search
top

Palm Bay: Waste Management Contract.

Yesterday we posted our concerns and conclusions in comparing and contrasting two petition drives to get items on the ballot in two Brevard County cities – Cocoa Beach and Palm Bay. The end results were not the only things that were different as the answers the two petition groups got from and continue to get from elected officials and the staff of cities and government entities were different.

Today we want to start examining the Waste Management contract proposal that was discussed in Palm Bay at the City Council meeting of February 7, 2020. We had looked at the issues in a post called “Okay, Who Has the Naked Pictures?,” but we want to consider the comments from the dais – from the five Council members including the Mayor.

To refresh your memories, here is what we said the other day:

The first is Agenda item New Business – 9 (NB-9) which is:

Consideration of 90-day negotiation period of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Collection and Disposable agreement with Waste Management, Inc.

But there is more to it than that as provided by the item cover memo:

Of interest to us was this:

Due to the complex nature and scope of the services provided, the process of issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids for the service can take several months. Additionally, if another entity were selected for waste and recyclable collection, the transition would encompass several months as well.

To accomplish our goal of discussing what was said, we have taken the unusual step of transcribing over 30 minutes of those comments. You can watch the video of the meeting on the City’s website, but we chose to transcribe the comments as some are incredible and jaw dropping.

The transcript is below and we are including it as one embedded .pdf file so you can follow along. In the .pdf file, you will see the comments we are discussing and a number. The number refers to the discussion that follows below which has the corresponding numbers. We wanted to make sure you could read the comments in context.

We want to begin our discussion at 3:40:00 of the meeting on the media file on the City of Palm Bay site and picks up where Mayor Capote begins to make his position known.

(1) Nobody can put a stronger argument on the table other than myself because I’ve been through this process before.

Actually, Mr. Mayor, thousands of people went through this process before in 2010. They are called “citizens” and for you to dismiss their experience, their memories and their experiences is not a good start.

(2) That’s why it would be, if it was Republic here, or Waste Pro, or any of the haulers that were here before us, it would be a courtesy to sit down with that hauler and have a discussion.

A “courtesy” discussion might be in order if people were satisfied with Waste Management. A “courtesy” discussion might be in order if, as Deputy Mayor Anderson will relate later, Waste Management had been willing to listen and take to heart the concerns of the residents, the staff, and the Council members on issues.

They did not.

You don’t reward a company with service that people are not satisfied with a “courtesy negotiation.”

The actual, real world, real life way of handling this is to say exactly what was going to happen after the vote of the Council.

You say “The City of Palm Bay has decided to end it’s contract with you. We will be putting the contract out for bid and we hope that you bid on it. It is in the best interests of our citizens to explore all options, including prices and services from any vendor wishing to bid on this expansive contract.”

(3) We have a threshold to go by. But, in opening it all up, what threshold do you have?

We have no idea what “threshold” Capote is talking about. He may be talking about the “scope of work,” as that is his next statement, but “scope of work” and “threshold” are not the same thing.

Generally speaking, in a contract, “threshold” refers to a clause or provision kicking in after some performance or lack of performance criteria has been met. For example, if a contract says “the provider will get a bonus of $X.XX dollars if the contract is completed 30 days ahead of the scheduled time,” the “30 days before the scheduled time” is the threshold for the payment clause coming into play. It is not, as we think the Mayor is trying to assert, the entirety or breadth and scope of the work itself.

(4) Because there is such a thing as a “scope of work” and I know that because I have done procurement before. So, at the end of the day, what is your scope of work? What are you going by?

There are two answers to the “scope of work” issue the Mayor raises. First, the “scope of work” is defined in the current contract. That contract was provided in the agenda packet for the meeting. The scope of work portion is found on pages 287 – 294 as seen below starting at Section 4. (Billing and other conditions are in the contract as well.)

Furthermore, the re-negotiation with Waste Management only included three items a listed in the agenda item memo:

• Feasibility of twice per week waste collection
• Transfer ownership and responsibility of the City’s collection cart inventory to Waste
Management
• The amount of any additional charges to customers for an amendment to the existing contract

Is it the Mayor’s position that in order to send this out to bid via an RFP that the City would have to start from zero and work up? Or did he just forget to read or remember the contract itself which has the scope of the work?

Furthermore, the Mayor seems to think that his is the only experience in all of Palm Bay dealing with procurement. We suspect that might not only offend those in the City’s Procurement Department, but it is simply wrong. We have people here at Raised on Hoecakes who not only were procurement officials, but worked both sides of the fence – buying through contracts and selling through contracts. Much of what the Mayor talks about may be his experience, but it is not the experience of others.

(5) I heard words [such] as corruption, that if this doesn’t go out to bid, we’re corrupted, that side deals are being made behind the scenes. I’m going “where is this coming from?”

Corruption in the City?

Say it ain’t so!

  • Perhaps the Mayor doesn’t remember the “Homes for Warriors” initiative.
  • Perhaps he doesn’t remember the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) concluding the City had inappropriately used grants and other monies.
  • Perhaps he doesn’t remember the firing of the City’s Growth Manager over allegations. The same person has launched a whistleblower lawsuit against the City
  • Perhaps the Mayor doesn’t remember losing $186,259 the city previously had been allocated from the Community Development Block Grant or CDBG program, because Palm Bay did not use the money in a timely fashion.
  • Perhaps he doesn’t remember that the influx of visitors is up in Palm Bay due to investigations and presence of the FDLE, the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee (JLAC,) the FBI, SHIP, and HUD coming to visit the fair City of Palm Bay. (Thanks folks, for staying in Palm Bay hotels and eating at Palm Bay restaurants!)
  • Perhaps he doesn’t remember his own censure by the City Council for acting in an inappropriate manner.
  • Perhaps the Mayor doesn’t remember the recent firing of then City Manager Gregg Lynk, where there were accusations of kickbacks and payoffs.
  • Perhaps he doesn’t remember the fights people have had with the City to turn over public records in a timely and appropriate manner (and one which is within the law.)
  • Perhaps he may have gotten his memory jogged when Councilman Johnson says later in this discussion that City Manager Lisa Morrell has gotten the City “back on track” when dealing with and terminating staff. (If the City was never “off the track,” why does it need to get back “on the track?)

All of these incidents took place on the Mayor’s watch.

For him to say “I don’t know where the idea of corruption within the City is coming from,” is simply mind boggling.

(6) But there’s also a cost to transition that you have to pay attention to. And the same complaints that we could be hearing from our residents right now as you transition to a new company, those drivers have to learn routes. That’s why it’s a lot of things that integrate into this that we need to understand before we make a final decision.

We agree that the possibility of complaints towards a new company, should they win the contract, is real. However, residents are not so much concerned with the complaints as they are with the resolution of those complaints. Council members all said they had heard complaints from residents that Waste Management would not help resolve. It took calls from Council members to get them taken care of. At the same time, the City itself was not holding Waste Management to the level of service required by the contract. (That too happened on the Mayor’s watch.)

As for the “cost of transition,” that cost is born by the companies that want to bid on the contract. If there is such a huge cost, Waste Management, the company the Mayor seem to favor, has a leg up in the bid process. However, as the City owns the waste receptacles, the cost shouldn’t be that great.

