State of Florida and Courts Have Budget Shortfalls Someone should tell the Courts
As the IT director at the Office of the State Attorney I have been clamoring for consistent reliable wireless Internet access in the Keys Courtrooms for years. Granted there are isolated Courtrooms, where off the shelf wireless routers provide some limited internet access, such as in Judge Fowler’s Courtroom, but attorneys throughout the Keys know all too well that that access is the exception. Attorneys require Internet access to do research, check calendars, and in our case gain access to our case management system as we move towards a more paperless environment.Imagine how elated I was when it came to my attention that the Courts were pursuing consistent wireless Internet access. In July, Trial Court Administrator Holly Elomina presented to State Attorney Executive Director Nancy Criswell a quote for equipment for a wireless project from tech firm CDW-G for $34,269, with a request for the State Attorney to provide approximately ⅓ of the cost, or approximately $12,000. Apparently, the Public Defender would also be providing $12,000 to split the project in thirds. Elomina wrote on this quote which did not include any labor, “Quote for all three courthouses.” Along with this quote, Elomina provided a paid invoice for $4,945 that was from CDW-G for having provided the quote and site survey, that Elomina generously took credit for having already paid. This invoice included $1,615 of travel expenses, for as you see, CDW-G is a company based in Illinois.
Nancy Criswell, being one of the few government administrators that I admire for her frugality, and eye for detail, asked me to review the quote, and asked Elomina for a specific list of equipment that the State Attorney’s Office would be purchasing from it, along with a separate quote for such. While elated that my long requested wireless project was being addressed, I immediately was concerned about the price. Including the site survey, this project was knocking on $40,000, and while I am fully aware that a solution like the wireless router in Judge Fowler’s courtroom is completely inadequate, it probably did only cost $50. I took the quote and quickly referenced some prices from Comp-USA for comparison, and within five minutes determined that there was the potential to save $3,000.
I forwarded the quote with my chicken scratches back to Elomina illustrating the savings and asked, “Have other quotes or evaluations been procured?” Elomina never replied. Now, by law due to the fact that the equipment was under state contract there is no requirement to get other quotes. But the ultimate source of funding for this project is from the County, and according to Monroe County Purchasing Policy, Chapter 7B, any purchases under State contract over $25,000 should be sourced from other South Florida Businesses, and if prices are lower, the purchase must be made through those sources. Essentially the Courts not only got just one quote, but it cost five grand to get it.
State Attorney Dennis Ward, excited about the project, scheduled a meeting for Sept. 6 between the Courts and our Office. At that meeting, which included Chief Judge Audlin, when Criswell pressed for a separate quote for which equipment the State Attorney would be paying for, we were presented with a new parts quote of $36,000 AND a separate CDW-G quote for $12,000 for three years of maintenance agreements for those parts. So now this project had grown to at least $53,000 including the site survey.
After the meeting, I asked Elomina whether there were any further additions... to which she answered there may be some wiring costs but not to worry, the Courts would handle anything above what had been presented to us to complete the project.
Sorry, I worry. Why had this project been broken up so much, and now well over the original parts quote of $34,000 as presented in July? I asked for all the quotes ever provided by CDW-G and found that there was also a CDW-G statement of work for consulting to deploy the equipment of $8,000 additional, not including travel. Now we’re cresting $60,000 not including wiring and travel expenses.
I asked Elomina why this had been so subdivided, and her response was that the State Attorney’s Office had requested it. Uhhh, no. Nancy Criswell appropriately had asked that the original parts list of $34,269 be subdivided with a separate quote so that the State Attorney’s office would know exactly what they were purchasing and not just transferring funds to the Courts. We never asked that there be a separate site survey, parts quote, maintenance agreement, statement of work, and line installation quote.
I voiced my objections and concerns to State Attorney Dennis Ward, and Elomina and then left it at that. Probably due to my objections, in October Elomina took the quotes for parts, and maintenance agreement totalling over $48,000 to the County Commission where it passed without discussion. The agenda item suggested it was a partnership with the State Attorney and Public Defender and that Court IT staff would be deploying the equipment. The only additional costs would be for wiring work and mounting to be conducted by Wirenuts, a local vendor from Key Largo. So ultimately the total costs will be over $50,000, with a small bone thrown to Wirenuts. But also, Elomina comforted the Commission that these funds would not come from the General Fund, but rather the Court Technology Fund, which is revenue generated from filing fees.
But therein lies the rub, even after I illustrated that the parts could be obtained for less the Courts made zero effort to reduce costs aside from not including the CDW-G $8,000 Statement of Work. I asked State Attorney Dennis Ward and Public Defender Rose Enright how they each felt about still contributing their respective $12,000. Both replied with a generic response about the scope of the project including all three Courthouses, and all ten Courtrooms. Enright elaborated a bit further about segmented and secure network traffic for their respective agencies. As someone who has worked for both of them, I presume they knew that I understood this.
Sorry, it bothers me that Elomina would go directly to a company not only outside Monroe County, but outside of Florida and pay them $5,000 just for a quote, without even granting a local company the same courtesy. CDW-G does not even have an Occupational Permit in Monroe County. Then after being shown that the equipment could be purchased for less, she made no effort to find another source. So when all you local business owners are standing in line to pay for your occupational permit, and for your tangible personal property tax, rest assured the KEYS Courts are sending your money right back over your heads to Illinois at an inflated price.
I’ve always contended that this project could be done for $5,000 - $10,000 and installed by the Courts three IT staff, but then again I drove a $1300 car with roll up windows around the Country for vacation last summer. Maybe I’m a tad too frugal.
So I took the time to contact only ONE local tech company to see if my concerns were misplaced. Peter Staniak, who runs the growing and reputable Keys Technology, was kind enough to discuss the project with me. Without the luxury of a site survey he could only ballpark the job at between $25,000 to $30,000, labor included! He was almost apologetic as he explained that he would have had to charge $1200 to conduct a full site survey. After he reviewed the $48,000 parts list that was passed by the commission, he agreed it was a bit of an overkill but even if he had found the need for that extensive amount of equipment, he could have provided it for between $3,000 to $5,000 less. Oh, and Keys Technology pays for an Occupational Permit and employs people in Monroe County...unlike CDW-G.
Even in good times it would bother me that the Courts sole sourced a project of this magnitude. But to make matters worse, the Courts are still running in the red big time, and still turning to the State to help plug their budget problems. The State in turn, is facing a current budget gap of $2.2 BILLION. Sure this project isn’t coming from the General Fund, but it is from fees generated in our County and illustrates the attitude the Courts have when spending public money. Makes me wonder how much those etched stainless steal elevator doors cost, or how much those nice comfy chairs the Judges sit in cost?
To make matters worse, I asked Elomina if as a result of this project whether or not the Courts would stream Court proceedings on the web, or allow for a private company to do so over this network. No and NO. So while Keys Courts ignore local businesses who pay local taxes, and waste local dollars on out of State companies, they most certainly won’t allow the public to see what’s going on in the public’s courtrooms...or more appropriately, OUR Courtrooms!
So who does the Supreme Court tap to serve on the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability to help with the state wide Court budget shortfalls and to help implement e-filing? Would you believe....Holly Elomina. In a recent Citizen article Elomina states, "It means looking at standards of operations and how courthouses can run more efficiently, and we have to do this statewide, in all 20 circuits." Priceless.
This is a crazy story.
ReplyDelete