If you read Jack Troia’s Board President’s Report in the April Spirit Magazine, you will see that he admits:

1.  He failed to get a WRITTEN legal opinion before deciding to sole-source the RMI contract,

2.  He wasted the year’s time needed to compete the contract, and the board wasted two years time by not making quarterly changes in the agreement when obvious mistakes were scattered throughout.  It is outrageous that they waited until the END of the agreement period to insert most of the changes that they “negotiated” to get cost reductions! What unprofessional behavior by both the board and RMI.  (We need to demand to see the legal opinion.)

3.  Claims to finally have a written legal opinion (but has refused to release it) that he claims gives the board full cover for its anti-competitive behavior.  It probably does not even provide a risk assessment on the possibility of litigation for failing to compete the agreement.

4.   Claims there are “savings” negotiated, but does not provide anything to indicate why the amounts of contract reductions would not have been many times more if  competitive processes were followed.

Note that once again, Attorney/Director Ann Small is silent on the legal aspects of sole source contracting.  What value is her legal training and election to the board if she does not help our community avoid such major mistakes?

See below:

“The Board of Directors at the February 25 meeting voted
to renew the management contract of RMI. Many rumors
and speculations were put forth in our Community when
the Board was considering renewal of the RMI contract. I
would like to report on the sequence of events that resulted
in the renewal of our contract with RMI.

The Board received an informal opinion on September 25,
2009, from legal counsel that renewal of the RMI contract
was possible without obtaining 3 bids. In the fall of 2009
the Board decided to start negotiations with RMI to see if
a renewal of the contract was feasible. If the preliminary
negotiations were not successful, the Association would
pursue other vendors. All Board members were provided
a copy of the original RMI contract and asked to submit
potential issues and concerns. The first such list compiled
was dated November 27 and was provided to RMI for
comment and consideration. A first draft of the renewal
contract was prepared by RMI in response to the Board’s
list of potential issues and concerns. Subsequently, this
process was repeated four times and resulted in the final
draft of the renewal contract being received by the Board on
February 22, 2010. A formal written opinion from our legal
counsel was obtained on December 2, which confirmed
the previous opinion that the renewal of the existing RMI
contract was within the spirit and intent of the law.

The final renewal contract provides for reduced
management fees of over 10% and a reduction in overhead
labor burden charges. These items will save the Association
approximately fifty (50) thousand dollars a year. The
Contract is for three (3) years effective January 1, 2010, can
be extended on a month to month basis after December 31,
2012 and can be terminated by either party with ninety (90)
days notice. Additionally, the contract has been enhanced
in many areas including indemnification and termination,
personnel matters and specific requirements for operating
policies and procedures.

By Jack Troia, SCA Board President”