In addition, as far as “drivers have to learn routes,” there is this thing called “Global Positioning Satellites” or “GPS” which tells truck drivers where to go. It was in all the papers. It’s well known technology. Perhaps the Mayor missed the fact that even the Waste Management trucks have it. (In addition, there is software out there that plots the most efficient route for drivers to take. For example, there is software that doesn’t allow for routing left hand turns which mean no waiting at lights and no crossing of on-coming traffic.)

(7) Its addressing the current administration.

Yep. In many ways it is.

(See above.)

(8) And sometimes I think that people should take a stop on the rhetoric and then look at themselves in the mirror first.

Oh, if Mayor Capote would only follow his own advice……

(9) And when you are going to go after my family, I am going to come after you.

And here we thought that the City residents were his “family,” not just a few people who work in the same building.

(10) Because the reality of the matter is that you are talking about my staff.

The reality is the the common staff is the staff of the City Manager – not the Mayor.

The City Clerk, the City Manager, and the City Attorney all serve at the pleasure of the City Council and they can hire or fire them.

The reality is that the Mayor by himself can’t hire or fire anyone.

The reality of the matter is that it is not his staff.

(11) We can get to a new contract the only thing is that you are giving the common courtesy to the person who is here already.

First, the obvious: it is not a “person” who is here. That statement alone shows the Mayor is tied too closely to the people representing a company (Waste Management.) The Mayor makes the same claim “person” several times. The City contract is with a company – not a person. To openly confuse or equate the two is not a good look for the Mayor.

Secondly, if the Mayor says that we can get to a new contract without some perceived “common courtesy,” then get to that contract and get to it by out in the open – not behind closed doors.

(12) Whether you decide to, whether Lisa goes and does her 90 day negotiation and she comes backs back to us and we don’t like it, it’s golden. But basically you are handcuffing her.

This is another statement where Mayor Capote has turned tone deaf.

First, no one is handcuffing anyone in any way, shape or form. That’s a ridiculous, unsubstantiated charge.

Secondly, what the Mayor is missing is that few people (other than himself and apparently Councilman Johnson) want these negotiations to take place behind closed doors.

“Negotiations” are based on give and take. Given the past scandals in the City, people want to know what the City is giving up and what it is gaining. Those two critical items are clear when the bidding process is open and transparent. It is not when the negotiations take place behind closed doors.

Frankly, we don’t understand the Mayor’s position here at all.

He voted against the current contract and service provider in 2010.

Now he seems to want to do everything to make sure that Waste Management maintains the contract despite citizens’ dissatisfaction, despite the City not holding Waste Management to the standards in the contract, and despite ignoring the corruption that took place in Palm Bay.

What’s changed?

What has caused the flip in his position?

(13) This is not how you go about doing this.

Going out for an open bid is exactly how you handle a large contract where there has been dissatisfaction with quality of work and response of the provider.

Going out for an open bid is exactly how you get to re-examine long term contracts like this. Ten years is a lifetime in a contract like this. To roll over the contract for another 5 years without seeing what is available borders on lunacy.

(As an aside, we always read reports from agencies like JLAC, FDLE, etc., when they deal with corruption within a City. One of the main things that always seems to come up is a long term contract / relationship with a vendor where the vendor is priced higher than competitors and providing less services. A clean look at vendors helps cities make sure they are getting the best bang for the taxpayer dollar.)

Yesterday we talked about how the Mayor wanted to hold a meeting with the City Manager and the City Attorney behind closed doors on a issue that should have been decided out in the open.

Now he wants negotiations on one of the City’s largest contracts behind closed doors.

Can’t he see that closed door negotiations only lead to the perception of corruption in the City?

What is the Mayor’s obsession with closed doors anyway?

Tomorrow, we continue this.



49 Responses to “Palm Bay: Waste Management Contract.”

  1. Thomas L Gaume says:

    I was at the Council meeting where the contract was awarded 10 years ago. WM was not the low bidder at that time and there were to be recycling programs put in place that shared revenue with the City, Citizens, and the vendor. Those programs don’t exist 10 years later.

    At a recent workshop regarding WM and how much had been returned to the city for missed routes ($250.00 per incident) and other stipulations in the contract the answer was zero.

    WM sighted missed routes due to trucks breaking down, or lack of personnel, but the contract clearly shows that there are no exemptions and that WM must have adequate staff and equipment to handle not only the regular flow of garbage, but also periods of increased refuge, such as the week after Christmas.

    All the blame can’t be put on WM for these issues, because they’re a private company who’s going to make every dollar they can. However if they were held to the terms of the contract – to the letter, they would be more reactive to complaints, and less likely to miss routes.

  2. Amy Patterson says:

    Same question I asked Mr Lynk before he was fired…the contract is NOT being followed so WHY hasn’t a STOP WORK order been placed on it and WM been given the boot long before now? Mr Lynk stated he could “interpret this contract any way he wanted”!! The Mayor and City Councilman Johnson has not voted for the people, so much for those election promises!!! Why are these two members of Council so interested in negotiating out of the public eye? Makes you wonder in getting rid of Holton and Lynk, how we traded bad for worse and now we have the Mayor showing our new wet behind the ears “puppet” Councilman Johnson how corruption works. Unconscionable.

  3. Robert Burns says:

    1. Thousands of people went through his process? That’s incorrect and out of context. He is addressing the council members, his peers. Of the 5 he was the only one who has experience in this process with Waste Management.
    2. You are implying that everyone is dissatisfied with WM. What evidence do you have that the overwhelmingly MAJORITY of the residents are not satisfied? Have you conducted a scientific poll? Each council member that voted for Jeff’s motion stated on the record that WM promptly and satisfactorily addressed every concern they have brought to them. Randy Fine stated that every city outside of Palm Bay in this area is very happy with WM. Certainly you cannot mean that a vendor should have 100% satisfaction scores, especially when the subject is trash.
    3. You stated “in order to send this out to bid via RFP” well Jeff Bailey stated that’s not the case, they are not doing a RFP. You’re basing your argument off of inaccurate assumptions.
    4. To state that the 90 day negotiations are to occur behind closed doors is simply rhetoric and conjecture. How exactly would you like renegotiations to occur? Would you like a public hearing at every step in the process? A renegotiation takes place with the city manager and appropriate staff. Once a potential agreement is made if there is one it is presented to the council AND THE PUBLIC for approval or denial. You are trying to imply that that gives the opportunity for back room deals, blah blah blah. News break. Everything has an opportunity for back room deals. Negotiations, renegotiations, bids, RFPS, whatever. If there is corruption, do you think it is limited to one specific process? Do you think that back room deals can’t be made in an open bid process? Back room deals may have already been made before the bidding has began. A close look at campaign finance reports can lead you to that. What about an open bidding process do you think is MORE transparent than a negotiation. Do you not think a bidder can talk to a councilman behind “closed doors” and make a promise to them to secure that vote on the bid? That’s pretty naive. So you cant imply the potential for corruption on one step of the process and then act like it’s impossible on another in the exact same way?
    5. Renegotiation is simply a part of the procurement process. Even the vendor Waste Pro who was in attendance stated on the record that they would expect the same opportunity to renegotiate prior to open bidding. Does that mean he’s corrupt too? Thats not corruption, its standard practice. If you take a look you will find MANY contracts in the municipalities, the county, and the state that go to renegotiation first. Are they corrupt or are they simply practicing good business practices that are much more efficient as based by evidence and research than open bidding?
    6. The mayor was not advocating for WM, he was advocating for his City Manager. As Brian Anderson states, she was simply making a request to do her job. Then every councilman up there spoke to how good of a job she was doing. Then proceeded to vote against giving her the opportunity to “do her job.” Jeff Bailey was asked what the city loses by allowing her to do this and his answer was nothing but time. Well according to all of them there is plenty of that. So what does the city lose now? They lose leverage and information. The two biggest tools you have in any negation process.

