Final Piece To The Puzzle

Philip M. Faccenda on January 26, 2018

In the first two installments in this trilogy I provided some missing pieces of the puzzling GFPS action concerning the award of the General Construction contracts for Giant Springs Elementary School and the CM Russell Additions. Some of you appreciated the information presented and some of you viewed the pieces as “sour grapes”. In any event, please keep in mind that YOU own and pay for the Great Falls public schools, not the Superintendent and not the school board of trustees. They work for you and when they get it wrong it is up to you to speak out.

When you do speak out, what do you say? The recent E-City Beat reader’s poll below provides some insight as to how the taxpayers of Great Falls feel about the District’s nonconventional process of non-competitive General Construction contract awards.

Do you believe that public and school district construction contracts should be awarded by a process of dollar amount Competitive Bidding?

  • Yes (77%, 44 Votes)
  • No (23%, 13 Votes)

Total Voters: 57

I have also explained, in my opinion, the deficiencies in the District’s process for selection of architects for the bond projects. Having a selection committee comprised of only District employees with no professional knowledge of architectural evaluation and using a grading system that does not attribute each committee member to their scoring sheet makes the process susceptible to bias, favoritism and conflicts of interest. Given that concern, why wouldn’t the District want to use a process that was based upon a blind design competition juried by licensed and experienced unbiased design professionals from out of state who have at least a cursory knowledge of the projects? One E-City Beat reader might have the answer.

Dean January 16, 2018 at 7:45 PM

“If the GFPS were to do this, how would you ever reward your friends or those who helped get you into that power position”?

I had the opportunity to discuss Montana’s conflict of interest laws with a staff member of the Montana Attorney General’s office. My inquiry was prompted by what could be perceived to be a conflict of interest issue when a sitting president of a local bank also serving as a school district board member made the motion and voted for the award of the Great Falls High School Master Plan project to an architectural firm’s principal who served as a board member of her bank.

At the conclusion of our conversation the staffer asked me if I knew from which city in Montana their office receives the most corruption complaints. My answer was incorrect – her answer was Great Falls! Not something to be proud of.

The truth is, Great Falls may be conflict of interest challenged and we need to do something about it. Currently the City is doing something about potential conflicts of interest and the school district should follow suit.

Forensic Strategic Solutions, a national financial investigation firm serving law firms, insurance companies, banks and governmental agencies wrote an  article, “Why Corruption always requires a Conflict of Interest”,10-28-16, which states “When it comes to corruption, there is almost always a common denominator: a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists when an individual or corporation has the opportunity – real or perceived – to exploit their position for personal or corporate benefit…To prevent conflicts of interest from morphing into corruption…management should be intentional in creating an environment where staff is comfortable declaring annually in writing any potential, perceived or actual conflicts.”

The current school district administration was given sample annual conflict of interest forms which most certainly found their way to the circular file.

Transparency is essential in the avoidance of conflicts of interest because without it there can be no accountability and little or no oversight by the public. The term is heavily talked about by the school district, but do they walk the walk?

School district policies relative to transparency, accountability and the avoidance of conflicts of interest, bias either for or against potential district vendors should be initiated by the school board, not by district administrators. If board members abdicate their roles as representatives of the taxpayers maybe it’s something to consider for the next election.

A Question For The Chief Slaughterhouse Opponent

ECB Staff on January 26, 2018

In Jeni Dodd’s recent piece about the proposed Friesen development, Great Falls Concerned Citizens chief organizer, George Nikolakakos, writes:

“On Mr, [Tom] Jacobson, as an economic authority in the region, his opinion matters and carries weight. What he has pointed out (unrelated to this project) is that the average wage in cascade county is $18 an hour, therefore, 17 an hour is literally and factually lower wage as it brings down that average.”

To which Gregg Smith questioned:

Per Capita Income in Cascade County: $26,578 (Per the Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cascadecountymontana/PST045216)

$17.00/per hour x 40 hours per week x 50 weeks per year = $34,000.00.

How, then, is this statement true: “What he has pointed out (unrelated to this project) is that the average wage in cascade county is $18 an hour, therefore, 17 an hour is literally and factually lower wage as it brings down that average.”

Huh! How is that statement true?

More On Madison Food Park — Jobs And Water

Jeni Dodd on January 24, 2018

Mr. Nikolakakos, I think you’re better off opposing this on the water/Madision Aquifer issue. That may be the strongest argument.

You called Weissman’s assessment regarding jobs “silly.” However, I found much of your information to be misleading.

