Posted: June 12, 2011 in Uncategorized

There is gold in those streets I’m told, if you are a contractor that wins a city contract through the bid process in the City of Riverside, and the best part is you don’t have to be on top of the scoring due to the implementation of the Fuzzy Math Process. But according Tom Boyd, Deputy Public Works Director, paving a street twice has become a bit “fuzzy” as well.  Can anyone tell me where the accountability and responsibility lies?  I for one can say Tom Boyd definitely does not care about the expense to the taxpayer of a measly $17,000.00.  Please Tom, embrace and engage in the communication process, to do otherwise is costly to the community.  With your long work record with the city and your high level of experience, how does something as this really happen? There is nothing like a story which brews under the ground, and it begins in the sewers, then stinks to high heaven.  Tom Boyd states, “This appears to be an isolated mix-up, we haven’t changed anything. If it only happens once, there’s no sense in getting to exactly what happened.”  According to city sources it may occur quite often, Main Street Mall was another example.  But Tom, even if it only happens once, isn’t that one time to much? And an occurence to investigate?  I’ve known people in the Private Sector fired for lesser offenses than that.  I also understand the communication process should not be a problem; but Mr. Deputy Public Works Director, isn’t your  department right next to City Engineering?  Someone is breaching their fiduciary duty to the people once again.  A measly $17,000.00 may not be a lot for wonderfully vested paid position as Public Works Director, but during a time when many in the community are losing their homes, trying to pay their bills, and trying to pay for basic necessities such as placing food on the table, $17,000.00 is a lot of money.  That’s an insult to the taxpaying community.  Maybe Tom Boyd should give the $17,000.00 out of his own pocket, to replace what he should have caught.  The real question is two fold, are we just seeing imcompetance, or bid fixing by adjusting the scoring? That’s where the “fuzzy math comes in I’m told.  Could paving a street twice quite possibly be on purpose? The second time around it now cost the taxpayer $32,000.00 to do the street paving.  Tom Boyd says it’s the “high price of oil.”  I’ve had this conversation before, but it was about “high price of beef.”  Well in any case this what would be much more diabolical to assume, that is , to assume that there is something much diabolical occurring than meets the eye.  This would began to go into that territory of “favoritism” again, and just maybe, “money laundering”?  Comments Welcomed, and one final note, our streets are full of the proverbial “pot holes”, someone please introduce Siobhan Foster to one. 

  1. kaptalizm says:

    I don’t think paving the street twice was on purpose, but here is a possible scenario:

    The neighborhood pesters the councilman to get the street paved, and the councilman goes to public works and says, “Get that street paved!” When public works informs the councilman that the street is scheduled for sewer replacement, the councilman asks when. Public works says it will be in 17 months, and the councilman responds, “we can’t wait that long, do it now.”

    So the street gets paved, and 17 months later gets torn up for a new sewer. Do you think the residents would have been willing to delay the repaving for 17 months? Maybe some would, but I’ve been to these community association meetings, and the people that go to them are the whiniest bunch of people I’ve ever seen. And they vote.

  2. Brad Fan says:

    The real question is who will catch the blame for Hudson’s criminality this time. Ever notice how some anonymous mid-level manager always seems to make all the mistakes? Maybe this time he’ll have to blame someone higher up like the public works director or even someone in his office who forgot to take Brads fingerprints off the order to hire one of his friends & favs. Belenda Grahm gets my vote for blowing this one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s