    • AAfterwit says:

      Robert Burns,

      Thank you for your comment.

      We will address your points one by one.

      1) The fact of the matter is that there were thousands of people within the City of Palm Bay that were involved in the 2010 Waste Management contract. People spoke, wrote emails, sent letters, made phone calls, etc. To say that he was the only one who has been through the process dismisses the collective experience of the people of Palm Bay (who he is supposed to represent) and the staff as well. The Mayor tried an old logical fallacy of “an appeal to ignorance” by implying the he – and only he – had some super secret inside information.

      2) As the campaign manager for Kenny Johnson, you seem to forget that Johnson said that he had talked to people in West Melbourne and Melbourne and they were happy with Waste Management. Did he talk to all residents? Did he conduct a scientific poll? As we stated in the post, the fact that Council members had to get involved to resolve disagreements and service issues between Waste Management and residents is troubling. Council members have better things to do than to deal with customer complaints that Waste Management won’t resolve. Furthermore, as we said, the issue is not the complaints, it is the resolution of those complaints that matter. No business will ever have a 100% satisfaction rating. No one but you is putting forth that mis-characterization of what we said. How a company handles customer complaints is a measure of the company, and one where the Council members said Waste Management was not doing a good job.

      3) The contract is for over $100K. It has to go to an RFP by Florida statute. You seem to be making statements based on your ignorance. Most people equate “bidding process” with an RFP and that is understandable.

      4) You contradict yourself here. While we did say that 90 day negotiations would take place behind closed doors and you then state the public won’t have the right or ability to see and observe those negotiations. In other words, the negotiations take place behind closed doors.

      As for the corruption, is it your contention that corruption is more or equally likely to occur when there are public eyes on the process then when the process is out of the public view? We can’t argue with your logic there because there is none. Corruption is always limited by open and transparent processes. Even your candidate Kenny Johnson campaigned on that. Yet as you will see tomorrow, he advocated allowing for closed door negotiations. Are “closed door negotiations” your definition of “open and transparent?”

      5) Renegotiation is not part of a procurement process. It may or may not be depending on circumstances, but it is not set in stone as you, Johnson and Capote seem to think. Of course any vendor will want to renegotiate. Why do you think that is? It is because it gives the vendor a competitive advantage over other vendors. The vendor’s interest is not the same as that of the City. A vendor is looking to maximize profits and maintain a contract. The City’s interests should be to those of the people of Palm Bay (of which you are not one.) We have people here who have worked both sides of the fence – in procurement for both governmental agencies and in the private sector. We also have people that worked bidding and filling contracts with governmental agencies. We don’t see that on your resume so it appears that while we disagree with the Mayor on the basis of different experiences, your agreement with the Mayor is based on your lack of experience.

      6) As the Mayor wants to renegotiate the contract with Waste Management, he is advocating for Waste Management and for shutting out all other vendors.

      As we answer tomorrow, the question is not “what does the City lose,” but “what does the City gain?” That answer is “nothing.” We have no idea why you would assume that the City loses leverage as they are the ones with the $6 million plus contract, which in our opinion is pretty heavy leverage. The “knowledge” point was raised by the Mayor as well. He said that in the renegotiation process, the City could find out what Waste Management could and could not do. That’s backwards. The City tells the vendor what they want and if the vendor can supply that good or service, they can respond to the RFP process. However, the downside of your position and that of the Mayor’s is that if the vendor says “we can’t do that,” the City is stuck. Instead of having other companies that can say “we can to that,” the City relies on only one vendor’s information. Therefore, contrary to your assertion that the City “loses knowledge” via re-negotiations, the City actually loses knowledge from other vendors willing to supply the requested service. The leverage is lost as well because the City, in renegotiation, cannot say “we can go elsewhere” if they are only dealing with one source of information. RFP’s allow for vendors to say “we can or can’t provide this and here’s why…” which is a broader base of knowledge. In short, the City loses leverage and knowledge in the re-negotiation process.

      Once again, thanks for you comment.

      A. Afterwit.

      • Robert Burns says:

        1. Again out of context. He is speaking in reference to the council.

        2. Yes there is an actual scientific poll. Looks like you’ve failed in your due diligence on the matter. Over 90% of residents are happy with and would like to continue with WM. We just have a case of a squeaky wheel here. He was also speaking in reference to the comments made by Randy Fine who states he fields “thousands” of these complaints. And in him fielding these complaints, he states the same as what Councilman Johnson stated. Also contrary to what you state, council members dont HAVE to get involved, but they are contacted by the residents and choose to do so. They actually in the past have solicited such requests. That goes contrary to your point. If the issue is the resolution of the complaints as you state, well on the record each councilman who spoke on the matter stated that they quickly at satisfactorily resolved every complain they brought to them. So there’s that.

        3. Im simply referencing the comments made by Jeff Bailey on the matter. Here is a copy and paste of his comments since I cant attach a screen shot.

        Jeff Bailey, Councilman for Palm Bay, FL Robert Burns technically a bid and a RFP are different.
        A bid is where scope is clearly and rigorously set, and quotes come in on the scope. I kind of like this idea, but it can be difficult if we want to add in additional services like event cleanups.
        A RFP solicits proposals and then there is some room for negotiation on scope and price.
        Either way, I’m asking for a competitive process.

        Tell him to educate himself then. Here’s the actual statue and its Category 2, not $100k.
        (3) If the purchase price of commodities or contractual services exceeds the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO, purchase of commodities or contractual services may not be made without receiving competitive sealed bids, competitive sealed proposals, or competitive sealed replies

        4. Now you are changing your use of the term “closed doors.” You are implying that there will be a lack of transparency and there is some ill intentions by conducting standard negotiations by staff. You label it closed doors as rhetoric when it’s simply standard practice. At this point you are going to have to actually define what “closed door negotiations” means. Because a negotiation happens outside of a public hearing doesn’t not mean it is not transparent. Why? Because the fruits of that labor have to be brought to guess who? The public. That is the job of the staff to conduct these negations and bring them to the council for a vote. That is transparent. If renegotiation is not part of the procurement process then neither is bidding. Why? Because neither is set it stone. FLrodia statue allows for both. One can happen or the other. TO say its not part of the process is quite a stretch. Whether you choose to use it or not doesn’t mean it’s not in the process. In fact the very act of voting against it IS making it part of the process. A vote was taken to eliminate it because it was part of it. As far as my residency is concerned, I’m not sure how that is relevant in any of this but is often a defensive fall back I hear from several of “you.” You speak in the pleasure of anonymity with disingenuous rationale but more likely weakness and afraid of accountability for your words. But for your sake lets say my residency is relevant (FYI I was a resident of Palm Bay for 37 years). When you state “we” as you often do, and all of this “experience” you guys have in both sides of procurement, I’m assuming that all those people MUST be residents of Palm Bay in order for their opinions to be justified, credible, or relevant. But I’ll bet you my grandmas hoecake recipe that’s not the case. As far as my resume’ is concerned, you dont have it. What you have is what you’ve seen on social media profiles. But you have a tendency to make judgements from incomplete information.

