill for the city roll off that MSG provides)
For the trash purposes of the bid they have the same one that won it 4 years ago. Same one, all they did was change the dates basically. Not one time did they raise rates. How is WM going to do it cheaper now that they did before? You expect Alma to drive over here for less than a Greenwood Co. can do it? The answer is no they can't, this beating of MSG's bid is bullshit and you guys know it. They're attempting to win the bid and then comes the fuel surcharges and what ever else they can get away with. By the way the difference as it stands right now is only about 90 cents per family per month, so around $10 per month. James why don't you show us how you arrived at the $134,000 figure???
If Mike wasn't a fireman this wouldn't even be an issue, which is really really sad.
To those with their head not up Del's butt, here's the deal. Del didn't consult the council prior to putting the trash contract up for bid. The council had talked previously about obtaining consolidated bids for both trash and recycle business since the recycle bins were received since the last trash contract.
All Del had to do was consult the council, novel idea I know, and all this mess would have been avoided. Now the city is very possibly facing a lawsuit due to Del's actions. Outside of Del's inner circle you can't find anyone that agrees with Del's actions, hell even Gary Campbell asked why they were getting bids...
Yet another example of Del not having the city's best interest at heart. This is anti-Greenwood and there isn't any way around it.
Not compelling to a Finder of Fact(A Judge)- Greenwood will get their ass sued off.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12 Jun 18, 2012
Greenwood wrote:
<quoted text>
Not compelling to a Finder of Fact(A Judge)- Greenwood will get their ass sued off.
And it will all be Del's fault-however I think it's more hot air than anything else
Greenwood

Fort Smith, AR

#13 Jun 18, 2012
blinded by ignorance wrote:
<quoted text>And it will all be Del's fault-however I think it's more hot air than anything else
Not this time, it will be Rod Powell's and the rest of the Firemen/Councilmans Fault for screwing up the work that the Mayor and Attorney did, honest work that is.
Donny

Springdale, AR

#14 Jun 18, 2012
Greenwood wrote:
<quoted text>
Not this time, it will be Rod Powell's and the rest of the Firemen/Councilmans Fault for screwing up the work that the Mayor and Attorney did, honest work that is.
Finally an honest comment with out using thunder or butt.
tim

Bentonville, AR

#15 Jun 18, 2012
del dont like mike because mike dont buy fuel from his buddy at eastside.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#16 Jun 18, 2012
tim wrote:
del dont like mike because mike dont buy fuel from his buddy at eastside.
Which used to be the case, but that isn't and hasn't been true for a while.
Liberty For All

Fort Smith, AR

#17 Jun 18, 2012
Once again, Shamu....what part of he law do you not understand? Or is it that you and your buddies just think you're above the law?

The following is from the Arkansas Municipal League Handbook. It's nothing that you pulled out of your ample ass and decided was the law of the land because you and your confused band of merry fire bugs wish it to be so.

Read this. SLOWLY.....We're all know your a stupid slit, but how about you just accept the fact that the only way your boy is getting the contract is by having the lowest bid. Well, legally that is.

==========

In all first-class cities with the mayor/council form of government, the mayor or duly authorized representative
has the exclusive power and responsibility to make purchases of all city supplies, equipment and
materials necessary to conduct the business of the city. The mayor has the authority to enter into contracts
for work or labor on behalf of the city, after approval of the city council.
• The governing body shall set out the procedure for all purchases that do not exceed $20,000. This can
be done by bid or reverse Internet auction. The details for these purchase procedures should be
described in each city’s purchasing ordinance.(Hdbk. 14-58-303)
•When a purchase exceeds $20,000 the mayor or duly authorized representative should advertise in the
local newspaper for competitive bids.
• Bids must be opened on the date and at the exact time and place described in the bid notice published
in the newspaper.

• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.

LOWEST BIDDER. Not Mike my butthole-buddy-fire chasing-but-not-putting-out-cr ony. T

THE LOWEST DAMN BIDDER!

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#19 Jun 19, 2012
A.C.A.§ 22-9-203(d).

