I find it strange that the city council is being blamed for "oversights" in the RFP. City council members are unlikely to spend their time writing RFPs. That is city staff's job, and in this case, I'm guessing that staff would be Susan Young and the people who report to her. So in reality, Young is responsible for any failures in the RFP to address all items which should have been addressed. That she and her department keep recommending the worst of the three choices makes it look like they are taking bribes, in my opinion.
Please. If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you have to bring more evidence than your speculation. Criminalizing disagreement is flatly unfair.
Having edited a couple of recycling-recommendation stories that have included copious criticism of Waste Management's corporate crimes, I don't necessarily disagree with Doug or Chris's choice of Eureka. However, I thought Doug's column glossed over a few things that didn't fit his David-versus-Goliath storyline.
While the cash payment to the city is relatively equal, there are some legitimate disadvantages to Eureka's bid. The company has only operated its own recycling for two years, and their Minneapolis facility is not fully operational. Those are a legitimate staff and public policy concerns.
There's ample controversy over the bonding amount a recycler most post in case it can't perform — Eureka says it can come up with one (I've heard a $1 million bond floated around), while the city wants a total of $6 million to cover possible costs of finding a new recycler during the contract and paying off subcontractors that a non-performing recycler might have used. Frankly, the chances are greater (though far from certain) that Eureka will non-perform, given their newness of operations and facility. Again, you can argue over how big a bond is needed, but there's a legit reason for staff to recommend the city's butt be fully covered (especially in tight financial times).
Also, Eureka, unlike WMI and BFI, relies partly on government grants to fund operations. I applaud the government support to support the start-up of a greener recycler, but you know how reliable government grants are these days. It's legitimate to want Eureka to be able to fully pay operating costs with operating revenue.
There's a very reasonable line of thinking that any doubts about Eureka will be cleared up by the next time the contract comes up. They will have 7, not 2 years of operations under their belt and their Minneapolis facility will have five, not zero years of operational history.
One route I might suggest is shortening the term of this contract so we can switch more safely to Eureka sooner.
Again, if policymakers decide Eureka's superior values are worth whatever the added operating risk might be, they should go for it. But it's NOT a black-and-white decision, and demonizing and criminalizing staff is certainly not the way to make quality public policy decisions in Minneapolis.
PS The city council votes to issue RFPs. True, staff knows more and gets the ball rolling, but policymakers have a responsibility to ask good questions throughout the process.
David Brauer Kingfield A guy who keeps the composting worms in his basement fed. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