        5. They mayor never said he wanted to renegotate with waste management. He doesnt negotiate with anyone. The city manager does that. And to say that if waste management would come back with “we can do that” and now you’re stuck is asinine. Of course you’re not stuck. The council has to vote on it to approve it. What the city had to gain was information and position. And you are incorrect. Waste Management AND they City were the ones with a $6million dollar contract. The contract going out for bid will be far in excess of $6million. After the expiration of this contract that will no longer exist. What also wont exist is the LEVERAGE to dangle that contract exclusively to the same vendor to see what their position would be with the City’s new demands. Those numbers will be much different in an open bid process. Your cable or cell company always offers you more to keep you from switching than they do in their advertised rates. Its up to you to accept it but now you have that information. It’s just like any relationship. If you are having problems in your relationship, is it better to try and work those problems out in your already established relationship, or cut ties and roll the dice with a new girl friend who may be even more crazy? What often happens is you end up going back to the ex. Why is that? Because you often realize the “problems” you had could have simply been worked out, but the grass looked greener on the other side and you jumped. Maybe you get lucky and find your new soul mate. More often than not its not the case and you realize your problems weren’t as big as you thought they were and could have simply been resolved. I have a feeling that you will see Palm Bay end right back with Waste Management after a lot of drama and a costly divorce, when all they needed was some counseling. Either that or you will see a vendor come in at a ridiculously low rate to try and secure the contract with a reciprocal amount of complaints from residents and from their inability to adequately fulfill it.

        6. I did notice you chose not to address several points I made. Or answer my questions. It’s ok. I know why.

        • AAfterwit says:

          Robert Burns,

          Thank you for your comment.

          1) Again, the Mayor stated a logical fallacy. There is no way around that fact. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to dismiss the years of approving contracts and proposals by the Council and claim they don’t have the experience. There is also the issue that if the Mayor hated the contract when it was passed in 2010, why is he advocating to renegotiate with the same company? A company that would not come to the table?

          2) Whether there is a scientific poll or not is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that you claimed that we had not conducted a poll. Johnson did not conduct a poll of West Melbourne and Melbourne residents or create or cause to create a scientific poll. We don’t know why you are demanding two different standards. It’s okay. We know why.

          3) As we said, many people use the term bid and RFP interchangeably. The fact of the matter is that a re-negotiation is not as open as a bidding process or an RFP process. The issue is transparency which is something that you, the Mayor and Johnson seem to hate.

          4) As we said in the post, negotiations by definition and practice are give and take. With a city where your own candidate said needed to be more open and transparent, a negotiation behind closed doors on a large contract like this doesn’t fit his campaign platform. While the “fruits of that labor” are brought to the pubic, no one other than a small group of people know what was offered, put forth, rejected, etc. As we said, your candidate claimed in his campaign that you ran said that the City needed to be transparent. Well, here it is. Here is the first transparent action that affects the entire City and you want it behind closed doors. One cannot be more hypocritical.

          5) The mayor wanted he wanted to have the City Manager renegotiate with Waste Management. If you want to make the claim that the City Manager does not get direction from the Council, good luck with that. As for the future value of the contract, you have no basis on which to make that statement. Furthermore, you don’t realize it by you shoot your own foot with the argument concerning cable. The leverage is that you know more about other companies and rates. (Not less as you want to happen with the City.) As for cutting ties with a woman, sorry, we have never been divorced so we suspect that taking advice on relationships from you may not be the best thing. The bottom line is that we know that the Palm Bay contract is not as favorable to citizens as other towns in the area. As Anderson said, WM was asked to come back to the table and didn’t want to. Even on Thursday, they weren’t positive about re-negotiating. Waste Management is not the only player in the game and there are other towns that are quite happy with other providers. Your prognostication about higher rates doesn’t seem likely given other rates in the area, but it may be. At least the people will be able to see what companies offered and see the matrix on the evaluations of those proposals – something that wouldn’t happen with a closed door negotiation that you, the Mayor and Johnson proposed.

          6) We addressed all relevant points. You failed to address points that we made, but we aren’t whining about it. That’s okay. We know that you are more interested in protecting Councilman Johnson than you are concerned with keeping campaign promises. We find it absolutely amazing that his comments are identical to yours. And that’s okay too. We know why.

          Have a good day.

          A. Afterwit.

  4. Robert Burns says:

    Tom,
    I’m starting to see why no one takes this blog seriously. Nothing speaks irony more than an anonymous group taking about closed doors and transparency.
    Your attempt at wit is just about as strong as your attempt at respectable journalism. I assure you that you can’t get wit me.
    Nothing else you’ve said merits a response. Time will tell the appropriate COA. Hopefully by then you haven’t deleted this.
    Have a good day Tom, Scott or Craig.

    • AAfterwit says:

      Robert Burns,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Tom,

      Sorry, no “Tom” here. There is also no “Scott” or “Craig.” Nice failure at slinging mud though. Better yet, since baseball spring training is about to start, the better metaphor is “swing and a miss!”

      I’m starting to see why no one takes this blog seriously.

      And yet you choose to post. Interesting, don’t you think?

      Nothing speaks irony more than an anonymous group taking about closed doors and transparency.

      Nothing speaks of more ignorance of trying to equate government transparency and anonymous speech by individuals.

      Your attempt at wit is just about as strong as your attempt at respectable journalism.

      We’ve gotten responses and emails from people laughing at the things we have said with you. Perhaps you aren’t used to wit and are wit-less? Is that possible?

      I assure you that you can’t get wit me.

      We’ll just skip this as it makes no sense. Perhaps a typo? (Which is okay. We make plenty of them.)

      Nothing else you’ve said merits a response.

      Yeah, we thought that you would look at counter arguments to what you said from the dais and not want to admit you are wrong.

      Time will tell the appropriate COA.

      The appropriate course of action in the name of transparency is the one that was taken.

      Either you believe in transparency and act on those beliefs, or you don’t. It’s that simple. Here was a chance for Councilman Johnson to live up to his campaign promises and rhetoric, and he didn’t.

      We examine his / your comments tomorrow because we want to be thorough and we know that you wouldn’t want it any other way.

      Hopefully by then you haven’t deleted this.

      We don’t delete anything. No matter what, we’ll be here. However, if the correct course of action the Council is pursuing does work out, can we expect a statement from you from the dais? A press release? An apology?

      Have a good day!

