220323 1441 Re_ Open Letter to the Cypress CouncilFrom:Frances Marquez
To:Thomas Moore
Subject:Re: Open Letter to the Cypress Council
Date:Wednesday, March 23, 2022 2:41:11 PM
Mr. Moore,
Thank you for reaching out to me. I am responding in next week’s paper.
Sincerely,
Frances
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2022, at 12:52 PM, Thomas Moore <tomrmoore2@gmail.com>
wrote:
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