Over the past few years watchdogs in Mission Viejo have questioned why one favorite vendor is awarded virtually every contract.
This council majority reminds me of the famous three monkeys. “Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.”
The following is one example of how the city of Mission Viejo is broken. We suffer from a lack of oversight.
Two months ago I published a story entitled “Is Mission Viejo a “closed city” to contractors?”
Case in point. In that report I commented that the city of Mission Viejo has published a listing of approximately 300 names of city consultants for fiscal year 08-09. There are only two names to be found in the category of “construction design services.” They are Richard Fisher Associates and RJM Design.
To recap: Richard Fisher and Associates received six purchase orders from Jan 2006 through April of 2010 totaling roughly $76,357.
During that same timeframe RJM Design was awarded over $One million dollars with 28 “no bid” purchase orders.
As typical for any city, the department head has a cap under which there is no requirement for obtaining council approvals on purchase orders below said limits.
What I held back in the August post related to insider activity relating to one of the RJM purchase orders that is in my files.
Follow the sequence between Nancy Livingston in Finance and Director Keith Rattay relating to vendor RJM Design.
“From Nancy Livingston to Dir. Keith Rattay on May 26th 11:39 a.m Subject. Purchase requisitions.
Keith,
I have questions/comments about two Public service requisitions pending in IFAS.
Re: PR R9920 to RJM for $7,500 for “schematic sign design services for pilaster signage,” is that for the Crown Valley Parkway widening project? There’s not very much description in the proposal or bid recap, so I wasn’t sure. If it is, the costs should probably be charged to the CVP CIP not 547101. If not, then could you provide more description?
Re: PR R9919 to RJM for $9,500 in “miscellaneous design services, etc.” It looks like that requisition should be a change order to existing PO 060161. PO 060161 was issued to RJM in September for $14,900 using a very similar description–miscellaneous design, graphics, coordination, etc. A $9,500 change order to that PO would then, of course, require Council approvals, because of the amount of the initial PO.
Thanks, Nancy
From Nancy Livingston Thursday, June 08 1:38 PM. Subject FW: RJM Purchase Requisitions.
Keith
I didn’t hear back from you on these reqs and am still holding onto them, pending the response. I saw that you were going to be out all next week and wanted to remind you before you left.
Also, FYI, we’re trying to set up budget meetings with certain department heads. We’re looking to meet with you on Tues, June 20, from 3-4 p.m. I’ll send out appt notices once I get the final times figured out. Nancy
From Keith Rattay to Nancy Thursday, June 08 2:22 PM.
Yes I got your message I am still trying to go through everything from beijing gone. Also I am gone next week too for EOC training!!! (Not wild abut it but promised I would go)
Yes the first one is for CVP and I will bill to that. Tyhe second is a differnt effrot. As they to small assignments for us to cut them purhcase orders. I really do not think we need to go to council on that one. It is not one long continuous project. I will have Maria Fix the CVP one!
Thanks for the reminder!
From Nancy Livingston Thursday, June 08 2:44 PM to Keith Rattay. Subject. RE: RJM Purchase Requisitions.
Keith,
Okay on the fix to the first req re: CVP. On the second one, you’re going to have to provide a much different description for it not to be a change order, because the wording is almost exactly the same (and both are pretty generic) for the first PO in the same fiscal year to RJM for $14,900. Can it become a new “miscellaneous” amount for a new 06-07 PO? Nancy
From Keith Rattay to Nancy Livingston June 08 2:54 PM
No problem. I will develop a different set of words.”
Gilbert comments. How many problems can you find in these exchanges?
I.e. Potential for doctoring purchase requisitions /purchase orders.
Blank check generic text on purchase orders not subject to any audit.
One vendor being awarded over 90 precent of similar “no bid” work
While some of the purchase orders did require and obtain council approvals, do you truly believe that any of the three monkeys ever questioned why RJM is basically the only vendor awarded business during this recession?
I intentionally left out the year “2006” that appears in each email exchange.
I have a copy of the two page email from which this post was written. The typos were in that document. As such I have not corrected any of them.
Yes, I wish we had some whistle blowers at city hall. I saw and questioned lots of things while I was there. Unfortunately, without a majority vote to help me persue things, and staff all too willing to sue me for even asking questions, I wish everyone luck. It will take a tsunami the size of Bell to open pandora’s box. And, truth doesn’t look likely any time soon.
All I can say is that I keep really good files, and whenever someone does break, it is likely I can back them up. The question of willingness to get involved is a tough one. I have learned that when a majority decides to shut you out and then to use the system and the employees to their benefit, they can ruin you and your life. I am happy being out here.
I do, however to carry my pepper spray after LM yelled and swore at me and I wrote registered letters to all four council plus the CA and the CM. Not so much as a sneeze from any of them. If I did not have the receipts from registered mail, I would not know that they received them.
There are big things that need to be looked into, thank you Larry for looking in some hard places.
Part of the problem with the reporting/commentary here is the failure to link the scope of the problem with the intensity of the accusation. From a level reading of the story above there could be1) no misconduct of any kind and simply a poorly written email exchange, 2) poor contract control that may or may not have resulted in extra expense to the city, or 3) a vast conpisracy at city hall involving fraudulent contracts, self dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.
AThe problem is that while the headline and the lead paragraph would lead you to believe that there is terrible corruption and mismanagement at the city, when you actually read the story there are only two things established, 1) one contractor has received most of one type of work from the city for the past couple of years, and 2) there was a single possibly poorly written email exchange between the city and that contractor.
