Bridal Showers and Choosing Companies in Sweetwater
March 24, 2011
by Emily Alpert
The Sweetwater Union High School District superintendent invited construction contractors who might benefit from his decisions to a bridal shower for his daughter that mentioned a money tree on the invitation, the Union-Tribune reported today.
Arguing that there was nothing wrong with inviting them, Superintendent Jesus Gandara told the Union-Tribune that he doesn't have final say over which companies are chosen for school district projects; the school board does. The U-T reported:
According to district policy, the superintendent and his staff have the ability to reject contract bids and to accept them, subject to board approval. He is also required to "provide guidance to the board to assist in decision-making."
As part of guiding the school board, Gandara has made his preferences for construction companies known in the past. A few years ago, we reported that Sweetwater had repeatedly chosen companies that weren't ranked highest by their own staff. Twice Gandara had weighed in, once pushing for an architect that built schools he liked, once on which program manager to pick:
Nick Marinovich, a community member who sat on the oversight committee for an earlier school construction bond, complained about the process for picking the new program manager, Gilbane/Seville Group Inc., which had ranked lower than another company.
"The superintendent steered it the way he wanted it to go. It was bogus," said Marinovich, who has worked for more than a dozen years as a project manager with the county of San Diego and briefly for the losing company. ...
Gandara said Sweetwater had good reasons for weighing other factors besides Harris Gafcon's ranking. He was displeased with renovations done under the last bond at Sweetwater High School. Stucco around new windows didn't match the surrounding building. Rain gutters on the buildings were twisted.
So while the school board does make the final decision, the superintendent can influence that decision — and in the past his input has been important in deciding companies' fates.
Showing posts with label Associated Builders and Contractors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Associated Builders and Contractors. Show all posts
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Builders at May 12, 2009 Chula Vista City Council Meeting demand they not be required to collect signatures in order to put their initiative on ballot
Arthur Salm: Council kicks sand in bullies’ faces
The initiative process opens the door to all kinds of mischief, most of it backed by interests with very deep pockets.
By Arthur Salm, SDNN
San Diego News Network
When you actually get to see a bully in action, it’s breathtaking, in a can-you-believe-that-guy? kind of way.
Few people saw it - after all, it was the last agenda item, it came up after five and a half hours of talk, and it was late, late in the evening. But at the May 12 Chula Vista City Council meeting, George Hawkins, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors, put on quite a show.
San Diego: Arthur Salm is an SDNN columnist.
After a supportive lead-in from Mayor Cheryl Cox, Hawkins stood at the lectern and informed the council members that unless they placed an initiative on the ballot for the June 2010 election - an initiative that his organization has failed so far to place via the by-the-book signature-gathering process - they’d sue the city (over an earlier petition rejected for what the city clerk determined to be improper paperwork). That, Hawkins said, would cost the taxpayers a bundle. The initiative’s going get on the ballot one way or another, he declared, and if his group goes out and gets the required signatures, that will trigger a special election, costing the city even more.San Diego: sdnn-opinion1
Do it, Hawkins told the council members, or Chula Vista will also end up paying “not only your attorney fees, but ours.” He indicated that if the city council plays ball, the lawsuit will likely go away.
Translation: Even with our hired-gun signature-gatherers, we haven’t been able to meet the requirements to get our initiative on the ballot. But we’ve got the money and we’ve got the juice, so if you guys don’t put it on there for us, we’re going to turn the citizens of Chula Vista upside down and shake some serious coin out of their pockets. Figures ranging from $600,000 to $1.4 million got tossed around.
Click here
Hawkins didn’t shout. He didn’t shake his fist. Had he sported a Snidley Whiplash-style mustache, he probably wouldn’t have twirled it. He didn’t even glower. He spoke calmly and matter-of-factly, and it was downright chilling. The link is here if you want to watch; just click on the May 12 video. Mayor Cox’s warm and fuzzy introduction starts at hour 5:31.
And here’s what the Associated Builders and Contractors want: Their ballot initiative would prohibit project labor agreements, which are collectively bargained labor agreements for city-funded construction projects. They deal with wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. Typically a PLA will set a living wage, include medical benefits, and ensure that a certain percentage of the workers hired for a project live in the community. (Backers of the Associated Builders and Contractors’ initiative refer to it as a “fair and open competition ordinance,” a textbook example of nomenclature obfuscation; the art reached its dizziest heights with George W. Bush and his Clear Skies and Healthy Forest Initiatives.)
The response to Hawkins’ threat was immediate and compelling; this, too, made for good TV. (See that link, above? If you skipped it, click it now.) The outrage of the speakers following Hawkins seemed evenly directed toward the Associated Builders and Contractors’ would-be initiative itself and the audacity of their tactics.
