The Common Council voted to approve two ordinances authorizing the city to borrow nearly $1.5M to purchase a new "Integrated Public Safety Software Suite" and the hardware to operate it. The new equipment and software will be used primarily to accurately communicate information from emergency dispatchers to emergency responders in Middletown and Portland. This replaces a $400,000 system which was installed in 2008.The meeting opened with two members of the public speaking to the ordinance. David Fuchs, representing the police union, urged approval, "We rely on software ... for every response." Sal Caracoglia spoke against further spending, "As a taxpayer, I come before you ... and it's always the same story... We're gonna be in the hole."
Councilmen asked questions of Wayne Bartoletta, director of Central Communications, and of Bill Oliver, director of Technical Services, about the proposed purchase. These questions and their answers were similar to those given at previous meetings of the Public Safety Commission and the Common Council on this subject.
James Streeto offered Bartoletta the opportunity to state that there are several risks present every day that passes before the replacement of the current system.
Vincent Loffredo challenged Oliver to justify the two purchases, and asked why this purchase would turn out better than the purchase of the previous system. Oliver said that although he was involved in the previous purchase, the decision-making process was led by the (now retired) Chief of Police, Lynn Baldoni. "I don't want to make it sound like I'm passing the buck. ... The process was different back then."
Oliver explained that the new software system would be good "indefinitely", as long as the city continued to pay the annual maintenance fees, which he anticipated would be $106,000 in the first year. He said that some of the hardware might last as long as 8-10 years, while other components would need to be replaced in 4-5 years.
Ronald Klattenberg praised the committee which created the purchasing recommendation, "I think this is a model for the city to use in the future. I've been very impressed with the expertise." The committee consisted of Chief of Police Patrick McMahon and 5 others from the Police Department, Deputy Fire Chief Kronenberger, Director of Central Communications Wayne Bartoletta, and Deputy Director of Central Communications David Boyce.
James Streeto asked the Mayor if he supported the ordinances before the council. Giuliano said that he did so, but only reluctantly, "I tend to have a problem with [borrowing to pay for] equipment that has a finite life span, but .... I endorse it."
Only David Bauer opposed the two ordinances, and he did so at least in part on procedural grounds. He suggested that the splitting of a $1.5M system into two separate $745,000 purchases was illegal and done solely to circumvent the requirement that any borrowing of more than $750,000 had to be approved by the voters in a referendum. He refused to accept the "absolute opinion" of Bond Counsel Joe Fasi, of the law firm Murtha Cullina, that these two bond ordinances are legal. Bauer called for the Council to "find an honest and transparent way to do this."
In an interview with The Eye after the meeting, Robert Santangelo confirmed that the splitting of the purchase into two parts was done expressly to avoid the need for a referendum. He said that there is a crisis which jeopardizes the safety of the police and the public, and that a referendum would cause a delay in addressing the crisis.
Vincent Loffredo challenged Oliver to justify the two purchases, and asked why this purchase would turn out better than the purchase of the previous system. Oliver said that although he was involved in the previous purchase, the decision-making process was led by the (now retired) Chief of Police, Lynn Baldoni. "I don't want to make it sound like I'm passing the buck. ... The process was different back then."
Oliver explained that the new software system would be good "indefinitely", as long as the city continued to pay the annual maintenance fees, which he anticipated would be $106,000 in the first year. He said that some of the hardware might last as long as 8-10 years, while other components would need to be replaced in 4-5 years.
Ronald Klattenberg praised the committee which created the purchasing recommendation, "I think this is a model for the city to use in the future. I've been very impressed with the expertise." The committee consisted of Chief of Police Patrick McMahon and 5 others from the Police Department, Deputy Fire Chief Kronenberger, Director of Central Communications Wayne Bartoletta, and Deputy Director of Central Communications David Boyce.
James Streeto asked the Mayor if he supported the ordinances before the council. Giuliano said that he did so, but only reluctantly, "I tend to have a problem with [borrowing to pay for] equipment that has a finite life span, but .... I endorse it."
Only David Bauer opposed the two ordinances, and he did so at least in part on procedural grounds. He suggested that the splitting of a $1.5M system into two separate $745,000 purchases was illegal and done solely to circumvent the requirement that any borrowing of more than $750,000 had to be approved by the voters in a referendum. He refused to accept the "absolute opinion" of Bond Counsel Joe Fasi, of the law firm Murtha Cullina, that these two bond ordinances are legal. Bauer called for the Council to "find an honest and transparent way to do this."
In an interview with The Eye after the meeting, Robert Santangelo confirmed that the splitting of the purchase into two parts was done expressly to avoid the need for a referendum. He said that there is a crisis which jeopardizes the safety of the police and the public, and that a referendum would cause a delay in addressing the crisis.
4 comments:
During the Tuesday night Public Hearing on said topic, I asked very specially, "Why are there two separate appropriations and not one?" The Director of technical services Bill Oliver was asked to respond to the question after the close of the public hearing and after a convoluted indirect answer was asked once again. The reply given was that each appropriation is unique, they are not one in the same, and that each appropriation could be purchased and installed independently of the other and operate without problem. HUM; Glad to hear the truth come out, but I resent that the full truth was withheld. The Mayor who clearly new, and the council if they knew should have been honest and straight forward with the public from the moment these bond ordinances where entertained. If you are avoiding bringing a referendum and what you reccommend is lawful than tell the whole truth from the beginning, don't try to hide behind some guise of a half truth, or withhold the truth altogether until questioned repeatly.
Trouble is, that's not the truth. If the appropriations were not separated the total amount would require a referendum vote, which, most assuredly,would not have favored the purchase.
And what is the crisis? Did I miss something in this story?
If the council had any common sense they would have approved the software and postponed the purchase of the hardware. It would become evident that one project requires the other to succeed. The tax payers have been denied there rights by charter, this project should go to referendum, and it’s not too late to do the right thing council.
Post a Comment