WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:59 pm
I was reading it and the whole time was like it really sounds like the city got fucked here as well.
I guess we waived conflict, but there's enough smoke there to interest a public corruption investigator.
Can you summarize the public corruption component?
Saying burns and mac's proposal wasn't in compliance, that the council couldn't address it, and then apparantly changing the rules after anyway. Getting rid of their ability to match other offers.
Maybe it was just good lobbying, but I'd look at it at least.
I know big law can be quite incestuous at the best of times, but it appears they had an attorney client relationship with all three sides? The city obviously should not have waived conflict and instead hired a different law firm.
Public corruption seems to be the wrong framing. Seems more like private corruption/interference because the main storyline is Renner's bamboozlement of the council. Seems like pretty much all of the council was on board with Burns and Mac, but Renner/Husch exploited some council noobs wo wanted to make a name for themselves and existing divisions within the council to foment enough uncertainty to insert him and his firm in place to heavily influence the contract process.
What I don't understand is how Renner convinced the council that Burns and Mac's bid was non-compliant. Based on the story, and my memory, the council was going to vote for B&M, but because it was deemed non-compliant, they voted for Edgemoor. Just masterclass move there, however it was accomplished.
The other thing is that Renner/Husch had their conflict waived in regards to past conflicts with Edgemoor. But based on the article, Renner was clearly playing ball with Edgemoor behind the scenes and tilting the scale in their favor (removing the Swiss RFP process, deeming B&M non-compliant, and crafting the MOU w/ Edgemoor prior to selection). Thats not a past conflict- thats a current 'conflict' brushing up against the bounds of whats legal under the terms the city hired him. The problem is to what end do you pursue it? B&M already got their financial compensation. Maybe AECOM wants to get financial compensation too? But who in the public cares about that? The city got their airport. The airport opens in a couple of weeks. They aren't going to start the bidding process over. Its all water under the runway now.
The whole initial issue with the sole sourcing of the project was that the city wasn't getting the best deal or that it wasn't 'fair'. Did the RFP process make this fair? Did it get the city a better deal? Was the end process illegal? Does it matter? Who knows.
And thats the main take away. It pays to play dirty.
It would have been nice to have a local firm design it.
I'm not calling it Watergate, but the accusations seem serious enough for an investigation. One of the biggest projects in KC history and our legal advice was unethical at best.
At the very least just to set up some guard rails for the future to be better at this.
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:44 pm
I'm not calling it Watergate, but the accusations seem serious enough for an investigation. One of the biggest projects in KC history and our legal advice was unethical at best.
At the very least just to set up some guard rails for the future to be better at this.
At the time there was a lot of protest that Burns & Mac WAS the corrupt option. Most of HB’s suggestions on the surface do seem neutral if not net positive on the anti-corruption front.
No single sourcing - good
No allowing a single firm to give a best & final after others play their cards - good
Not allowing an unqualified firm to win - goodish
These are a lot of best practice steps to take in a public procurement - easy to sell to the city council and not for nefarious reasons. I really blame rests solely on HB.
At the end of the day, once it became an RFP Burns & Mac wasn’t going to win even if they weren’t disqualified.
WoodDraw wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:44 pm
I'm not calling it Watergate, but the accusations seem serious enough for an investigation. One of the biggest projects in KC history and our legal advice was unethical at best.
At the very least just to set up some guard rails for the future to be better at this.
At the time there was a lot of protest that Burns & Mac WAS the corrupt option. Most of HB’s suggestions on the surface do seem neutral if not net positive on the anti-corruption front.
No single sourcing - good
No allowing a single firm to give a best & final after others play their cards - good
Not allowing an unqualified firm to win - goodish
These are a lot of best practice steps to take in a public procurement - easy to sell to the city council and not for nefarious reasons. I really blame rests solely on HB.
At the end of the day, once it became an RFP Burns & Mac wasn’t going to win even if they weren’t disqualified.
I agree with this mostly. I have fish memory but my recollection is that the whole process was poorly run. From burns and mac coming up with the plan, trying to sole source it, the city frankly forcing 3p without understanding it, fights after over the agreement.
Some of the new details are a little troublesome. None of these attorneys mentioned are names that are unknown to anyone here. It's not like Dave Frantze is some outsider lol
Seems like there's some room for reform in our procurement though. Maybe stop hiring the same two fucking attorneys as well.
I'm not an expert in law, but in my work typically competitors all have different law firms. And in my limited experience, tend to be pretty aggressive about avoiding conflict of interest.
It's the part I can't understand. You have a city government and two very well known companies. Setting aside the local partners which surely have preexisting relationships with the law firms.
How the fuck did the city and two companies end up dealing with the same lawyer? Is this not grounds for bar proceedings?
There are like five other huge law firms here that presumably could offer capable legal advice. It's not like KC doesn't have architecture and engineering firms that no one knows how to deal with. This is one thing we're good at.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:00 pm
Does any city really "rotate" it's big art displays? I feel like I've seen the same art in the same cities all the time?
Wall art yes I agree that should rotate frequently.
A member of this forum I won’t name said they should have put pigeons up instead of saxophones as a call back to the old terminals and the don’t feed the birds signs.
I’m a big believer in that no one remembers anything about an airport other than the general experience. But in theory there should be some money every so often to change things around.
Not talking about rotating, just like every 5-10 years depending on the work.
Was in Newark last night, Frankfurt currently. Both had birds in them and I think I've seen them in every other airport I've been in. Stupid complaint.
The food in this airport is fantastic. The new terminal A at Newark seam like its very similar to the new MCI. Looks great.
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:58 pm
$62M reward for Burns and Mac without any work provided. Do the right thing and agree to invest that money back into the city in some way.
Why would they ever do that when the city and Husch Blackwell (Who SHOULD be banned, reprimanded by the state bar association, and have each attorney disbarred.. but who's political reach is far too deep for any of that to happen) literally fucked them to the tune of $62M. And, so clearly fucked them that a judge actually agreed and awarded them $62M for having done no work. Think about that. It was THAT clear of an argument to the judge that they were fucked. I'll be surprised if they ever do another "Thank you" job for KC again. Ever.
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:58 pm
$62M reward for Burns and Mac without any work provided. Do the right thing and agree to invest that money back into the city in some way.
(Who SHOULD be banned, reprimanded by the state bar association, and have each attorney disbarred.. but who's political reach is far too deep for any of that to happen)
beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:58 pm
$62M reward for Burns and Mac without any work provided. Do the right thing and agree to invest that money back into the city in some way.
(Who SHOULD be banned, reprimanded by the state bar association, and have each attorney disbarred.. but who's political reach is far too deep for any of that to happen)
I don't understand, this is what lawyers do! They stretch the law to the maximum, peddle influence and lock in dependence. Politicians are happy to use them for their own benefit as well.