Although the Arkansas Supreme Court has not addressed your question in a context requiring an interpretation of A.C.A.§ 14-58-303, the court has addressed this question in various contexts governed by similar statutory bidding requirements that are couched in similar statutory language (including A.C.A.§ 22-9-203, quoted above). In doing so, the court has consistently interpreted the term “lowest responsible bidder,” as used in statutory language, broadly enough to allow the deciding body to reject the lowest bidder (as well as other bidders) on the grounds of factors other than the amounts of the bids. Indeed, the court has made the general observation that “the phrase ‘lowest responsible bidder’ in a statute providing for competitive bids before awarding contracts for certain public improvements implies skill, judgment and integrity necessary to a faithful performance of the contract, as well as sufficient financial resources and ability.” Fletcher v. Cherry, 207 Ark. 650, 651, 182 S.W.2d 211 (1944), quoting Williams v. City of Topeka, et al., 85 Kas. 857, 118 Pac. 864, 38 L.R.A., N.S., 672.

The Fletcher court also noted that “where a statute requires municipal contracts to be let to the ‘lowest responsible bidder’ the duty of the officer letting the contract is not merely ministerial, but partakes of a judicial character, requiring the exercise of discretion.” Fletcher, supra, 207 Ark. at 651.

The court most recently considered the issue you have raised in Massongill v. County of Scott, 329 Ark. 98, 947 S.W.2d 749 (1997). In that case, it was argued that a county had unlawfully rejected the lowest bid for solid waste disposal, in violation of A.C.A.§ 14-22-111. That statute, like A.C.A.§ 14-58-303, required the county to award the contract to the “lowest responsible bidder,” but (also like A.C.A.§ 14-58-303) allowed the county to reject all bids. The court held that this statutory language did not require the county to accept the lowest bid.

Similarly, in Conway Corp. v. Construction Eng’rs., 300 Ark. 225, 782 S.W.2d 36 (1989), the lowest bidder for a city construction contract sued the Conway Corporation, the non-profit organization that operated the City of Conway’s utilities, for rejecting its low bid, and awarding the contract to a higher bidder. The court found that the case was governed by A.C.A.§ 22-9-203 (quoted above), and that under that statute, the Conway Corporation “had the discretion to reject [the lowest bid] so long as the rejection was for good cause and in good faith.” Conway Corp., supra, 300 Ark. at 231, citing Worth James Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville Water Comm’n, 267 Ark. 214, 590 S.W.2d 256 (1979).

The foregoing authorities lead me to the conclusion that because the language of A.C.A.§ 14-58-303 and A.C.A.§ 22-9-203 (both of which could be applicable) use the term “lowest responsible bidder”(as opposed to “lowest bidder”) and allow for the rejection of all bids, the first class city about which you have inquired does have the discretion to consider factors other than the amount of the bids in making its contracting decisions, and to reject the lowest bid, or any other bid, on the basis of those factors.

The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Antley.

Sincerely,

WINSTON BRYANT
Attorney General

WB:SBA/cyh

2/2

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#21 Jun 19, 2012
A.C.A.§ 22-9-203(d).

Although the Arkansas Supreme Court has not addressed your question in a context requiring an interpretation of A.C.A.§ 14-58-303, the court has addressed this question in various contexts governed by similar statutory bidding requirements that are couched in similar statutory language (including A.C.A.§ 22-9-203, quoted above). In doing so, the court has consistently interpreted the term “lowest responsible bidder,” as used in statutory language, broadly enough to allow the deciding body to reject the lowest bidder (as well as other bidders) on the grounds of factors other than the amounts of the bids. Indeed, the court has made the general observation that “the phrase ‘lowest responsible bidder’ in a statute providing for competitive bids before awarding contracts for certain public improvements implies skill, judgment and integrity necessary to a faithful performance of the contract, as well as sufficient financial resources and ability.” Fletcher v. Cherry, 207 Ark. 650, 651, 182 S.W.2d 211 (1944), quoting Williams v. City of Topeka, et al., 85 Kas. 857, 118 Pac. 864, 38 L.R.A., N.S., 672.

The Fletcher court also noted that “where a statute requires municipal contracts to be let to the ‘lowest responsible bidder’ the duty of the officer letting the contract is not merely ministerial, but partakes of a judicial character, requiring the exercise of discretion.” Fletcher, supra, 207 Ark. at 651.