First, you mentioned you posted the One Montana Feasibility Study. I found no such study posted on the Protect the Falls website. So I looked on your Facebook page about the slaughterhouse and found only a photo of a portion of a jobs table posted, with an allusion that it comes from the One Montana Study.

You didn’t include a link to the study itself, which made me suspicious. Why not include a link to the whole document?

So I found the document here.

When I accessed that document, I discovered that the photo you posted of the partial jobs table is but a small portion of the information found in the document, “One Montana Meat Processing Facility Feasibility Study”.

You posted only ONE of the FOUR jobs tables found in the study, and you cherry-picked the one showing the LOWEST WAGES. There are other slaughterhouse operations jobs in the study at higher wages, and they aren’t all executive positions. The jobs tables, for those interested, are on pages 82-85 of the study.

Second, your assertions that no one in this town would be interested in jobs at a slaughterhouse that would pay $10-$14 an hour is based on what? Where’s your LOCAL research that no Great Falls job seekers would be interested? Have you asked the folks at Job Service, who work with job seekers every day? Where’s you data?

Also, about a $10 an hour wage, you wrote, “…as any employer here will tell you, myself included, those wages will get you nothing but a chuckle around here….”

Really? Then why does the Great Falls School District advertise and regularly fill jobs such as a current opening for Teacher’s Aide at North Middle School for $8.83-$10.49 an hour? Cascade County also has a current opening for a receptionist and another for clerk at a $12 an hour and the people hired need to join the Teamsters Union at their own cost. After paying union dues, they certainly won’t be making a whole lot more than $10 an hour. Another county job, Respite/Homemaker Provider, pays a whooping $10.50-$11.25 an hour.

Yet, despite what you call “fast food” wages, there’s no shortage of applicants for those positions. So maybe some local folks would indeed be interested in a job at the slaughterhouse.

The US Bureau of Labor & Statistics lists Great Falls median hourly wage as $14.72 (2016). So how do you figure the slaughterhouse wages are so far out of line, considering the full range of wages in four tables of the One Montana report?

I find that your argument about wages lacks credibility at this point. If you argument was strong, you wouldn’t feel it necessary to cherry-pick what you present on your website.

Some of the material presented on Great Falls Area Concerned Citizens and Protect the Falls, appears to use generalizations as arguments against this project. You can cite examples from across the country regarding slaughterhouses and the impact on communities, but each situation is different.

Using examples of what other companies have done that negatively impact communities in some way as proof that Friesen Foods will conduct business the same way is unfair to Friesen Foods. This is how we as a society get into trouble—all X is bad because some X is bad is a bad assumption.

I think the opposition would be better served in focusing on the real issue—water.

According to Madison Food Park’s operational checklist, the facility proposes to sink 3-4 vertical deep wells into the Madison Aquifer and utilize 3,554,209 gallons of water per day.

Yes, folks that a lot of water.

I’ve heard speculations about the water usage, whether a permit is need, etc., so l decided to contact the Montana Department of National Resources regional office in Lewistown. This office covers Cascade County water rights, both surface (spring, creek, river, etc) and ground water (well) appropriations. In speaking with hydrologist Doug Mann, I learned some information pertinent to the Friesen Foods’ proposed water use.

Although the agency has heard about Friesen Foods plans through the media, they have yet to receive an application from Friesen Foods for groundwater appropriation.

The company is required to file Form 600 GW Groundwater Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit and its associated addendums for appropriations of groundwater of more than 35 gallons per minute or 10 acre-feet per year with the MT DNRC. The company could use data from a well or wells of similar depth in the area to support their application.

The company could also drill into the aquifer for testing purposes before approval of the permit. However, they could not put that water to use before permit approval.

The area in question is not part of a controlled groundwater area, as regulated by the MT DNRC. But it is in the Upper Missouri River Basin closure for surface water appropriation. According to Mann, groundwater appropriations that affect the water rights of surface water permit holders in a closed basin could be an issue. So if Friesen Foods’ appropriation of groundwater would affect, for example, a nearby surface water rights holder use of his/her rightful appropriation, that could be an issue for Friesen Foods’ permit approval.

If the MT Department of Natural Resources proposes to grant the groundwater appropriation permit, there would be public notice with in the media (Great Falls Tribune), and the public would have 45 days to comment on the approval

No Brainer?

