Last November, Clarkston City Council approved contracts for electric vehicle charging stations in city parking lots.
Before the meeting, I sent a detailed email to council members noting several defects in the contracts. The city attorney assured the council he took care of those problems. He didn’t.
Here are the persisting defects in those contracts:
— They still don’t specify where the stations will be installed. They refer to an exhibit that claims to “attach map of locations” but no map is attached. There is no agreement as to where the stations will be or how that will be determined.
— Although the intent was for stations in the Depot Road and Washington and Main parking lots, one of the contracts doesn’t mention the Washington and Main lot. So will that be covered?
— There is an unfilled blank in one contract, leaving the meaning unclear.
— Jennifer Speagle signed the contracts as “acting” city clerk, even though she previously resigned as city clerk. Are the contracts even binding?
— There is no provision for the city to audit the vendor’s records to confirm the amount it must pay the city. The city will just have to accept whatever the vendor claims it owes.
Perhaps none of these defects will be a problem and everything will work out. But the point of a contract is to anticipate and address possible disputes, not leave things ambiguous and provide fodder for future disagreements. One wonders what the city is paying its attorney for when he approves defective contracts, even when forewarned of the defects.
Why is the city still employing this guy? And why does the council blindly follow his advice when it has been shown in the past to be woefully wrong?
Sincerely,
Richard Bisio
Clarkston