Decision time for Mr. Day.

I respect Tim Day. He's my representative for my district. He's always talking about our area's unique issues and problems. He's very vocal about the issues that are important to him, and to his residents. He is a firm supporter of our Charter Schools, and I feel like he believes what he says. You don't often find someone in politics who sticks his beliefs where his mouth is, and that is an endearing quality.

Today, he and I sit on opposing sides of the UEP issue. He is of the opinion that MWH is not only over charging our city, but that they are potentially performing actions outside of the law. I can't pass that judgment on MWH, as I have not seen any factual documented proof that they are, or even could, hide any of the actual charges from public view. In fact, the deliberate steps they have taken to increase their daily information recording is actually quite commendable.

During the Townsend audit, MWH learned that in order to reduce the amount of work demand during future audits, they would need to computerize their daily reports. Currently, the City receives a consolidated daily report of every construction item installed, as it is inspected. The printed version of this daily report are several massive volumes of 8 inch binders. The entirety is provided to the City at the end of each UEP phase. All of the billing which MWH allows to occur is inspected via these same records. No sub-contractor is allowed to bill for anything which has not already received final inspection.

Mr. Townsend or one of his representatives actually went into the field, and measured several locations. He measured driveways, sod, pipes, counted fire hydrants, etc. This was incredibly thorough, and I'm personally glad that our city received that level of professionalism. Mr. Townsend made it clear in his audit that he felt that what was charged for was in the ground. He also pointed out a number of points he feels would improve the city's UEPs. I've agreed with a number of his points, as written, and I've disagreed with a couple of them, as other information has become available.

Mr. Townsend also sought the payroll records, in an attempt to dig deeper into the system. He was also denied this data. While it may seem insidious to some, the reasoning MWH provided me is both legally, and logically sound. As I posted earlier in News-Press:

"The records relating to this program have been fully provided and complied with in every way. There is a wall of separation between the Company, MWH, and the contract between the City and MWH. The contract, and all of the documents related to it, are open, public, and waiting for your perusal. Remember the City AGREED to these contract rates and terms. The Company, MWH is now billing based upon those AGREED rates. Anything that happens behind that is on the other side of the wall of separation, and no private company has any compelling reason to share that data."

Now, down to the decisions. Mr. Day is going to have to choose between two paths. One will be continuing down this path, demanding answers that cannot be compelled to be given, without previous proof of wrong doing. The other will be to accept the outstretched hand that has been offered repeatedly, to share information, and work for an equitable solution with the vendor that he took a part in choosing.

If Mr. Day has compelling proof of wrongdoing, he needs to share it. This will allow us to demand those payroll records, via subpoena. If he does not have that proof, he needs to step back from that position, and take a reasoned position which will allow us to continue searching for new ways to fund the future UEPs.