Rick Tryon on January 23, 2018

Kudos to Craig Raymond and his staff in the City of Great Falls Planning and Community Development Department for working to find solutions to help keep a local private sector employer, M&D Construction, in the heart of Great Falls. This is the attitude we need from our city employees across the board; not “You can’t do that.” but rather “How can we help you do that.”

M&D employs 30 folks here so not only does the owner pay significant property tax but  those employees spend money downtown for lunch, coffee breaks and stopping for items or having a cold one after work.

After working together, M&D and city planning staff came up with a solution which would mitigate the zoning problems associated with the property. You can find the detailed staff recommendations and other pertinent information here, starting on page 111 of the packet document.

I’ve also included the Basis of Decision to recommend approval by the Planning and Community Development Department below, I bolded and italicized the points which stood out to me.

So it’s a no-brainer right? Especially since the citizens Neighborhood Council #7 and the city planning/zoning board both also unanimously recommended approval.

What do you suppose our City Commission did in light of the unanimous recommendations by citizens and experts alike? And why?

Oh, and take a look at the very short clip below of our own Mayor Kelly – “Since there’s a lot of questions about what this will actually result in…” Since this was the one and only public hearing before the City Commission on this matter shouldn’t the Mayor reveal to us what “questions about what this will actually result in” he’s referring to and from whom?

Stay tuned, stay tuned.

—————————————————————————————————-

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – BASIS OF DECISION The applicant is requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Contractor Yard, Type II in the M-2 district.

1. The zoning and conditional use is consistent with the City’s Growth Policy and applicable neighborhood plans, if any. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the overall intent and purpose of the 2013 City Growth Policy Update. Allowing for the relocation of a local business in an area of the City designated for a mix of uses will help stabilize the neighborhood and fulfill the following objectives from the City’s Growth Policy: Phy 4.1 – Encourage a balanced mix of land uses through-out the City. Phy 4.1.5 –Encourage and incentivize the redevelopment or adaptive reuse of vacant or underutilized properties so as to maximize the City’s existing infrastructure. Phy 4.3 – Optimize the efficiency and use of the City’s Public facilities and utilities. Eco 3.5 – Continue efforts to support and develop small businesses in Great Falls.

2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the zoning and conditional use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. The CUP would have no detrimental impact upon the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. Specifically, the safety of the area will be improved by reconstruction of the sidewalk along 8th Avenue North.

3. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The conditional use will not be injurious to the adjacent properties due to the fact that it is an existing facility, and is currently working cohesively with the surrounding properties. The land use designation of Mixed-Use Transitional supports the transition over time from a once-thriving industrial, railroad corridor with large tracts of land and large warehouse type structures to a blend of light-industrial businesses, professional services, and other compatible uses. Site improvements, which include decorative fencing along the southern property line and landscaping including a berm, behind the fencing, will help beautify the streetscape and support property values in the neighborhood. Furthermore, this conditional use would not adversely impact the use, enjoyment or property value of any property in the immediate vicinity.

4. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The proposed project will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. Adjacent property owners have been notified regarding the project. City Staff did receive a call from a citizen regarding displeasure about how the development might affect additional improvements to nearby properties.

5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The facility is existing and currently has services and infrastructure that meet all City standards.

6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The current facilities have existing functioning ingress and egress. Existing driveway accesses are located on 8th Avenue North and 7th Street North. Service vehicles and trailers will be coming and going from 8th Avenue North, primarily.

7. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified by the City Commission. The proposed project will conform to all the applicable regulations of the Land Development Code

“Thumbs Up To Madison Food Park” Says Local Writer

Jerrold Weissman on January 22, 2018

Great Falls, Montana is a great destination for any responsible Agricultural based processing industry. Madison proposes to put in a ‘State of the Art’ processing plant here. The new plant says eventually they will employ up to 3,000 people! If they are serious, have financing and regulatory permission in place they will be a very important and welcome part of the economy of our area.

People now working in Great Falls, many of whom are presently working more than one part time job, could be the basis of initial employment at the new plant.

I do not know what they mean by a decent hourly wage but just understanding the math of employment some figures are exciting to anticipate on a full time basis. $13.00 per hour wage equals $27,040.00 per year and a $16.00 wage equals $33,280.00 per year (Based on a 40 hour work week) add benefits including Social Security and a health plan and we have a workers middle class wage structure. The wages shown are for lowest level workers and are not indicative of work floor leaders, middle and upper management, office work and other necessary people for any plant of this size.

“If this plant hires up to 3,000 people that means there will be competition for available workers. This plant will bring up the hourly wages of most workers employed elsewhere in Great Falls. Do the math, if what they say is true we are looking at up to a $100 million payroll in Great Falls, and if they present competition for workers here the averages will go up for people working other jobs.”

