Grand jury wonders at city's purchases

Web posted November 13, 1999

 Jurors call for special grand jury
 Commissioners' ethics questioned
 Reports: Connections play role in hiring

    Previous coverage:
 Jury resumes probing waste in government
 Commission standards under fire
 Grand jury report reaction is negative
 The grand jury's report

 Have a thought? Go to the @ugusta Forums.

By Sylvia Cooper
Staff Writer

A Richmond County grand jury wants to know how a company owned by a Richmond County firefighter submitted a winning bid of $23,945 to provide equipment to Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field.

That is one of the questions raised about city purchasing in grand jury presentments returned Friday.

The grand jury called the bid award a direct violation of city and purchasing department policies. But City Attorney Jim Wall said he doesn't think so.

``I don't know all the details, but assuming he was not involved in drawing up the specifications, the bid was a sealed bid, and it would not be a violation,'' Mr. Wall said.

Mr. Wall also has the answer to the grand jury's question of how an Augusta fire department captain who sells fire equipment could be allowed to be part of the specifications committee that writes specs for such equipment that he sells and submits bids for.He said that when city officials learned the captain had bid on the equipment, the bid was thrown out.

Grand jurors want to know how the apparent conflict could go ``unnoticed, unchallenged and not be stopped by his superiors.''

The answer is that it was, Mr. Wall said.

Grand jurors also questioned how often ``change orders'' occur in projects, whether they were built into a low bid and whether there is a system for tracking and monitoring them.

City Administrator Randy Oliver said change orders -- requests by contractors for more money to complete a project -- are a normal part of doing business. There are two kinds: those triggered by changed site conditions that were not anticipated at the beginning of a project -- such as the subsurface conditions under Walton Way before it was resurfaced last year -- and those initiated by the government.

The city now has the computer software to track change orders and will hire a contract officer next year to oversee change orders, Mr. Oliver said.

``I think our change order process is essentially a good one,'' Mr. Oliver said. ``To say you're going to eliminate change orders is not possible.''

Other questions the outgoing grand jury's committee on government operations left for the another grand jury to answer are:

Why is the county settling a discrimination suit for $50,000 with an employee who has a poor work history and whose case had no support from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or from the assistant county attorney?

That question refers to a racial discrimination lawsuit filed against Richmond County Chief Tax Appraiser Harrison Sears and Augusta Commission by Assistant Chief Appraiser Donna T. Murray.

The EEOC issued Ms. Murray a right-to-sue letter but did not pursue the complaint itself.

Who made the decision to write off $1.24 million in bad debts for the water department?

Mr. Oliver said the $1.24 million has not actually been written off but is being turned over to a collection agency.

Why does the county provide intervention for some residents concerning their water bills?

That was because there was no official written policy for water department collections until last month, and employees often used their own discretion about bills, Mr. Oliver said. But that has changed, and employees face stiff sanctions, including termination, for not following the collection policy, he said.

Are ethics violations recognized? Are ethics violators punished or penalized? How often are ethics violations occurring within county government?

Have commissioners accepted grant money for housing projects in which they have an ownership interest?

Are there commissioners obtaining grant money for projects in which they have an ownership interest?

Are commissioners entitled to benefit financially because of information, contacts or special consideration they may receive because of their commissioner status?

Why does the county provide intervention for some commissioners in order to aid them in escaping certain financial obligations?