2/1/12
Following on to the recent post about the newly-approved amendment to the operating agreement, the Insider notes that in the 1/23 meeting council member Woodruff took issue with a clause about giving Kristi Anderson first right of refusal if the City decides to take the operational work inside.
The Insider agrees that this is nonsense. What if the reason for making a change is that Ms. Anderson and her company are not performing (as pointed out by Woodruff)? As the agreement now reads, the City MUST hire her if she wants the job. Second, what if the City wants to do the work with existing staff? It seems that it can't unless Ms. Anderson is first offered the job.
Is this how you would write an agreement? It may be if your motivation is to protect Ms. Anderson and not the best interests of Shorewood. Also, why would any attorney suggest that this clause was proper (the City's attorney must have at least reviewed the amendment and likely wrote it).
Happy Reading!
The Insider
On a broader scope, one has to wonder if this is the city's new way of doing business: it means that once a contract is signed, the contractor is protected into perpetuity or until the contractor choses to end the contract. The city relinquishes its authority to end a contract? This is hardly believable. Insider, is this the correct interpretation? Please provide a link for viewing the meeting where this was discussed. Comments from others please.
ReplyDeleteThis shouldn't surprise anyone. Lizee and Zerby have always put their relationships with others above the what is best for the city. That's why we have a second rate city Attorney in Tim Keane. Other councils have recognized his deficiencies and replaced him, but Lizee and Zerby keep hiring him back. It's Chicago style, patronage politics in action. Those two have down far more harm to the city and the previously open political process than any benefit they have brought. They need to go!
ReplyDelete