A major cloud on this horizon is taking up to 3.5 Million gallons of water a day from the Madison Aquifer. Engineers with proper technical knowledge should comment on this part of the plan. One possible alternative is to not take water from wells but to make a deal with the City of Great Falls, to supply water from our present and expanding water treatment facility. Under present regulations it is possible for the City of Great Falls to do this supply. The City could annex the plant itself to the City. Madison would have to pay for water used, expansion of our water plant for the additional load and the pipeline to the plant. An immediate benefit would be the expanded tax base created.

Economic factors for manufacturing plants show that anywhere from one to 18 people are eventually needed for support facilities for every job in the manufacturing sector. This would be a manufacturing job creator. There will be an expanded feedlot industry, more Hog Barn Facilities, Poultry raising facilities and Milk Cow production to meet the future needs Friesen states are their goals.

This is a town with an oil refinery and formerly a huge metal smelting facility and they managed to minimize or eliminate smells and pollution. I am sure that Madison will have to mitigate any such smells or pollution. Madison/ Friesen is a Canadian based company and in my opinion the Western Canadians are just other Americans who live north of Great Falls. If they are willing to come here to build such a plant then we should give them a fair chance to do just that.

———

The following is taken from the City of Great Falls Codes. They can supply water outside of the City.

Official Code of the City of Great Falls 13.2.080, Part C primarily, that provides:

“13.2.080 – Service area.

The utility system service area shall be:
A. Inclusive of all premises annexed to the City and bounded by the incorporated City limits, as such limits may be adjusted by the City Commission; and

B. Restricted to those premises abutting a public right-of-way or easement and directly adjacent to a sanitary sewer or water main location therein. The sole exception thereto shall be those buildings and service lines in place and legally existing prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this section.
C. Notwithstanding the limitations of the service area described in paragraph A and B, the City Commission may extend the service area beyond the City limits where there are uniquely exceptional circumstances that are not conducive to immediate annexation; and, where the City utility system has the capacity to serve such extension; and, where appropriate, the party requesting services provides an engineering analysis demonstrating the feasibility of the extension. Such an extension of utility services shall be by written contract and contain the following conditions:
1. All parties must execute written consent of annexation forms, as a condition precedent to the extension of requested services. The consent forms shall be made a part of the contract for use whenever the City initiates such annexation of the extended service area; and,
2. All parties must agree to be bound by all the rules and regulations of the City’s utility system and all Federal and State requirements related thereto; and,
3. All parties must agree to pay such other fees for service and/or fees in lieu of taxes, as deemed necessary and appropriate by the City; and,
4. All parties must agree to restrictions on future subdivision of the property or expanded development of property that increases demand for City services; and,
5. All parties must agree on prezoning of property and compliance with zoning regulations applicable to prezoning designation; and,
6. All parties must agree on compliance with City building and fire codes, plan approval, payment of fees, and submission to inspection of improvements where permissible under state statutes; and,
7. All parties must agree on financial responsibility, including consent to and waiver of protest for creation of special improvement districts, for the installation, construction and reconstruction of infrastructure to City standards, including, but not limited to, water mains and hydrants, sewer mains and lift stations, storm water facilities, streets, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks; and,
8. All parties must agree on compliance with any City Code applicable to any service provided by the City; and,
9. All parties must agree on plan approval, construction oversight, final acceptance, easements, and ownership by City of infrastructure installed for the City service being provided; and,
10. All parties must agree on legal and physical access provided to the property being served; and,
11. All parties must agree to upgrade and transfer public utility systems and appropriate utility easements to the City; and,
12. All parties agree such an extension of utility services shall be constructed in accordance with the design and specifications approved by the City Engineer; and,
13. All parties agree the cost of such an extension of utility services shall be borne by the owners of the property to be served; and,
14. Upon annexation, all parties agree that Title 17, OCCGF, Land Development Code requirements must be met inclusive of signage, parking, landscaping, lighting; and,
15. All parties must agree to utilize the City’s Fire Department for fire protection services. The Fire Marshall will be required to review and approve area site plans to ensure sufficient access and other fire department considerations; and,
16. All parties must agree that all right-of-way, easement, or land dedication necessary for construction, installation and maintenance of the extension of utility service shall be obtained by the requesting party at the expense of the requesting party.