The court most recently considered the issue you have raised in Massongill v. County of Scott, 329 Ark. 98, 947 S.W.2d 749 (1997). In that case, it was argued that a county had unlawfully rejected the lowest bid for solid waste disposal, in violation of A.C.A.§ 14-22-111. That statute, like A.C.A.§ 14-58-303, required the county to award the contract to the “lowest responsible bidder,” but (also like A.C.A.§ 14-58-303) allowed the county to reject all bids. The court held that this statutory language did not require the county to accept the lowest bid.

Similarly, in Conway Corp. v. Construction Eng’rs., 300 Ark. 225, 782 S.W.2d 36 (1989), the lowest bidder for a city construction contract sued the Conway Corporation, the non-profit organization that operated the City of Conway’s utilities, for rejecting its low bid, and awarding the contract to a higher bidder. The court found that the case was governed by A.C.A.§ 22-9-203 (quoted above), and that under that statute, the Conway Corporation “had the discretion to reject [the lowest bid] so long as the rejection was for good cause and in good faith.” Conway Corp., supra, 300 Ark. at 231, citing Worth James Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville Water Comm’n, 267 Ark. 214, 590 S.W.2d 256 (1979).

The foregoing authorities lead me to the conclusion that because the language of A.C.A.§ 14-58-303 and A.C.A.§ 22-9-203 (both of which could be applicable) use the term “lowest responsible bidder”(as opposed to “lowest bidder”) and allow for the rejection of all bids, the first class city about which you have inquired does have the discretion to consider factors other than the amount of the bids in making its contracting decisions, and to reject the lowest bid, or any other bid, on the basis of those factors.

The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Antley.

Sincerely,

WINSTON BRYANT
Attorney General

WB:SBA/cyh

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#22 Jun 19, 2012
Liberty For All wrote:
Once again, Shamu....what part of he law do you not understand? Or is it that you and your buddies just think you're above the law?
The following is from the Arkansas Municipal League Handbook. It's nothing that you pulled out of your ample ass and decided was the law of the land because you and your confused band of merry fire bugs wish it to be so.
Read this. SLOWLY.....We're all know your a stupid slit, but how about you just accept the fact that the only way your boy is getting the contract is by having the lowest bid. Well, legally that is.
==========
In all first-class cities with the mayor/council form of government, the mayor or duly authorized representative
has the exclusive power and responsibility to make purchases of all city supplies, equipment and
materials necessary to conduct the business of the city. The mayor has the authority to enter into contracts
for work or labor on behalf of the city, after approval of the city council.
• The governing body shall set out the procedure for all purchases that do not exceed $20,000. This can
be done by bid or reverse Internet auction. The details for these purchase procedures should be
described in each city’s purchasing ordinance.(Hdbk. 14-58-303)
•When a purchase exceeds $20,000 the mayor or duly authorized representative should advertise in the
local newspaper for competitive bids.
• Bids must be opened on the date and at the exact time and place described in the bid notice published
in the newspaper.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
• The mayor or duly authorized representative has the exclusive power to award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder.
LOWEST BIDDER. Not Mike my butthole-buddy-fire chasing-but-not-putting-out-cr ony. T
THE LOWEST DAMN BIDDER!
Those weren't pulled out of my ample ass or the ample ass you think I am either. Courts have ruled and Attorney Generals have opined.

Did you read that slowly??? Are you willing to accept Mike getting the contract or are you going to give us a soliloquy on the unfairness of the world?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barling Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Did you vote today? (Jun '10) 2 hr Bob 29,669
AR More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark (Jan '11) 6 hr bird man 9,884
AR Arkansas Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10) Sun guest 3,839
AR Who do you support for Commissioner of State La... (Oct '10) Sun guest 262
AR Who do you support for Treasurer in Arkansas in... (Oct '10) Sun guest 209
AR Who do you support for Governor in Arkansas in ... (Oct '10) Sun guest 944
AR Exit polls: Boozman defeats 2-term incumbent Li... (Nov '10) Sun guest 835
•••
•••
Barling Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Barling Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Barling People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Barling News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barling
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••