The Mole Shills that Became Mountains

[XLFD]

At the April 27,2020 Ludington virtual City Council meeting, I warned the councilors that following the DPW Supervisor's recommendation to choose a local company for a three year contract over another qualified company with a significantly lower bid was violating competitive bidding protocols.   If they didn't choose the low bid, I threatened to contact my state senator with a grievance in order to reverse their decision.  That state official just happened to be the owner of the business receiving the potential favor, Curt VanderWall.  

Two reasons were given by the six councilors who voted to give the contract to State Senator Curt VanderWall's business:  that it was a local business and that the city had a good 'working relationship' with them.  Neither of these two criteria were a required part of the request for proposals, that is: to be local and to already have a good working relationship with the City.  By these councilors admissions, the losing company has legal recourse against the City of Ludington.  

Comparisons between the two company's bids and analysis of the difference was looked at in detail in the article Ludington's Mole Dilemma.  Public record requests followed this meeting, where this reporter asked for all records concerning this bid and the exact protocols the City follows when competitive bidding. 

One councilor suggested the low bidder never submitted a weed control rate, which was untrue, this record ( FWC misc) shows it was included free in the other services, rather than the $15/gallon for weed control spray VanderWall's company offered.  When it was explained that the City wanted a rate for spray, their agent said 98 cents a gallon, less than 1/15th of the 'winner'.  The totality of those records indicated VanderWall's company was underbid on all bases.

The bidding protocols were exactly what I thought, section 13.2 of the charter:  "purchases shall be made from the lowest competent bidder meeting bid specifications".  This is the cornerstone of competitive bidding used by public agencies.  It does add:  "unless the Council shall determine that the public interest will be better served by accepting a higher bid." 

Working relations and local offices have nothing to do with the public interest, those reasons just make a better case for favoritism and cronyism being used to waste taxpayer money.  One can only think the six councilors who decided to violate policy looked to gain something by spending $2000-$3200 extra each year to hire our state senator's business.  But undeclared quid pro quos in conducting public business are unethical and often illegal...

As 'threatened', I contacted Senator VanderWall three times on his official site over the next two weeks explaining the problem, left my own contact information.  Receiving no answer either time, I noticed that he was somewhat responsive to commenters on his Facebook page.  Still it took me a couple of times before he decided to answer, and the new 'threat' of growing the message until I received an answer.  The answer told me that his bid was not significantly higher, and in some cases cheaper:

I respectfully replied that his statement was false, and offered him the opportunity to correct the inaccuracies of his assessment.  This was over two days ago.  Despite an additional prod, he decided to wait for a phone call that I will never give him-- unless he does the right and moral thing.

Less than an hour before he first responded to my question, he posted some scripture and talked about kindness in speaking and healing.  He noted that he had received some letters with rather tough language that he couldn't relate to the listener.  

Don't know if he was referring to my questioning him about this appearance of impropriety-- but rather than give me an answer, he decided to paint the bids falsely in his 'public answer'.  Maybe he was given bad data from the DPW supervisor or others, but the records show otherwise; that's why he was given the opportunity to correct the record.   

He refused to do so; he let the lie stand, an easily-disproven fabrication which makes it even easier to consider there was an underlying agreement behind this corrupt contracting.   At last night's meeting, I minced few words (using City Manager Mitch Foster as my proxy speaker) at about 7 minutes into the meeting:

XLFD:  "After the fifth attempt, I finally got a response back from State Senator Curt VanderWall regarding his small business receiving the three year fertilization and weed control contract from the City of Ludington despite another qualified company bidding significantly lower than his. I have also received affirmation through a FOIA response that six of the city councilors violated the City charter's competitive bidding procedures in choosing VanderWall's business over the qualified low bidder, in a process that could be labelled improper and corrupt.

Competitive bidding in it's true form is meant not only to save public money, but to show the public that there is no favoritism or cronyism in awarding contracts. The six of you who went boldly against the competitive process are worthy of censure, alas the only one who didn't betray the people has been the only one censured by the corrupted six for speaking out about bad policies in the past. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize where the cancer resides in the noggin of Ludington.

By the way, Honorable Senator Curt VanderWall's response to winning the bid the way he did amounted to saying: "we where (sic) not significantly higher if you saw and in some cases cheaper." DPW's Joe Stickney in his recommendation to ignore the low bid noted that the other company was cheaper in all seven categories of charges, the records affirm that. One of those services the senator offered was 58% higher, which is significant when you are comparing bids. Honorable Senator VanderWall flat out lied to everyone on his social media page. Rather than clarify his misstatement, he walked away rather than admit that his graft and your collective corruption got him this contract, not merit and a legitimate bidding process.

When the people need most to trust their elected leaders to do the right thing, this council and State Senator VanderWall let everybody down."

I am hopeful that Senator VanderWall will recognize that being a City of Ludington crony is not a suitable second job, that taking money he hasn't earned from his Ludington constituents/neighbors is an evil act, and ultimately allow the low bid to win the day.

[XLFD]

Du, in a period of two weeks I used that very link to contact him three times, asking about what he knew about the bidding, the appearance of impropriety that it had, and a statement.  I never got an answer; I contacted him at that very same link yesterday after I was blocked from his official FB page and have yet to receive an answer.  

I affiliate myself more with the Republican Party because they share a lot more of my libertarian values than the other major party, but a politician who conducts himself like this in abhorrence to the Constitutions of the state and USA will only get my grief.  If they are not worth their oath, they're not worth your vote.

Catch and like the new Facebook page Curt VanderWall is Corrupt, I haven't formally introduced it on Facebook yet.  If I can't comment on his Facebook page, I'll make my own page at his expense to bide the time it will take to get the judge to correct his errant ways.

[Du Wright]

That's disgusting that our Senator cannot answer. Thanks for the reply, X.

[Freedom Seeker]

A question about "authenticity" on social media. Can someone and/or a government website or official delete or fail to answer a person if they know they are posting under a "false identity" ? Just wondering.

[XLFD]

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."  

Good question, since I doubt 'Freedom Seeker' is your Christian name; I use a pseudonym on both the Ludington Torch and Pitchfork, much to the chagrin of others who somehow think they are exposing something or neutralizing my witchcraft by calling me 'Tom'.  It's hilarious seeing many of these folks wearing masks nowadays while I defer-- but I digress.

The above dicta was written in the Supreme Court in 1995, affirming much court precedent that allowed anonymous protected free speech once again.  It's included with a dissertation by EFF, noting also that Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer", who spoke up in rebuttal.  Pen names have been common ever since, they're actually the norm here and in many public forums.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks for the informative answer, XLFD. Freedom is not my given name, and my middle name is not "Fromtyranny" that's a reason I like your site. One thing I have learned to prepare for, in all things in life, masked or not is to be accountable for all things that are uttered from my lips, anonymously or not. Thanks for the interesting link to EFF. I have heard many rumors and opinions about Facebook requiring "authenticity." Hypocrites who can require authentic identity, yet exploit one's privacy.