The contract for extension of the service area must be in legal form, as approved by the City Attorney; run with the land; be signed by owners of the land area to be considered for inclusion in the water or sewer service area; and be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder of Cascade County.”

“I Want To Be A Good Neighbor”

Rick Tryon on January 19, 2018

Watch the short video below.

It’s Rhett Hulett, owner of M&D Construction which employs 30 folks here in Great Falls, making his case for a Conditional Use Permit at the January 2, 2018 Great Falls City Commission meeting.

“I want to be a good neighbor”

“We want to be a positive part of that part of town.”

“We look forward to staying there.”

So, sounds like granting the CUP should be a common sense decision, right? Especially since the city planning staff, NHC #7, and the planning/zoning board ALL recommended approval.

Thank you, Mr. Hulett for employing Great Falls folks, paying taxes and working hard to be a good neighbor. We appreciate your efforts.

So what do y’all think our illustrious City Commission did here?

I’ll have all the gritty details for you next week. Stay tuned.

Great Falls Public Schools Alternative Procurement Through A Different Set Of Eyes

Jeni Dodd on January 19, 2018

Phil Faccenda’s articles about Great Falls Public Schools building procurement procedures made me want to take a closer look. State law (Montana Code Annotated or MCA) dictates requirements for the use of alternative delivery project contracts. So I visited Great Falls Public Schools website and perused the documents I could find that are related to the district’s alternative delivery project contracts. Here’s my take on what I found.

The Great Falls Public Schools are required by state law to justify their use of alternative delivery project contracts. The following paragraphs are found in the district’s documents about alternate delivery project contracts for Giant Springs Elementary School and CMR. The “Code Provision” is referenced from the MCA and the italicized text is the district’s response:

“Code Provision (3) The state agency or governing body shall make a detailed written finding that use of an alternative delivery project contract will not: Encourage favoritism or bias…or diminish competition…”

“The procurement methodology employed by the District is specifically designed to encourage the broadest competition possible, and encourage aggressive pricing competition throughout this process. The Selection Committee will be further instructed to carefully evaluate all submittals against stated selection criteria and award contracts based on the best overall value to the District.”

Brian Patrick, Business Director, Great Falls Public Schools is listed as the author of the document1     document2

It appears to me that the rationale the district employed in these documents explaining the district’s use of alternative delivery project contracts merely assumes the conclusion. It’s a circulus in demonstrando—in other words, an illogical argument.

In these documents, the district is making the argument: “A is true because A is true.”

The reason I came to that conclusion is as follows: I found no “procurement methodology employed by the District” specifically for the use of alternative delivery project contracts, as mentioned in the above paragraphs. Since the district uses that as justification for using an alternative procurement process, how can the district refer to something that doesn’t exist as justification for its actions?

Where is the district’s detailed written findings that use of an alternative delivery project contract will not encourage favoritism or bias…or diminish competition? The two documents provided offer no “detailed written findings” on which to base the district’s justification for using alternative delivery project contracts for these two projects.

Those making a cursory examination of these documents might dismiss the district’s explanation as valid but I see it as a way to hide the lack of rationale for using the alternative delivery project contracts.

VERY FAKE NEWS — Sheriff Edwards (Again) Fact Checks Tribune Reporter Seaborn Larson

Philip M. Faccenda on January 18, 2018

Great Falls Tribune “reporter” Seaborn Larson seems to have it out for Cascade County Sheriff Bob Edwards.

After we objectively pointed to an earlier instance of Larson’s Fake News, said Tribune reporter grew angsty and angry, and lambasted E-City Beat in an amusingly shameless and unhinged Twitter meltdown — again and again.

Not to be outdone, however, Larson continued to perpetuate even more Fake News against Sheriff Edwards today. Edwards first corrected Larson on Twitter, and then more substantively on Facebook.

Essentially, and even on the most rudimentary point perhaps possible, Larson alleged that Edwards had “picked up” paperwork to file for re-election as Sheriff. According to Edwards, that was not the case. Larson blamed his Fake News on “bad sources,” but it does beg the question: what has prevented Larson, or anyone from the the Great Falls Tribune, from simply picking up the damn phone and asking Edwards if he has filed to run for re-election or not?

Or, is Larson simply committed to smearing Edwards’ name to the nth degree?

What do you think?