      A. Afterwit.

      • Robert Burns says:

        No need to duck;there’s plenty going over your head. Your fluent and convenient changes in definition of terms inhibits a proper debate. I would agree with everything you’ve said but then we would both be wrong. My words are well documented all over the place and with my name attached to them. Mama ain’t raise no punk. Man up and own your words or just keep hiding and be a closet keyboard warrior. At the end of the day all a man has is his word. I’m not afraid to stand by mine. You choose to hide behind yours.

        • AAfterwit says:

          Robert Burns,

          Thank you for your comment.

          We haven’t ducked anything. We addressed your points.

          Your fluent and convenient changes in definition of terms inhibits a proper debate.

          You questioned on “definition” and that was on what “behind closed doors” meant. We addressed that as well, but because you didn’t like the answer, you decided to make the false claim that we were changing definitions.

          I would agree with everything you’ve said but then we would both be wrong.

          Oh dear. You went and pulled out that tired ol’ internet meme?

          My words are well documented all over the place and with my name attached to them.

          Funny you mention that as you went on a Facebook deleting binge the other night. That is something that you did a great deal during the campaign. You scrubbed comments and posts. As the mayor said, some people need to look in the mirror.

          Mama ain’t raise no punk.

          Your mama had other children?

          Man up and own your words….

          Have we denied anything we have said?

          Funny thing is that we hear the “tell us who you are” all the time from people who cannot debate ideas.

          We always remind people that the Federalist papers, Thomas Paine’s writings, writings from prior to the Civil War, great works of literature, etc., were all written anonymously.

          So much for your commitment to the laws of land.

          At the end of the day all a man has is his word. I’m not afraid to stand by mine.

          You stand behind your words? Really? Seriously?

          So how are those lawsuits you said were filed going? What is the status oh “man of your word?”

          You choose to hide behind yours.

          We’d agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. The fact of the matter is that people like you want to know the names of people so they can attack the person rather than the ideas presented.

          At the end of the day, all a man has is that his actions match up to his words. His honor and integrity depend on it. You campaigned on integrity and hid when actions came to light.

          Have a good day.

          A. Afterwit.

          • Robert Burns says:

            No deleting here or anywhere else from me. What you WILL find is administrators of groups deleting my comments and blocking me while still engaging in a one sided debate with me. I.e Craig Halbert one of your contributors.
            The atatadking or a person? Well you fired those shots. At least you know who your aiming at. Too bad you can’t shoot straight. Oops sorry I meant speak. Damn autocorrect.

            • AAfterwit says:

              Robert Burns,

              No deleting here or anywhere else from me.

              You can’t delete here, but you have deleted elsewhere.

              …Craig Halbert one of your contributors.

              Swing and a miss. (Again!) Halbert may have made comments (which we allow just as we allow you to comment) but as far as a post, he has never written a single word for us. So, oh great “man of your word,” are you going to step up and apologize

              Too bad you can’t shoot straight.

              And yet we keep hitting the mark.

              A. Afterwit.

              P.S. So how are those lawsuits going? Got proof of service?

  5. Theresa Woodrong says:

    Robert, don’t you think it’s time you can let go of Kenny’s hand. He can stand on his own now. Please go home, you seem to think you and Kenny was elected. Why was you never at a council meeting till Kenny wanted to run for office? More importantly why are you still here. U don’t rent or own here. Makes people wonder what’s in it for Burns. W.M. is important to you and Isnardi? Why?

  6. Alice Addertounge says:

    Everyone knows that Capote is a Democrat and is termed out in 2020.

    Burns also is very active in BrevardDems and proclaims to be a “Kingmaker”, but puppet master would be a more fitting title.

    Capote’s rant about Representative Fine commenting on Palm Bay’s waste contract was so over the top that I’m inclined to believe it was more for theater than substance.

    If you watch the very end of the meeting the WM reps make their way to the Dias, and the Mayor is headed directly for them.

    Could it be that Mayor Capote has aspirations of attempting to be the BrevardDem’s next candidate to challenge Randy Fine?

    Are Burns, Johnson (Burnson), and Capote so involved almost 2 years prior to the election that there’s been some promise from WM for campaign financing?

    Fine has also taken legislative aim at the likes of WM, I’m sure they would love to see him go.

    WM is one of the largest campaign donating entities in the State, and has a history of quid-pro-quo negotiations. Examples would be prior elected officials that had lucrative positions at WM once they left office (and the contract was in place).

    • Robert Burns says:

      At least use your real name Craig. Last time you used a fake profile
      It didn’t work out to well for you and you were running around issuing heart felt apologies to everyone. How soon we forget.

      • AAfterwit says:

        Robert Burns,

        There are various means we can check on who is who when comments are made.

        We know who “Alice Addertongue” is. While they are using another name attributed to Ben Franklin, they are not “Craig,”

        We suppose that this is just another step in your campaign to try and discredit people rather than discuss ideas that are presented. You can’t deal with their ideas, so you have to go after the person.

        Once again, all you are showing is that the “come together” message that you composed for Kenny Johnson was a fraud. First it was “openness and transparency” and now this.

        A. Afterwit.

        • Robert Burns says:

          Ohhh, now I see your problem. You actually believe the rhetoric you vomit all over the place. Im not sure if you’ve noticed but you probably have with all you super spy means to check who is who, but Councilman Johnson has never commented on this blog. He doesn’t even read it as with most of the population. But its curious to me that you guys seem to go out of the way as you say to identify people who make comments but scared to identify yourselves.
          Despite how many times you say it, or whatever names you guys come up with to call my family and I, we are separate and apart. In fact most of my views Mr. Johnson does not agree with. Come together was Mr. Johnson’s message not mine. He’s in office not me.
          You are correct, its easy to discredit people who are not credible. And its easy to refute your propaganda and rhetoric. Its actually entertaining to me. And it makes it all worth it to see that you actually believe yourselves.
          As far as going after the person well, hello pot meet kettle. Thats almost exclusively what you do. Me? I’ll always defend myself and my family and beliefs. If you dont like it, well I dont care. Dont start none, won’t be none. You’re welcome for my comment. You seem to not have too many. LOL

          • Robert BUrns says:

            And as I’m sure you can see from Craig’s little poll that backfired on him, the overwhelming MAJORITY of Palm Bay is very satisfied with WM, despite what you’ve reported here. And according to the actual scientific poll conducted, 94% of Palm Bay is satisfied with a margin of error of 3%.
            So in contrary to your reporting and Mr. Gaume’s statements, Councilman Johnson has done his homework. Maybe you should take a lesson.

            • AAfterwit says:

              Robert Burns,

              Another deflection from you. Johnson never mentioned a poll. He said that he had talked with people. Is talking a poll?

              Secondly, is it your contention that because people may be generally satisfied with current service doesn’t mean that 1) service can be improved and 2) costs can be lowered? Is that your ridiculous position?

              Tell us, sir, do you stop shopping at places that sometimes have a service glitch?

              We understand that for some strange reason you, Johnson and Capote want to keep the WM contract without even seeing what else is out there. We don’t understand why, as you and Johnson campaigned on, the transparency of an open process is not a good way to go. We have to ask “was Johnson’s campaign plank a lie?”

              There are none so blind as they who will not see.

