220323 1253 Re_ Open Letter to the Cypress CouncilFrom:Thomas Moore
To:Frances Marquez
Subject:Re: Open Letter to the Cypress Council
Date:Wednesday, March 23, 2022 12:52:42 PM
Frances,
I was hoping you are going to respond to the Open Letter in the News Enterprise. I’m
preparing another letter to the editor on transparency, considering there has been no response
from Pear. The optics would be better if you respond publicly.
Tom
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM Thomas Moore <tomrmoore2@gmail.com> wrote:Frances:
I don't know if you've read the current edition of the News-Enterprise, but they
published an open letter to you and Councilman Peat concerning the extension of
the sanitation contract. I'm hoping you can give a comprehensive answer to
the questions posed in a Letter to the Editor of the News-Enterprise. Below is a
copy.
Sincerely,
Tom Moore
An Open Letter to Council Members Peat and Marquez
I have been following the controversy regarding the extension of the
Valley Vista sanitation contract. Rather than passing judgment at this
juncture, it seems that there are facts that can be brought to light by the
most vociferous advocate of the contract Mr. Peat and the the lone
opponent Ms. Peat. My neighbors and I have a number of questions
that haven't been adequately addressed. In the spirit of full
TRANSPARENCY, I’m hoping the two sides can answer them in this public
forum. (I will email you the questions so you are aware.)
1. It has been stated that the contract couldn’t be BID OUT, as the
current contract hasn’t expired (It expires in 2024?). When is the
window that the contract could have been bid out?
2. Considering accepted practice is that governmental agencies bid out
any work to be performed, why wasn’t the contract bid out at the
appropriate time? Despite having to address the new organics recycling
program in order to comply with a new state law, it appears that a 32%
rate increase is steep and that competitive bidding in our capitalistic
system would have benefited Cypress residents? We certainly wouldn’t
have received a worse contract by waiting.
3. Why wasn’t the company who provides sanitation for the city of Los
Alamitos, who will have an eight dollar ($8) a month less in trash
charges contacted, or was it? Sanitation is not like construction, where
quality is important, trash is either picked up or not. It has been
suggested that Los Al has very high rates to commercial and multi-
family customers to subsidize single family residential rates. If so, are
the citizens of Cypress subsidizing commercial business in our city?
4. If true, the most baffling/disturbing fact is the idea that Ms. Marquez
was prohibited from communicating with city staff. Additionally, for full
transparency and the fact that the contract was signed, was there any
information that wasn’t allowed to flow among the council or to the
public?
5. It appears that Cypress citizens had a deadline to protest the contract
and a date at a city council meeting to voice opinions about the
contract. Why was deadline and opportunity proffered AFTER the
contract has been signed?
It is apparent that the contract must be more complex than originally
presented, considering we are at a point that the words “censure” and
“transparency” are being spoken. I guarantee the citizens are way less
interested in political infighting in their city government than having a
fair and comprehensive consideration of any money spent by the city. I
hope your answers will address the contract and not devolve into further
unseemly finger pointing.
Tom Moore
Cypress