Trending
The words "irreconcilable differences" didn't -- and don't -- delve into the specifics about why the Blair County commissioners cut ties with the architectural firm working on the new-county-prison project.
Commissioner Amy Webster, who offered that vague explanation following a commissioners meeting on July 23, said "there were several things that we couldn't get answers to," but those additional words also failed to shed light on specifics about which county taxpayers have a right to have clear information, even if not every detail.
However, Webster did say the problems with the architectural firm, GFT, formerly known as TranSystems Corporation Consultants of Pennsylvania, developed for different reasons and not because of any specific reason.
Those "different reasons" might be topics upon which county taxpayers might want to reflect and possibly express an opinion. But if no more information is divulged, taxpayers will remain at a disadvantage in terms of following progress on the project leading up to groundbreaking and the start of actual construction.
As an article in the Mirror's July 24 edition reported, Commissioners Webster and Laura Burke, both of whom voted July 23 to terminate the contract with GFT (commissioners Chairman Dave Kessling was absent), indicated that they don't intend to advertise for applicants because of what they described as the limited number of firms with the necessary qualifications to handle the project in question.
Still, that reason too is worthy of questions or second-guessing by people interested in the project being built correctly, cost-effectively and transparently in terms of information.
Presumably, the commissioners office does not possess at its fingertips a comprehensive directory of qualified candidates, including some that might be located farther away than the commissioners might prefer but within reach nonetheless, even if by air travel, if necessary.
Advertising the availability of the position might even quiet some individuals' concerns about whether, without advertising, the county might end up paying more than necessary for the same work in the same way that GFT was expected to perform it.
There's no way of being certain now whether a better deal than GFT's might be available "out there."
Not advertising also opens the door to possible suspicions and allegations about favoritism, depending on the architectural firm eventually chosen.
Advertising of job positions opens a pathway to good business judgment in ultimately making a selection -- especially in terms of the large project scope of the prison being envisioned.
It's true that enough questions or concerns weren't raised at the time the county was embarking on the process that ended up with GFT's hiring. A good advertising initiative at that time might have ended in a different hiring and avoided what is happening now.
So, again, bidding and accepting the best offer -- whether it being for hiring or ensuring that a project's specifications will be followed for all details -- is always the best policy. And, again, an entity cannot know whether it is getting the best deal if there is no window for comparison.
It's good that not all is being lost as a result of GFT's departure; Webster and Burke said Blair County will retain all work that GFT has completed or secured for the new prison, thereby putting the county in a position to present that work to the firm that takes over the job.
Nevertheless, it is possible that, in at least some minds, selection of a new architectural firm without seeking other offers will remain a sore subject -- and that will be unfortunate for something so new and exciting.
There's still time for a change of mind and no more irreconcilable differences.