While it may not be ideal for the city to award a large number of contracts to one vendor, there are many reasons why that practice may be appropriate and in the best interest of the city. If a vendor’s prior work allows them to bid future work more cheaply (by having unique equipment in the area or having developed special expertise because of the prior work), then it would make sense for that vendor to be able to be the most cost efficient way to move forward.
There are a number of ways to determine if the bidding practice was appropriate. First, you can independently analyze the contracts by having another qualified contractor review the work and determine it’s cost effectiveness. Alternatively, you could interview city officials and ask questions about the bidding process to determine why it was conducted the way it was. You could then compare that process to the process used in a municipality that has what you consider to be ideal public contract procedures.
Instead of doing either of these measures that would be accepted practice for any professional journalist, the post instead makes broad accusations unsupported by anything other than supposition without supporting fact. This kind of reporting makes it even more difficult to determine if the contracting process in Mission Viejo is flawed. By making sweeping accusations and then failing to support those accusations with fact, the only reasonable conclusion is that ALL of the accusations are unsupported.
Geoff.
This is initial discovery on my part. It will be of interest to see what the city manager has to add to this abuse in our city. You immediately come to the defense of the council majority and city manager. Our relationship with RJM is not as innocent as you try to portray.
And even if its a simple case of poor project management whose fault is that?
The root cause can be blamed on giving Director Keith Rattay the power to issue all of these no bid contracts that together exceed one million dollars while the other qualified vendor gets a bone.
There is more to be researched on these contracts by I will keep that to myself, for now.
Perhaps we can go into city hall together and perform some extended fact finding.
As I have been monitoring our city for over 20 years I might mention one former mayor who required at least one bidder on a major project that his firm had to kick in some bucks for bid consideration. That story was not written by me. However it was covered by the LA Times. While our contractor moved some of the rocks in our planter last week he did not disturb the data buried under them.
I hope that you keep at it Larry because if there is any malfeasance I would like it rooted out. I am always for what is best for the City of Mission Viejo. My problem with the post is that although you now say that this is your “initial discovery,” your headline and lead paragraph condemn the city and its leadership as though you have uncovered vast corruption and a conspiracy. I would not have commented at all if your headline and lead paragraph had been “city’s contract procedures should be review because one contractor is getting most of the work and there may be questionable email exchanges.” Instead we get a “burn down the city” headline and lead paragraph followed by the faintest puff of smoke of a POTENTIAL and unproven problem. Having no independent stake in this thing outside of wanting what is best for Mission Viejo, stories like this only support my current belief that we are doing pretty darn good with out current leadership.
Geoff.
The city council majority has been mum about this vendor. If you watch our council meetings I recall my questioning this vendor in the past only to have my public comments fall on deaf ears.
While non agendized items do not necessitate any follow up the facts speak for themselves. If there was a valid justification, and there isn’t, the correct action would be to point out that I am wrong and produce evidence.
I even have city correspondence for RJM Design relating to the Casta Golf Course property where, as a 1099 independent contractor, Larry Ryan of RJM Design is pressuring the golf course property management into giving the city a few acres of land required for the expansion of the Marguerite tennis center complex CIP.
Since when do cities empower consultants to have that responsibility?
Interesting comments by Mr. Willis–but Willis never addressed the issue of Keith Rattay’s actions. Is this purposeful on Mr. Willis part ????
Could this be an endemic problem at city hall??
Could there be consistent quest5ionable charging ?
Could there be shifting of overrun projects to other project accounts to cover poor management control??
The Murray Center expansion comes to mind !!
All very good questions. Had ANY of these questions have been answered in the post, I would not have posted a response. However, the story starts by assuming a MAJOR problem in the City and then only delivers the faintest puff of smoke as proof. If ANY of the questions you posed have been answered in the affirmative with any evidentiary support, I would have immediately supported Mr. Gilbert’s story. Instead, I feel like I am at the McCarthy hearings and Mr. Gilbert is holding a blank sheet of paper and is screaming about the list of names on the paper.
Some people really want to know the facts, and others just want to throw dirt at people and wait to see what sticks. One leader of a slate for MV is sending out e-mails to every list (she) has including the little leagues, the swim club, the schools, the ‘character committee’, the realtors, the animal shelter, tennis and rec center members, the veterans clubs, the activities committee, the library docents, chamber members, church members even certain HOA’s e-mail lists. Her e-mails include undocumented accusations, and blank sheet screaming such as Mr. W. accuses LG of.
Since she would not have any evidentiary support as to what Mr. H and Mr. S’s states of mind were and who they were or were not working for at the time, what kind of a ‘character’ sends out thousands of e-mails making statements and accusations of hate and liable on a resident of the city?
My recommendation is that if you are receiving one of these regular blast and daily e-mails with lies and misinformation, just delete them from your computer, and ask to be taken off her list.
The same goes for ‘slate mailers’. You know, the ones whose names suggest they are good taxpayer, conservative, or public safety supporters. Fact: these slate mailers are PAID ADVERTISEMENTS. The candidate or issue with the most money or influence gets their name on the most slates. In some cases, these slates were locked up for certain incumbents well before they knew what their slate would be. Some have been bargained for and others have dismissed one candidate (who had confirmed their status), for another with more money or more clout.
For years, even when I was an elected, I always advised voters to simply throw them in the trash without looking at them. This year voters are getting more informed and looking deeper, but they still want to believe the best of people. Just watch the politics and games being played at ALL levels, and in just about every race. Ask yourself, ARE politicians people?
Something happens to most people when they get a little power and some support and money they never had before. Its probably a good year to give some incumbents a much needed vacation so they can remember why they ran in the first place.