              A. Afterwit.

          • AAfterwit says:

            Robert Burns,

            but Councilman Johnson has never commented on this blog.

            We never claimed he did. This is just another case of you trying to get out of lying and making false accusations.

            But its curious to me that you guys seem to go out of the way as you say to identify people who make comments but scared to identify yourselves.

            Of course it is curious to you. You don’t want any accusation you made to be refuted because you lied.

            We can look at the logs and see who makes comments. We said that the people you were claiming to be writing for and commenting on the site were not who you claimed they were. An adult would simply say, “okay. Sorry. My bad,” but you didn’t do that. You wondered off into another territory, one that is apparently far far away from your statement that “all a man has is his word.”

            You are correct, its easy to discredit people who are not credible.

            Correct. It is easy to refute what you say.

            And its easy to refute your propaganda and rhetoric.

            Great. Let us know when you start doing that. Up to now, you have failed.

            Despite how many times you say it, or whatever names you guys come up with to call my family and I, we are separate and apart.

            You and members of your family are not the same people? Well gee, that is good to know. We never would have guessed that.

            And for the record, we never called members of your family anything.

            Thats almost exclusively what you do.

            All evidence to the contrary.

            Dont start none, won’t be none.

            Self reflection is not a strong point with you, is it?

            The funny thing is that you keep screaming how horrible we are and yet here you are, commenting again and again and again.

            A. Afterwit.

            As we have done with you.

            • Robert BUrns says:

              Again, entertainment, again, just because you keep repeating it doesnt make it true. I never said Councilman Johnson mentioned a poll. He just stated and correctly so that the majority of people are happy with WM. That is a fact. You incorrectly stated they are not. That is a lie. And you’ve based your position from that lie.
              I however, have not lied. Where do you find that to be? And where are all these deleted comments you claim I have deleted? Or is that just another example of you just saying something without a shred of evidence and think its true because you typed it?
              Just because you tell me that its not that person doesnt mean thats the truth. Obviously what you believe to be the truth isn’t always consistent with reality. Unless you can prove otherwise, I’ll stick with what I think.
              You keep trying to align what I say with Councilman Johnson. Not sure why you keep doing that but you’re dead wrong. I speak for myself, he speaks for himself. I dont have a campaign promise to break because I’m not running for any office, not in any office, nor am I running any campaign at the moment.
              I would challenge you to show one shred of evidence other than you just saying so that the Councilman has broken a single promise. What your definition of transparency is is highly subjective, out of context and misguided. Just because you dont agree with him doesnt mean he’s not transparent. He stated his position on the record in the public’s eye. That is transparent. To argue that renegotiations aren’t transparent, well you’d have to argue that against every renegotiation that takes place in this area and that is many. According to your logic, they are all being sneaky. Or maybe, juuuuust maybe that’s just part of procurement. Like I said before, there is just as much room for corruption in open bidding, RFP’s, whatever, as there is in negotiations. The process isn’t the problem. It would be the people. So it sounds like to me you want to call the people (the city manager and her staff) corrupt. Well what’s your basis for that? I’ll wait.

              • AAfterwit says:

                Robert Burns,

                I never said Councilman Johnson mentioned a poll.

                In trying to dismiss us, you asked if we had taken a “scientific poll.” So we get it. You want two different standards. That’s called “hypocrisy” and goes back to “all a man has is his word.”

                He just stated and correctly so that the majority of people are happy with WM.

                That’s a lie.

                His actual statement was:

                I’ve spoken with residents from the City of Palm Bay, the City of Melbourne, the City of West Melbourne – all of us have Waste Management. The City of West Melbourne and the City of Melbourne are happy with their contracts. So that goes to show it is a Palm Bay problem, and it is not really, not necessarily a Waste Management problem.

                We have spoken with people, watched people talk to the City Council and listened to Councilmen say they are getting complaints about Waste Management. In other words we used the same criteria to evaluate Waste Management as you / Johnson did. The only difference is that we didn’t lie about like you have in this forum.

                I however, have not lied.

                Once again, all evidence to the contrary.

                We asked this earlier and you did not respond. How are those lawsuits you claimed to have launched going? Do you have case numbers? Do you have proof of service from the server you said was delivering the suits to people?

                You don’t have to respond. We get it.

                You lied, oh great “man of your word.”

                And where are all these deleted comments you claim I have deleted?

                Wait….you want us to show you comments that you deleted? Wow. The lack of logic is amazing.

                Just because you tell me that its not that person doesnt mean thats the truth.

                Fine. Prove us wrong. You can’t because the truth is on our side. You made a false allegation and we can prove it. So much for being a “man of your word.”

                You keep trying to align what I say with Councilman Johnson. Not sure why you keep doing that but you’re dead wrong.

                Oh. We’re sorry. On the Facebook page that you ran for him, how many comments were from him? In the very case we are talking about, we noticed that you posted on Facebook comments that aligned with Johnson perfectly, even using the same language. Once again, the facts are aligned against you. Tell us, sir, when the manure hit the rotating assembly concerning the legal issue Johnson faced, why did you speak for him and not use or quote his own words?

                Oh that’s right, you weren’t speaking for him.

                I would challenge you to show one shred of evidence other than you just saying so that the Councilman has broken a single promise.

                You mean like this case? Where there is no transparency in the negotiations?

                You keep tee-ing things up and we keep knocking them down.

                He stated his position on the record in the public’s eye.

                He stated his position for a non-transparent act. We agree.

                To argue that renegotiations aren’t transparent, well you’d have to argue that against every renegotiation that takes place in this area and that is many.

                This contract was originally for 10 years and unless cancelled, would rollover for another 5 years after September 30, 2020. People had concerns about the contract when it was issued in 2010. To assuage those concerns, the majority of the Council wants the process of awarding this contract to be in the public view. Doing so would help restore the trust in the City that is sorely lacking. (If you remember, restoring that trust was a plank in your campaign.) We get it. You have to make it seem that you are going to follow the Mayor (who voted against the contract to begin with) to politically align with him. However, it does not follow that a contract that was awarded under less than favorable conditions (and conditions the Mayor opposed) being handled publicly now that all contracts need to be handled this way. It does not follow that because people want to see this handled in the public eye means a charge of corruption is apropos or applicable across the board. That is simply a lack of logic and a failure to understand what is being asked and why.

                The bottom line is that you and Johnson want to see the contract handled behind closed doors, without any knowledge or foresight into what other companies my be able to offer and at what price point.

                No matter how you look at it, that’s not the transparency you floated out there while trying to get him elected.

                A. Afterwit.

                • Robert Burns says:

                  Not sure why you seem to think you speak for the entire city of 115k plus people. You’re not even close. You state positions of the people without and representation of evidence.
                  You keep saying what they people want. I can tell you what they want, Councilman Johnson. More than any other person on the ballot. So no I didn’t try to get him elected, there’s no such thing. Either you do or you dont. Good news…he did. And you dont like it. But thats ok. So for the next 4 years you’ll be writing articles to show that.
                  Quick question. Can you show me one article you wrote where one of your assertions turned out to be true? Because it appears that you’re just a flea market conspiracy theorist that lives in innuendo.