You can read Edwards’ response here:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10156316344131015&id=661901014

Missing A Few Pieces Of The Puzzle: Part Two

Philip M. Faccenda on January 16, 2018

In the previous piece of this three-part series, Missing a Few Pieces of the Puzzle, we have shown that most of the $3M in architectural fees for the Great Falls High project will in fact be leaving Great Falls and Montana. We also shed some light on the unconventional selection of general contractors for the school district’s multimillion-dollar new construction projects using the Alternative project delivery contract, a process that doesn’t award the general construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder.

The process affords the opportunity to hire the general contractor before the architectural and engineering drawings have been completed, but requires the school district to “make a detailed written finding” that several conditions are met, including that “demonstrable public benefits” will result from its use. The less than detailed written finding appears on the school district’s website. http://gfps.k12.mt.us/sites/default/files/2877_001.pdf..

Most state laws including those of California and Minnesota require state and other governmental units to use a competitive bidding process for contracts exceeding a dollar threshold, usually 80 to 100 thousand dollars. The purpose of the competitive bidding laws explained by the League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo “Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cities, 6-7-17, imc.org-media-document, is three-fold. First, it is intended to ensure that taxpayers receive the benefit of the lowest obtainable price from a responsible contractor. Second, competitive bidding provides contractors a level playing field on which to compete for contracts and third, it limits the discretion of decision-making officials in situations that are susceptible to fraud, favoritism, or other similar abuses.

Locally, serious attention should be paid to the issues of potential

fraud, favoritism and similar abuses such as conflicts of interest and

bias given the recent admonishment by the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development of the City’s CDBG program.

The selection of architectural and engineering firms for major projects

has always been highly subjective. In the case of the GFPS District’s

selection of design firms, this is especially true, but why should there

be cause for concern?

For the Great Falls High $37M project, a seven-member selection committee reviewed submittals by six architectural firms, four local firms and two out-of-town firms. Four firms were shortlisted and chosen for interviews by the selection committee comprised of five District employees and two Board of Trustees members. It is obvious that the seven committee members have some knowledge of school buildings, but none have any professional or experiential knowledge of architecture.

You might say we cannot reasonably expect teachers turned administrators to have training and experience in architecture, engineering or planning, but we can, and should expect them to acknowledge that fact. They are not qualified to judge design concepts, or the firms presenting them.

Is this why the selection committee member’s individual grading sheets are not identified with the name of the grader? Are they admitting to the subjective and quantitative nature of the process? So much for transparency.

Mr. Cahill uses only facile quantitative evidence in his defense of the committee’s selected firms for interviews; how many offices they have, how many schools they have designed, how long they have been in business and how many states are they licensed in.

Is there a better way to select design professionals? Yes.

In “A guide Including Model Local Government Policy and Procedures for Selecting Architects, Engineers and land Surveyors” by the Illinois Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the American Council of Engineering Companies of Illinois and the Illinois Society of Professional Engineers, they state in section 3.3, Putting together a qualified selection committee, “Frequently, the owner does not have staff with expertise for the project. In such cases, it is helpful to enlist the aid of known experts from design professional associations to serve as members of the Selection Committee”.

The University of Washington uses a selection committee of design professionals who are impartial and cannot benefit from a particular architectural commission to judge and recommend firms for university projects. This process has been repeatedly suggested to the GFPS administration, and repeatedly rejected.

The final installment in this series will discuss a Competition of Ideas and Innovation. Stay tuned.

Hocus Pocus — More Moe

Philip M. Faccenda on January 15, 2018

Yesterday, and perhaps against all odds, I was able to suss out an actual response from City Commissioner Mary Moe.

Originally, I had intended to more substantively respond to Commissioner Moe today, but alas, life got in the way.

But I offer the following as a teaser for tomorrow’s piece…

On our Facebook post, reader Robert Rutherford proffered the following:

According to Rutherford, Moe dodged answering this simple and straightforward policy question.

But, is he right?

It would appear to be so!

Back in October, Citizen Rutherford asked Candidate Moe her position on monuments:

Now, go to Mary Moe’s city commission Facebook page, and cross-check this exact post from October 28 — what do you see?

Well, you will see this:

Hmmmm, now what’s missing? It’s not the obsequious praise from Electric City Power shill and serially angry despot, Failed Mayor Dona Stebbins. Rather, it would appear to be the innocuous, yet earnest policy question posited by Mr. Rutherford.

Nevertheless, inveterate advocate of “transparency” that she is, Moe appears to have deleted it. Hats off to you, Mary. Very impressive.

Now you see it, now you don’t. (Thankfully, after reading yesterday’s piece, someone caught it and sent it to us. A Democrat, no less!)

So, yes… I will be writing more tomorrow, much more.