Whether Mr. Miller believes that “following the spirit of the law” is contingent upon the law firm question having donated to the election campaign of his mentor Jim Matthews is a bit unclear at this point.
The only snag in this brilliant legal reasoning is county ordinance 98-2. This ordinance, implemented during perpetual-candidate-for-any-available-office and ethics crusader extraordinare Joe Hoeffel’s first pass through the County Commissioners’ office back in the late nineties, specifies that any business performed for the county should go out to bid on a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to no less than five businesses. Ordinance 98-2 was put into place to enable the County avoid the appearance of favoritism, or pay to play, if you will, when soliciting bids for work.
As some more astute folks might point out, if there is no need for law firms, or any other such business that has such a "small pool" from which to draw, to submit competitive bids, what would said business' motivation be for billing the County at its lowest, most competitive price, when eventually, that business' turn for a sweet, uncontested, no bid County contract will come its way?
So wonders Bruce Castor, in a memo sent to Barry Miller earlier today:
I have attached a copy for convenience of Ordinance No. 98-2. Your statement at the publicmeeting that the hiring of bond counsel for the most recent issue was done within the "spirit of the law" led me to think you must have been thinking of a different law. Ordinance No. 98-2 requires a written request for proposals go out to prospective lawyers seeking to do legal work of any kind for the county. The system you described where we simply call law firms from an approved list and rotate the business around provides no incentive for the firms to keep costs down. Such firms can charge anything they want knowing that they are on a "wheel" and that our business will eventually get to them. The "spirit of the law" is that firms compete for every job and thus give us the best price each time. If the same firm always gives us the best price, and does a capable job, I see no reason why that firm shouldn't get all the county's work. We are not in the law firm welfare business. Our job is to get the best possible professional work at the lowest possible price for the taxpayers, while at the same time avoiding accusations of favoritism. The system we are using does not advance those goals and, in fact, is directly contradictory to the very law we enacted to combat allegations of pay to play.
Since this ordinance applies to all professional services, I wonder if we have routinely failed to comply with its provisions since the current Board took office? Based on your comments last week, I'm guessing we have never followed it. Can you reassure me in this regard? Is it not your duty as Solicitor to make certain that we follow the law, especially those laws the County has enacted itself? Are there other county ordinances that we have decided not to follow? I cannot recall the commissioners ever once discussing (in my presence anyway) the awarding of a contract for an outside law firm. Surely the potential for mischief is obvious when we fail to use the request for proposals system, as required by our own ordinance, and compound that failure by making the selections in secret with no public scrutiny of how these law firms are selected.
I would like a list of all professional service contracts entered into since the current Board assumed office. Further, I would like to know, for each one, whether we sent out written RFPs to at least five professionals as required by Ordinance NO. 98-2 and to whom the requests were sent. As I am sure you realize, this is an issue of great public interest and I request that you provide me with this information at your earliest convenience.
Oh, and Mr. Miller, do you think you can bring this request in for under $245.75?