                  • AAfterwit says:

                    Robert Burns,

                    Not sure why you seem to think you speak for the entire city of 115k plus people.

                    As we never made that claim, we are not sure why you would even think that is a relevant point.

                    The two final candidates for the Council Seat ran on the platform (as did Bailey in the other seat) that corruption and roads were the two pressing issues in Palm Bay. All three candidates said the way to end corruption and the appearance of corruption was to be transparent within City Hall. Something has changed with your position and now that transparency doesn’t matter.

                    By the way, we aren’t sure why you are worried about what we think or what the citizens of Palm Bay think. You don’t even live here.

                    So no I didn’t try to get him elected, there’s no such thing.

                    You weren’t his campaign manager? Doesn’t a campaign manager try to get their candidate elected?

                    And you dont like it.

                    Really? What makes you think that we don’t like Johnson sitting on the Council? That we disagree with him on this issue? That we see that he broke a campaign promise? It is early in his term and he can correct that and we hope he does. That doesn’t mean we don’t like him or the fact that he is on the dais.

                    Clearly you have reached the point where all you are doing is trying to sling mud in a vain attempt to get the focus off of your false statements and lies.

                    Can you show me one article you wrote where one of your assertions turned out to be true?

                    Sure.

                    But you first. Where are the proof of service or the case numbers for the lawsuits you said you had filed?

                    We’ll wait.

                    A. Afterwit.

                    • RObert Burns says:

                      I have a hard time keeping up with all of you guys assumptions. So I’m not sure what you are talking about where I said I filed lawsuits. Please show me and I’ll be happy to answer.

                    • AAfterwit says:

                      Robert Burns,

                      We already linked to it earlier. It is clear that you are the one trying to get out of your lies by selective anmesia.

                      Oh, and if you don’t like that one, there’s this.

                      One last thing, you mentioned earlier a poll created by Craig. You tried to link it to a “scientific survey” with Waste Management having a 94% approval rating but failed to provide a link.

                      But here is the screen shot of the current status of the poll created by Craig. Another reader saw your comment and sent it to us since we didn’t see it.

                      Poll Data

                      In case you aren’t good with math, that is 64% approval rate. That’s less than 2 out of 3 and far less than the 90% – 94% you tried to link the approval rate to.

                      You lied and are caught in that lie again.

                      A. Afterwit.

                    • robert burns says:

                      Oh I see your confusion. Again you’re making assumptions and again you are wrong.
                      First please highlight the portion where Robert Burns said he filed a lawsuit.
                      I’ll wait.
                      You’ve made two assumptions here. They are both wrong. You assumed a law suit was filed, that’s incorrect. You assumed I filed it. That’s also incorrect. And once again you based an entire article off those wrong assumptions. You’re batting 1000. LOL
                      Here’s another fun fact for you. People get served for a lot of things other than lawsuits.
                      But you guys are lawyers to right? You should know that already.

                      As far as Craigs poll, do you even math? Yes the poll shows the overwhelming majority of people are satisfied. And as I stated earlier, the comments show that people who aren’t satisfied are not satisfied because of the frequency of the pick up. Thats the contract not the vendor.
                      And no I didnt fail to link to the scientific poll. I didnt offer to do that. Obviously you dont pay attention for Palm Bay meetings as much as you think you do. Like Ragu, it’s in there. Be responsible and find the facts before writing trash.
                      Tom can comment for himself instead of just sending you stuff. He’s the one who sent you that screen shot. You think he would have learned the lesson from his last screen shot debacle with you guys. Tisk tisk.

                    • AAfterwit says:

                      Robert Burns,

                      First please highlight the portion where Robert Burns said he filed a lawsuit.

                      Really, you want to go down that route?

                      Here’s another fun fact for you. People get served for a lot of things other than lawsuits.

                      Once again, you were the one that said the server was out. Do you have any proof of service? It’s a simple question.

                      As far as Craigs poll, do you even math?

                      Do we even math? (What the heck?)

                      As a matter of fact, we do. Far better than you apparently.

                      The image shot of the poll shows 139 people satisfied and 78 dissatisfied. That’s 217 total votes. 139 divided by 217 is 0.640 or 64 percent which is what we said.

                      Once again, you are caught in making another characterization.

                      And no I didnt fail to link to the scientific poll.

                      So the poll doesn’t exist. Thanks again for playing.

                      Tom can comment for himself instead of just sending you stuff. He’s the one who sent you that screen shot.

                      Wrong again. You really like throwing out accusations without a shred of proof, don’t you?

                      Let’s just make this easy.

                      Where is the proof of service you claimed was taking place.

                      Own up or go away. It’s that simple.

                      A. Afterwit.

                    • Robert Burns says:

                      Also I see that people are voting not satisfied on Craigs poll that dont even live in this state. So there’s that too.

                    • AAfterwit says:

                      Robert Burns,

                      If you look, you’ll see that those people were once residents of the City and therefore have knowledge of the situation.

                      Thanks for playing.

                      A. Afterwit.

                    • Robert Burns says:

                      Oh well I once too was a resident of Palm Bay so can I vote?
                      Yes Craig’s poll shows that the majority of PB is happy with WM. Are you really trying to equate a scientific poll with a much larger sample size and much more specific questions to a Facebook poll in a group moderated by Craig himself? Ok
                      And to your first question, do I want you to go there? Of course I do. You love to show screen shots and clips and highlights….except for when you cant. So please…go there.
                      No I did not try to get him elected. I got him elected. Just like Tom didnt try to get elected, he failed to.
                      I assure you I have much more invested in Palm Bay than you do. You guys seem to harp on that a lot and actually have no idea what I do or do not have in PB. DO you even live in Palm Bay? Do you live in Cocoa Beach or Satellite Beach? Why are you so concerned about what goes on there? Whats good for the goose….
                      You pretend to speak for Palm Bay when you make statements like “the people of palm bay feel….” without any evidence of that.
                      Im not sure why you are saying something has changed with my position. You dont know what my position is. But again your definition of transparency is subjective at best.
                      And yes the poll most certainly exist, its part of the public record. Something you seem to struggle with.
                      If it wasnt Tom then it was Rick. But basically the same guy.

                    • AAfterwit says:

                      Robert Burns,

                      No I did not try to get him elected.

                      And here you claimed earlier that you didn’t try to get him elected.

                      But again your definition of transparency is subjective at best.

                      So your use of “transparency” while not trying to get Johnson elected didn’t mean what people took it to mean?

                      Just another lie from you?

                      If it wasnt Tom then it was Rick. But basically the same guy.

                      Once again, a swing and a miss.

                      Where is the proof of service you claimed was happening?

                      A. Afterwit.

                    • Robert Burns says:

                      Obviously you dont understand the philosophy of there is not try. You either do or you dont. I understand, just another thing over your head.
                      I’ll go find a worthy opponent. Have a good night.

                    • AAfterwit says:

                      Robert Burns,

                      You want to throw out Yoda? That’s what you want to do?

                      You want the philosophy of a puppet to guide you?

                      That’s laughable.

                      Your definition of “try” is outside the accepted use of the word, but that’s okay. We understand that you have to do that.

                      I’ll go find a worthy opponent.

