Discrimination, Part 2
by Larry Gilbert

In my previous report about the city of Mission Viejo, I addressed what I perceive as discrimination in our vendor selection process where I cited one example. However, for my own credibility I should have provided my sources to back up the dollar amounts contained in that post. These engineering service contract awards may not be based on the typical open bid process. Unless I'm mistaken, the city qualifies two or more vendors whose names are found on an approved vendor listing from which these contracts are issued.

A longtime friend who is also currently serving as mayor of a large city once told me that "numbers can numb" an audience. He is and was correct. However there are times when watchdogs must peel back hundreds of pages of boring data to flush out information that may paint a picture that needs exposure.

As I reported earlier, Mission Viejo has used Richard Fisher Associates of Santa Ana and RJM Design as architectural design contractors for a variety of tasks in our city. To show the entire picture, based on city council data that is easily located on our web site, let me offer specific comparative data as presented and approved at multiple city council meetings to support my allegation of a serious lack of balance in our contract awards for design and plan check services. I did send a copy of yesterday's report to Mayor Rhonda Reardon and will copy her along with our city manager and city attorney on this report as well.

Let me begin with the MV city council meeting of May 18, 2009. Page 186 of the 247-page Check Register summary states that for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, we paid RJM Design $115,251.73 while Richard Fisher Associates received $586.99. In that same document it also reports that from July 1, 2008, thru Dec. 31, 2008, RJM received $114,343.79 while the other qualified vendor, Richard Fisher, received $3,320.78.

In the Nov 16, 2009, city council meeting you can find a Check Register summary covering the quarter ending Sept 30, 2009. On page 123 of 164, RJM received $46,701.77 while Richard Fisher received zero.

In the council meeting of May 17, 2010, which included the Check Register summary for quarter ending March 31, 2010, RJM Design received $88,508.97 while Richard Fisher Associates received $105. That is correct, 105 dollars. In that same report, as found on page 155 of 203 Check Register summary, RJM has a total of $227,738.29 while the total for Richard Fisher is $985.76. Note: The staff report does not specify a timeframe for said totals.

Moving ahead to the meeting of Nov. 15, 2010. On page 127 of 164, for the quarter ending Sept. 30, 2010, RJM Design received $135,027.95 while Richard Fisher received zero.

Our Council meeting of May 16, 2011, contained my next document. In the Check Register covering the period from July 1, 2010, thru Dec 31, 2010, RJM Design received $149,407.54 while Richard Fisher Associates was paid $931.71 for their services. Specifics on RJM purchase orders can be found on page 166 of that 217-page report.

Let’s skip the fall of 2011 as we went through a change in our CFO resulting in a six-month rather than quarterly summary. I have not located that document as I prepared this report.

City Council meeting of May 21, 2012, has my next source document. On page 178 of 240 you will find RJM Design, who for the period of July 1, 2011, thru Dec 31, 2011, was paid $59,580.51 while Richard Fisher Associates received another bone and was paid $1,169.99.

Let's look at the Nov 19, 2012, council meeting documents that cover the quarter ending Sept 30, 2012. RJM Design was again the winner, getting a modest $36,770.87 while Richard Fisher received zero. Source. Page 164 of 170 of that Check Register summary.

There are still a few questions I have relative to understanding the timing specified for these transactions and payments. I think the data as found in the above official city documents point out the need for an internal investigation/audit of these awards which over the past few years may collectively reach or exceed $1 million.

My closing comment. In picking up some city documents a few years ago there was an email exchange relating to a RJM purchase requisition wherein the senior staff member was questioned the wording of “PR R9919 to RJM for $9,500" where it was suggested that this might be considered a Change Order (to an existing order) that would trigger/necessitate a council vote of approval. If not, he would have to "Provide a much different description for it not to be a change order because the wording is almost exactly the same (and both are pretty generic)." In his response he wrote: "No problem. I will develop a different set of words."