Based on the facts, you decide
To the editor:
Cape Coral Council Meetings and workshops are sometimes boring but other times really interesting. Not necessarily for the comments of council, sometimes it’s the body language, facial expressions and rare lack of comment that is more interesting. That was the case for me on March 28 regarding the Forensic Audit.
For several meetings, the forensic audit had come to the table and a vote postponed. At a previous meeting Mr. Leetz seemed to express an unwillingness to vote for this issue. Even Mr. Deile seemed to display some doubt. At that meeting Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Brandt played “Hot Potato” with the gavel and debated which one of them would make a motion to go through with the audit. Neither did and it was moved to March 28.
On arriving this 28th day of March, I noted some comment in the room which was in line with my observation of doubt by some council persons. People thought it would not pass as they perceived Deile and Leetz were on the fence, but the “no” side of that fence.
The night progressed and as we got to the forensic part of the agenda, I noted something curious. My previous career provided me with three decades of observing behavior of people who came to my attention for various reasons. I took a look at the council when the forensic audit question item came up and formed the opinion the die had been cast and it would pass. The names of those citizens who had applied to speak were called.
What you have to realize when you participate in the public input part of the council’s agenda is that you only get three minutes to share your view, no matter the seriousness, amount of content or history of the subject. Although the mayor is, and I appreciate, willing to give you a couple of extra seconds, it isn’t much but it’s the rule so I get it.
What happens when all the citizens are through with their three minutes, the council gets the last word. Not only the last word but no time limit on that last word. If you are not in support of something they do support, some council people will take time to chastise you with a whole bunch of last words. Others will just state their view and move on.
For instance, I once asked how the reduction of the Utility Rates from 15 percent to 8 percent was arrived at. Having read the report, I asked if it wasn’t it against what the expert had recommended. Mr. Brandt, instead of answering this citizen’s question of his district representative, chastised me for not being at the meetings when it was discussed. My thought here is that many people have jobs, a family and responsibilities that may not allow them to attend every meeting. So, if they do get time to come, have a question about a council action, they deserve an answer, not a scolding for not attending a meeting. So, my answer from my district representative was no answer.
Back to the input on the audit. The mayor had provided what he thought was overwhelming evidence in his support of this audit of alleged corruption in other cities where the contractor had done business. He said this showed, among other things, many cases of intentional over billing and corrupt practices. The problem, it was all circumstantial and about other places.
My turn came and I related that the news stories provided by the mayor pointed to a common thread with the two cities in the mayor’s submissions. That common thread, according to the stories, alleged corruption. Not with the contractor, with the cities. I also provided some fact, not innuendo or circumstantial.
Fact, based on the Kessler report, a complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2006 after his last audit. Fact, the Department of Justice – Anti Trust Division had sent an attorney and an FBI Agent to the Cape. Fact, they consulted with the City Attorney’s Office, reviewed the contract and issues reported by Kessler and found, NO evidence of bid rigging or anything else of evidentiary value.
More fact was the cooperation between the contractor, memorialized in letter form, and the city in a review of labor costs over the five total years of 2004 – 2008. Refunds were made to the city and acknowledged by the city.
My three minutes were disappearing fast, I had more facts than minutes and I was asked by the mayor to summarize so I did. My point was that we had spent $ 130,000 dollars with Mr., Kessler for the last audit which alleged misconduct. The result, both the DOJ and FBI found no bid rigging or other evidence he had alleged.
Fact, in 2006, the auditing firm Price, Waterhouse, Coopers in cooperation with the Saxon/Gilmore Law Firm had done a performance review of the contract and work of the contractor. They found them IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT. I wasn’t finished but my time was.
I was watching each of the council members as I spoke and formed the same opinion I had earlier, this was a done deal.
The council’s time came and I was really expecting to be chastised from those who have done so in the past, curiously nothing came. Mr. Leetz posed an interesting question, something he had not offered before when he seemed to question the need for this audit. He asked, (I will paraphrase) but the point is made – Why would a responsible and/or honest city council not want an audit of a contract in order to review it for being correct? Why would an honest and/or responsible contractor not want a review of their contract and work if they are honest? Well, of course the answer is they would not object. This is one of those, “Have you quit beating your wife yet” questions.
Fact, MWH never objected to a review or audit. They had, in fact, had audits of labor costs and refunded the city money. Fact, the previous city council or manager had never requested an audit or review other than the ones mentioned.
Here is a better question, Mr. Leetz, which I would have posed if my three minutes wasn’t up. Why would a responsible and/or honest city council request specific auditors by name, calling them a team, to do this new audit? Auditors, who had made allegations before, whose evidence had not provided anything worthy of prosecution? Why would a responsible and/or honest city council not put it out to bid with a new and unbiased auditor? It would seem that a number of people on the council have a predetermined conclusion in mind and have stated what that is. Would a new auditor compromise their enumerated conclusions?
Am I against an audit of MWH’s work, absolutely not. What I am against is the public disrespect and insults by our council, directed at anyone, citizens, city employees or companies doing business with the city based on everything but fact, mostly innuendo and apparent personal agendas. The city had previously, and currently has, the right to audit the work. Why not just do that and see where the cards fall without letting this degenerate into name-calling insults? Probably because without the specter of heinous alleged criminal activity, we taxpayers might not want to spend $200,000 on an audit. By the way, this will not be on the back of all city residents, just on the bills of the utilities ratepayers, 60,000 of us. Also, it is $200,000 plus the costs we will reimburse MWH for providing all labor, printing, etc. involved the thousands of pages of material the auditors will ask for.
In this case, the mayor goes on and on about the solid evidence he has and we will recover large amounts of money. Mr. Brandt said there is a Pot of Gold at the end of the rainbow and they will pursue it until they know. I say, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Brandt, if your case against the contractor has such powerful evidence, submit it all to the Department of Justice. They will see the brilliance of your complaint and do a forensic audit for nothing.
Regardless of the outcome, as a citizen of this city, I am embarrassed by some of council persons actions and public statements on this and a number of issues. The say we are business friendly – you decide.
John Miehle
Cape Coral