                      Like a Care Bear? Or a Smurf?

                      Anyway, we’ll take this as a swan song from you on the blog.

                      In case you don’t understand the last comment, your comments will not appear until you answer the question on the service issue.

                      A. Afterwit.

          • AAfterwit says:

            Robert Burns,

            By the way, we did get an email that said that the Mayor in saying “I am the only one that went through this before…” may have been addressed to the City Council.

            However, as the email noted, there are several problems even with that assertion.

            1) As we said, it is a logical fallacy in that it is an appeal to ignorance.
            2) Johnson was not on the City Council when they hired City Manager Gregg Lynk. Following the Mayor’s position and your beliefs, should Johnson not have voted or just followed the vote of someone else who was there when Lynk was hired? As a new councilman, isn’t almost every contract the City seeks to have approved a new venture for Johnson? Wouldn’t that mean that instead of voting the way he thinks, he should just follow the lead of someone who has voted on the contract before?

            The fact of the matter is that people get elected (hopefully) because the voters agree with their beliefs and stances. For the Mayor to try and big dog other Councilman, and to dismiss the experience of the staff and the citizens in the process is something that should be called out.

            No matter what, the Mayor was wrong to make that claim and try and use it as some sort of authority. The fact that you support such foolishness says a great deal.

            A. Afterwit.

            • Robert BUrns says:

              Im not sure why you had to get an email from whoever to understand that. You saw the video. But I do understand you have a hard time believing what your own eyes see.
              Everything else you stated is just an obvious case of you dont even know what you dont know. You live in a world of assumptions and unfortunately they are most often wrong.

              • AAfterwit says:

                Robert Burns,

                You keep missing the obvious and the point of our comment. It doesn’t matter that that Mayor may have been speaking to the Council. The comments are dismissive of the rest of the people in the City of Palm Bay. The emailer understood that.

                You don’t because it goes against your preconceived notions.

                A. Afterwit.

                • Robert BUrns says:

                  LOL, I can do this all day. So when I say you took it out of context and he was addressing the council, I’m wrong. But when Joe Shmowe emails you then its gospel. LOL Bias much?
                  You based that argument off a comment you took out of context and misappropriated and when you find out you’re wrong your response is “it doesnt matter.” LOL
                  Come on, be better than that. Just because you say they are dismissive doesnt mean they are. How can you even make the judgement? You cant even understand who the comment was to when you listened to it.

                  • AAfterwit says:

                    Robert Burns,

                    We know that you have issues with what is being said.

                    The fact of the matter is that even if the Mayor was addressing the City Council, his comments still dismiss the experience of citizens and the staff.

                    That fact is something that you fail to address.

                    A. Afterwit.

                    • Robert BUrns says:

                      THat makes zero since. He is addressing the council and talking about THE COUNCIL. How is he dismissing the citizens and staff when he isnt talking about them or speaking to them?

                    • AAfterwit says:

                      Robert Burns,

                      When the Mayor says he was the only person that was around when the contract that he voted against was past, he is dismissing the experiences and the staff who were around back then.

                      But you know that. We talked about that before. You don’t want to admit it, but as we said, that’s the implication.

                      Furthermore, as we pointed out, if one has to have been on the Council prior to voting for a contract, then what does that mean to Councilman Johnson who was not there until 4 months ago?

                      If you want to talk about consistency and claim that we are making accusations that the staff is corrupt, that means that using the same standard, the Mayor just said that Johnson does not have the experience to vote on any contracts. Is that really where you want to go?

                      Finally, in case you forgot, where is the proof of service you said was happening?

                      A. Afterwit.

  7. […] we wrote about comments made by the City Council concerning the Waste Management […]

  8. Robert Burns says:

    Here is a cut and paste from your article.
    ‘A “courtesy” discussion might be in order if people were satisfied with Waste Management. A “courtesy” discussion might be in order if, as Deputy Mayor Anderson will relate later, Waste Management had been willing to listen and take to heart the concerns of the residents, the staff, and the Council members on issues.

    They did not.

    You don’t reward a company with service that people are not satisfied with a “courtesy negotiation.”

    The actual, real world, real life way of handling this is to say exactly what was going to happen after the vote of the Council.”

    Your entire premise is based off of the assumption that the people are not satisfied with WM. Well as we can see, but maybe you cant, that entire assumption is wrong. As stated previously 94% are satisfied and as Craigs poll is showing today it is also the case. And those stating they aren’t satisfied are saying mostly because they want twice a week pickup. Well that has nothing to do with the service of WM. That’s (As Johnson said) the contract.
    So according to your own logic, since the people are satisfied with the vendor, they deserve a courtesy negotiation.
    I agree with you 100% and so does as the records show they Mayor and Councilman Johnson. You proved their case for them.
    Thanks for your comment.

    • AAfterwit says:

      Robert Burns,

      Nice try.

      People are not satisfied as Council members have related.

      A. Afterwit.

      • Robert BUrns says:

        Nice try? LOL People are satisfied, the polls show that. All of them, facebook and official.
        Also the council says that when WM stepped to the mic they’ve always taken care of every issue they brought to them promptly. Bailey, Anderson, and Santiago.
        You know who didnt say that when they came to that mic? Who didnt give them praises? The 2 who you think are in love with them. Why is that? Maybe you’ve got this whole thing wrong. Maybe you’re not even close to the real story.

        • AAfterwit says:

          Robert Burns,

          People are satisfied, the polls show that.

          Except the polls don’t show that. But nice try.

          Also the council says that when WM stepped to the mic they’ve always taken care of every issue they brought to them promptly.

          Issues that Waste Management wouldn’t resolve when dealing with citizens. Or did you miss that?

          So where is the proof of service you claimed was taking place?

          A. Afterwit.

          • Robert Burns says:

            The polls dont show that? What planet are you really one?
            Craigs poll:
            Are you SATISFIED with the level of service your receiving from Waste Management for garbage and waste collection in the City of Palm Bay?
            Answer so far 65% yes and again most of the no’s are about service frequency

            Scientific Poll:
            Do you think waste managemen should continue to provide your trash and recycling collection needs in PB? (a much better question)
            Answer: 94.3% yes
            2.8%no
            2.9% unsure

            So yes the polls show that. Are you gonna try and argue that they show otherwise? LOL I wouldnt be surprised.

  9. Craig says:

    Mayor Capote’s response to opposition to a Waste Management exclusivity arrangement for ninety-days was interesting to say the least.

    It does not hamper the city manager to enter into negotiations by any means I found the Mayor’s response to be disingenuous and alarming.

    Three council members Bailey, Anderson and Santiago to their credit saw no benefit benefit to the residents.

    They rightly opposed granting Waste Management the opportunity to exclusivity negotiate with the city for ninety-days.

    Nothing surprising came from Councilman Johnson he simply followed Mayor Capote’s cue.

    Perception is everything when council members favor one vendor over another without fully investigating other options suspicions are always raised.

    How many former city employees and elected officials found lucrative consultancies with city vendors after leaving employment from the city or was terminated from office.

    Citizens a justifiably concerned and suspicious each time the Mayor interrupts a member of the council saying ‘let’s not talk about that.’

Leave a Reply

top