The other side of the story

City Manager Mitch Johnson responds to the Bryant Electric deal via an email to Cone.

As a contractor who works on old buildings I always insert an “unforeseen”clause in my contrat documents.  When you start digging into 100 year-old buildings you never know what might be found.  Same for digging underground I’d imagine.

Bryant Electric entered into a contract with the city and based their bid on five year-old documentation provided by the city.  The project was out on Chimney Rock road which is an area that, according to Johnson and confirmed by anyone paying attention, “…that probably saw more construction and utility installations in the very narrow available right of way (gas, phone, fiber optic, etc.) than any other part of the City in those five years.”

In other words, there was no way to include unforseen costs in the contract so those contract over-runs were negotiated later – by the city manager’s office.  As they should have been.

Although it still looks to me like Bryant Electric tried to engage into some questionable billing with the taxpayers, I, for one, am satisfied with Mitch Johnson’s explanation of the Bryant Electric brush up and am glad he took the time to get it out there.

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics, Life in General. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Posted February 9, 2007 at 8:45 am | Permalink
  2. Posted February 9, 2007 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Ben, I hope you continue to uncover corruption, but in this case, I don’t think you did. Highly complex things are not best understood in one-sided or simplistic scenarios. Do a little more research, get a second mole without an agenda, research both sides, and then tell all of us onliners what’s what. Remember, sometimes the sky is not falling.

  3. Posted February 9, 2007 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    I’m not so sure, David. I’d still like to know more about the fabricated items the contractor billed for (that city staff refuted). Were these items considered as part of the settlement or taken off the table before negotiations began? Also, were there any reprecutions for the contractor submitting fabricated bills? Does the city still do business with this contractor? If so, why?

    Although the reporting on this matter so far has been clumsy and unfair, I think there are some nuggets that can’t yet be swept away.

  4. Posted February 9, 2007 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Sue,

    Please answer the questions I asked about Willow Oaks. What was proved? I am trying so hard to remain civil. I do research both sides. i do read tons of paper work. To say that I dont is insulting. You jumped quickly on sandy’s side during Willow oaks but refuse to state why. Mitch’s latest response does not clear anything up unless you are just looking for aha’s and not the facts. Did you even read my latest post? The Willow Oaks explanation is not factual. Either bring facts or dont comment. Your motherly going to show Ben how to research things is extremely insulting. I have been in a few rounds in this type of stuff. i have won some of those too.

    Roch,

    It is unfair for you to say the reporting so far is clumsy and unfair. The reporting forces the city to be more transparent or in this case pretend to be more transparent. Your comments are puzzling.

  5. Posted February 9, 2007 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I haven’t read the Rhino’s report, so I’m basing clumsy and unfair on what I’ve read on The Troublemaker and Johnson’s assertion that the Rhino didn’t interview him. So….

    Clumsy in that the personal-attack slant unnecessarily fogged the picture, making it difficult to discern the real issues of concern. Unfair in that Johnson was not given the opportunity to explain.

  6. Posted February 9, 2007 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Clumsy in that the personal-attack slant unnecessarily fogged the picture

    In my post?

    Unfair to not let Mitch talk? Like Willow Oaks?

  7. Posted February 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
  8. Posted February 9, 2007 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    I will wait for all the information.

    I believe if Sandy felt there was wrong doing she would say so.

    thanks

    Ben, Keep up the good work. Don’t let folks get to you or cause you to criticize them..etc. Stay the course.
    Ignore those that disagree…or simply agree to to disagree. Very few of us have taken the time to research 1/100 of what you have. We are simply armchair quarterbacks for the most part. Some of the questions are good that are being asked of you. Just as you do not trust some folks…some I would assume/believe that you have an agenda as to who you trust and don’t trust in our local leadership. That agenda causes the naysayers to step forward and challenge your research…so what. You are making a difference.

2 Trackbacks

  1. By Piedmont Publius » Blog Archive » Field of expertise on February 10, 2007 at 10:13 am

    [...] Hoggard’s satisfied with Mitchell Johnson’s explanation of the Bryant Electric matter. [...]

  2. [...] I’m reconsidering a previous position. [...]