 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Officials request rules on spending
By JEFFREY S. SOLOCHEK, Times Staff Writer BROOKSVILLE -- Just six months ago, commissioners clamored for purchasing-rule changes to ensure loopholes that former County Administrator Paul McIntosh stretched would not embarrass them again. They were frustrated that McIntosh had issued five contracts -- all worth $25,000 or less and all arguably related -- to the same firm, seemingly to avoid competitive bidding requirements. His actions, though perceived as nefarious, actually were allowable. In light of the controversy, which eventually cost McIntosh his job, commissioners insisted that the time had come to revise and clarify the rules. But fast forward to the beginning of September, and commissioners have yet to act on proposed amendments -- even though they've been in commissioners' hands since late June. County Administrator Richard Radacky has some major concerns about the contents, and he has stalled on asking the board to consider the changes until he can work out the kinks. Commissioners, who have said adequate purchasing guidelines are key to a well-run government, are urging Radacky to speed the process. "It's on my desk, and it's a to-do item," Radacky told commissioners at last Tuesday's meeting, a day after he told a Times reporter, "I don't think it's a priority at this point." Commissioner Chris Kingsley prompted, "To do soon?" Chairwoman Nancy Robinson pressed to have the proposal before the commission by Sept. 17. Radacky agreed. To get to that point, Radacky said, some major revisions are in order. The proposal, which was written by purchasing director Jim Gantt, would create a new purchasing authority outside the administrator's purview. Unlike other department heads, the chief procurement officer could be fired, for just cause only, by the County Commission. The chief procurement officer would have "all rights, powers, duties and authority" relating to purchasing, report to the board through the administrator and write all purchasing and contracting policies and procedures. "The proposal seems to remove purchasing from the administrator's control," Radacky said, criticizing the document. "I think this may create problems for the county administration." He noted that Gantt had worried under McIntosh that his job was in jeopardy but said Gantt had nothing to worry about now. Adding ordinance protections to the post is unnecessary, Radacky said. Also, he said, the idea of clarifying the purchasing authority of the county administrator and attorney -- at one point the main purpose of rewriting the ordinance -- seems to have become a sidelight. The ordinance would have commissioners adopt a resolution stating the specific purchasing power for those two posts. "I'll carefully review this and see how it affects the organization," Radacky said. "I don't think the rules are unclear. . . . I'm not really sure what the board asked for. I need to go back and review that." Kingsley said he had intended that the rules make clear the contracting and purchasing responsibilities for the county administrator and attorney. The commission already receives monthly reports on purchasing irregularities, an offshoot of the McIntosh problems, and members regularly ask questions about the propriety of specific spending items, he said. "This is probably one of the main concerns of that time, to make sure the purchasing policy is appropriate," he said. Commissioner Betty Whitehouse agreed with Radacky that the purchasing director had sufficient protections under the current ordinance, despite the clear intimidation factor that McIntosh played against Gantt. The rule should not change so the administrator loses direct authority over the purchasing director, she said. Still, she said, the county must review its purchasing rules to ensure that they clearly define who can do what. Whitehouse said the commission dealt first with its gift acceptance policy, also challenged during the McIntosh era, because it was more immediate to a larger number of employees. "When we had a problem with that policy, we needed to get that clarified," she said. Gantt said he had not tried to set himself above the county administrator, and he was simply writing an ordinance that mirrored ones in other governments. He had county lawyers examine it and then made changes based on their recommendations. But Assistant County Attorney Fred Wagner said he had not seen the revisions and was waiting for a meeting with Radacky to determine whether the latest proposal passes legal muster. He and Radacky said they had scheduled three meetings but had canceled each because of more pressing issues. Now that the commissioners have told the administration to pay attention to this ordinance, a meeting should take place soon, they said. The board plans to discuss the amended ordinance Sept. 17. -- Jeffrey S. Solochek covers Hernando County government and can be reached at 754-6115. Send e-mail to solochek@sptimes.com.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
|