“I’ve never witnessed such a scene of extortion in my life,” painter Paul Vauchelet told the council. A project labor agreement, he said, “is about working people and benefits and paying good wages. … You politicians are our last line of defense.”
The Labor Council’s Lorena Gonzalez let the council know that as long as they were considering placing initiatives on the ballot just because it’s cheaper, she had lots of ideas. How about a living-wage ordinance? “That would really benefit the workers,” she said.
Even after five years on the city council, Steve Castaneda said that every once in a while he still gets completely amazed - and he seemed floored by Hawkins’ proposal. Stating flatly that the council should refuse to cave in to threats, he added - and this shouldn’t have been necessary - “Unfortunately, democracy is an expensive endeavor.”
‘Round midnight it went to a vote. Pamela Bensoussan and Rudy Ramirez joined Castaneda in voting No; Mayor Cox and John McCann stood with the builders and contractors. Defeated, 3-2. A nice “almost” for the bullies...
The initiative process opens the door to all kinds of mischief, most of it backed by interests with very deep pockets.
By Arthur Salm, SDNN
San Diego News Network
When you actually get to see a bully in action, it’s breathtaking, in a can-you-believe-that-guy? kind of way.
Few people saw it - after all, it was the last agenda item, it came up after five and a half hours of talk, and it was late, late in the evening. But at the May 12 Chula Vista City Council meeting, George Hawkins, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors, put on quite a show.
San Diego: Arthur Salm is an SDNN columnist.
After a supportive lead-in from Mayor Cheryl Cox, Hawkins stood at the lectern and informed the council members that unless they placed an initiative on the ballot for the June 2010 election - an initiative that his organization has failed so far to place via the by-the-book signature-gathering process - they’d sue the city (over an earlier petition rejected for what the city clerk determined to be improper paperwork). That, Hawkins said, would cost the taxpayers a bundle. The initiative’s going get on the ballot one way or another, he declared, and if his group goes out and gets the required signatures, that will trigger a special election, costing the city even more.San Diego: sdnn-opinion1
Do it, Hawkins told the council members, or Chula Vista will also end up paying “not only your attorney fees, but ours.” He indicated that if the city council plays ball, the lawsuit will likely go away.
Translation: Even with our hired-gun signature-gatherers, we haven’t been able to meet the requirements to get our initiative on the ballot. But we’ve got the money and we’ve got the juice, so if you guys don’t put it on there for us, we’re going to turn the citizens of Chula Vista upside down and shake some serious coin out of their pockets. Figures ranging from $600,000 to $1.4 million got tossed around.
Click here
Hawkins didn’t shout. He didn’t shake his fist. Had he sported a Snidley Whiplash-style mustache, he probably wouldn’t have twirled it. He didn’t even glower. He spoke calmly and matter-of-factly, and it was downright chilling. The link is here if you want to watch; just click on the May 12 video. Mayor Cox’s warm and fuzzy introduction starts at hour 5:31.
And here’s what the Associated Builders and Contractors want: Their ballot initiative would prohibit project labor agreements, which are collectively bargained labor agreements for city-funded construction projects. They deal with wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. Typically a PLA will set a living wage, include medical benefits, and ensure that a certain percentage of the workers hired for a project live in the community. (Backers of the Associated Builders and Contractors’ initiative refer to it as a “fair and open competition ordinance,” a textbook example of nomenclature obfuscation; the art reached its dizziest heights with George W. Bush and his Clear Skies and Healthy Forest Initiatives.)
The response to Hawkins’ threat was immediate and compelling; this, too, made for good TV. (See that link, above? If you skipped it, click it now.) The outrage of the speakers following Hawkins seemed evenly directed toward the Associated Builders and Contractors’ would-be initiative itself and the audacity of their tactics.
“I’ve never witnessed such a scene of extortion in my life,” painter Paul Vauchelet told the council. A project labor agreement, he said, “is about working people and benefits and paying good wages. … You politicians are our last line of defense.”
The Labor Council’s Lorena Gonzalez let the council know that as long as they were considering placing initiatives on the ballot just because it’s cheaper, she had lots of ideas. How about a living-wage ordinance? “That would really benefit the workers,” she said.
Even after five years on the city council, Steve Castaneda said that every once in a while he still gets completely amazed - and he seemed floored by Hawkins’ proposal. Stating flatly that the council should refuse to cave in to threats, he added - and this shouldn’t have been necessary - “Unfortunately, democracy is an expensive endeavor.”
‘Round midnight it went to a vote. Pamela Bensoussan and Rudy Ramirez joined Castaneda in voting No; Mayor Cox and John McCann stood with the builders and contractors. Defeated, 3-2. A nice “almost” for the bullies...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)