 |
I wonder if North Idaho College spokesman John Martin knows the difference between being right and doing the right thing? |
In his September 17 letter to the editor in the Coeur d’Alene Press, Martin feebly tries to defend an indefensible contracting action of the North Idaho College administration and trustees by parsing the words of the NIC policy. He was flailing to justify NIC’s actions Mary Souza revealed in her Sunday Press column titled Fishing for facts in a pool of poppycock.
I urge readers to go to the link to Policy # 7.01.04 dated 12/20/90 and read it for its intent. The policy’s intent is clearly stated: “…insure the efficient and wise use of College funds.” The intent of the policy is not to prevent the College from using the RFP process for other than continuous professional services if that would “insure the efficient and wise use of College funds.”
The policy goes on to state that an RFP can be initiated at any time if it is determined that services are unsatisfactory. I submit, Mr. Martin, that the obvious conflict of interest created by the business partnership of Ed Morse (appraiser), Judith Meyer (NIC Trustee), and Stephen Meyer (NIC Foundation board member) results in an unsatisfactory service that did not “insure the efficient and wise use of College funds.”
Issuing an RFP for the appraisal work, though permitted by the policy even if not explicitly required, would have been a genuine opportunity for the NIC administration and Board of Trustees to demonstrate their presumed commitment to the efficient and wise use of College funds. But instead of doing the right thing, the NIC administration and Board of Trustees chose to issue a sole-source contract to a business partner of an NIC Trustee and an NIC Foundation board member.
In her column, Mary Souza did the right thing and revealed a deplorable business practice to the community. You, Mr. Martin, were trying to rationalize that same deplorable business practice. Mary did right. You, the NIC administration, and the NIC Board of Trustees did wrong. The public is quite able to differentiate between right and wrong.
So the blind apologists and people who stand to make big profit at the expense of education will point to this and crow, “See! See! Mary is playing fast and loose with the facts!” At the same time, elected officials are engaged in questionable activity and crowing about how pure they are. How anyone with an ethical spine can support what NIC is doing is beyond me.
Comment by Dan — September 17, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Bill, an excellent analysis of Mr. Martin’s response. You need to submit this statement of yours, word for word, to the CDA Press Letters to the Editor. The public needs to read this response of yours in the forum in which it was presented.
Comment by Gary Ingram — September 17, 2008 @ 10:18 am
“The public needs to read this response of yours in the forum in which it was presented.” gary ingram
excellent idea mr. ingram. will mary souza’s apology to terry lee be submitted to the cda press as well?
Comment by reagan — September 17, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Reagan,are you sure you’re not DFO?
Whose been blasting Mary,every chance he gets.
Comment by kageman — September 17, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Kageman, we do not make “outing” attempts here at OpenCdA. reagan is entitled to ask those questions without fear of intimidation that exists on other blogs. Thanks!
Comment by Dan — September 17, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
No, Kageman, I think Reagan is just someone who has been blasting me at every turn for years. Just ignore him. Of course I intend to note my error in my column this week. I am not perfect and when I do make a mistake I will admit it, just like anyone else would/should.
Comment by mary — September 17, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
John Martin is incorrect. I specifically DID mention that the board policy was for continuing services. Please re-read my column. I also went on to state that the board chose not to follow this policy but I never wrote that they were in violation. The policy is required for continuing services, but remains a great method for the responsible choice of the best, most appropriate professional service available, whether continuing or one-time.
The integrity of the NIC Board would have been better preserved if this policy was followed.
Comment by mary — September 17, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Well dan maybe you should tell mary souza what the website policy is. Mary, care to guess again?
Comment by reagan — September 17, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
reagan is entitled to ask those questions without fear of intimidation that exists on other blogs. Thanks!Comment by Dan — September 17, 2008
I wasn’t trying to intimidate him;I
just think he has an anti-Mary agenda
which,he has had for several months now.He’s clearly trying to antagonize
the situation.But,I won’t try to out anybody,god forbid I get thrown in the cooler and I’m glad you protect the instigator’s of the world.
Comment by kageman — September 17, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
You’re correct, kageman. I just don’t want to see people say, “Oh, reagan is really DFO in disguise.” Whether he/she is or not isn’t the point. Reagan, Mary answered your question. In your attempts to see only Mary do wrong, you misread what she wrote. She never said that the NIC policy was violated. Her facts stand. NIC is abusing the public trust in the name of education. It’s foul and I am appalled that anyone supports how they’re handling this issue.
Comment by Dan — September 17, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
dan, i was referring to the incorrect information mary wrote concerning terry lee and the lcdc, not her column on nic that mr. martin addresses in his letter. it is unfortunate that mary chooses to use the fear of intimidation on her blog when she is a vocal critic of it happening on other blogs. but i guess i should not be surprised. thank you for making the changes you did.
Comment by reagan — September 17, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
I have a copy of the LCDC minutes. It’s a 70MB PDF file. The document is all images, so you cannot search through the text. You’d really have to spend a lot of time to find the information Mary missed. It was not missed on purpose. Mary is owning up to it.
When Mary found the error with regards to Mr. Lee, she owned up to it. Immediately. But that’s not the point. Mr. Lee was feted and cajoled into working an unfeasible project for no reason other than his family connections. And his sister did not excuse herself from voting in favor of projects that benefited Mr. Lee. THAT is the story.
Comment by Dan — September 17, 2008 @ 3:05 pm