Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. 2023-62

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Amending Chapter 2.106 of the Pierce County Code, "Purchasing."

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Ryan Mello, Jani Hitchen

Final votes

October 31, 2023
Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Nay Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Colleen Wise 10/29/23 4:02 PM I oppose this measure. Just because the Sate Law is different does not mean PC needs to change the rules. We are a county not a state. Lets stay with the current law.
John Leslie 10/29/23 9:34 PM This ordinance significantly increases the amounts subject to oversight and competitive bidding. "State Law" is noted all throughout and no reference to the pertinent RCW is cited so the public is not allowed to consider if the justifications are proper. This is not transparency and is highly suspect. VOTE NO!
Carol Rich 10/29/23 9:59 PM Contracts should be based on merit. No on ordinances that bypass competitive contracting requirements. Money should not be earmarked for certain groups of people regardless of merit. This is a divisive practice. These ordinances lack transparency. Vote NO.
Suzanne Wood 10/30/23 9:26 AM Here we go again, special interest. Please vote "NO"! This is not good business practice!
Randy Rich 10/30/23 11:38 AM This has a potential for pay for play, unethical, unfair and divisive. Vote NO!
Lance 10/30/23 12:41 PM Here we go again…Radical Socialist Leftist Board Members (Mello, Hitchen, Denson, Campbell) of Pierce County Council are proposing more divisive socialist ordinances on Pierce County. On Tuesday, October 31st the Council is scheduled to vote on a package of ordinances (Ordinances: 2023-62, 2023-67, 2023-68) introduced by Chair Ryan Mello that would allow the Council’s Democratic majority to bypass competitive contracting requirements and earmark money for groups in their districts regardless of merit. This funnels tax payer funds directly to select groups at the discretion of the radical board members. This has the potential to create a “pay for play” scenario and set up back room sweetheart deals to politically favored groups. These proposed packages of ordinances are blatantly unethical, unfair, divisive, and bypass any form of scrutiny, transparency, or accountability. We the citizens, taxpayers, and constitutes deserve a more transparent and accountable government. Our elected officials must represent our values, not their own personal bias, political agendas, or financial lucrative rewards to themselves or their party. The awarding of contracts must go thru a competitive requirements based on merit. It must be done with safeguards mechanisms and transparent procedures already in place to ensure accountability. Responsible government bodies should NOT short circuit the system of checks and balances. Every contract must be done in the sunlight, not in the darkness.
Steve McCoy 10/30/23 1:01 PM This ordinance reduces restrictions on sourcing and contracting with vendors, which will increase spending and likely increases fraud. Oppose.
Barbara B Moberg 10/30/23 4:35 PM Vote No on this Ordinance. All contracts should be competitive in nature, based on merit and accountable to the taxpayers. Checks and balances are in place to make sure backroom deals are not used and certain groups of people receive benefits that others don’t. Changing this invites fraud and will allow council members to vote their own personal bias rather than what is good for the majority of taxpayers. VOTE NO!
Carol A. Krona 10/30/23 5:44 PM VOTE NO on 2063-62!
Christine 10/30/23 8:50 PM Please leave us under the state laws that give jurisdiction procedures for contracting and purchasing. We need to have clear and transparent bidding and selection for any moneys spent from our county. PLEASE VOTE NO
Ryan Holland 10/31/23 10:36 AM I looked at the written texts of all 3 of these ordinances. I'm concerned about the non capitalization of "State Law." That shows that there is no regard for the people who elected officials at where they sit. I ask you please vote NO on this and the other 2 ordinances. Thank you.
Gina Sinclair 10/31/23 11:43 AM Councilmembers, I do not support this legislation and am disappointed that my councilmember, who I supported, campaigned for, and voted for, is proposing this. As a small business owner - getting government contracts should be an open and transparent process. This is a clear attempt to avoid a pure competitive process and provide valuable and dwindling funds to those who are in the council's good graces. I will reach out to the executive in hopes that this can be vetoed if passed by a disappointing majority of the council. This is wrong and unfair to those who are not providing campaign funds or hosting fundraisers for these elected officials. I will also add that there are several mistakes and sentences that contradict each other.
Mary Mason 10/31/23 2:23 PM Please vote no on this ordinance. It would bypass competitive contracting requirements and earmark money for groups in their districts regardless of merit
Mary Mason 10/31/23 2:25 PM Please vote no on this ordinance