Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Commission <br />Regular Nee Jedevelopment <br />ing - February 20, 1961 <br />6. NEW BUSIINESS <br />c. contJinued... <br />Mr. Nimtz: I would like to make clear to you what Mr. <br />McMahon said before, that if you have a good track <br />record and you are more than 20 per cent low, we have <br />disregarded that regulation and you will get it. <br />Mr. Brown: I can point out where this certain con- <br />tractor's track record is not correct. There is a <br />house on Warren Street where the lady's plumbing is <br />not working right today and she has reported it <br />several times. He had a house on West Calvert Street, <br />he ent in there and did such lousy work that the <br />womaln called me in to correct it. <br />Mr. Nimtz: We would be pleased to hear these complaints <br />if ou would make the complaints in the proper place, <br />Mr. Brown. <br />Mr. <br />Mrs. <br />that <br />trac <br />shou <br />past <br />vuln <br />get <br />basi <br />Mr. <br />ag <br />ap <br />we <br />we r <br />part <br />recc <br />said <br />of c <br />repu <br />time <br />you <br />one <br />righ <br />sona <br />plai <br />ira: Is what he is saying right? <br />Baumgartner: No. There are a number of call backs <br />we are taking care of that this particular con - <br />or is involved in. I really don't think this <br />d be an issue of pointing out bad work in the <br />because I am sure, Mr. Brown, that we are all very <br />rable in things like this and if we do wish to <br />own to basics, I am sure we could get down to <br />s on nearly all of the contractors. <br />Zobinson: Mr. Brown, might I say this since we <br />involved, and I remember this period of time. I <br />there was one time where you happened to be the <br />^ent low bidder and you were below 20 per cent and <br />fused to give you the jab because of requirements. <br />was a lot of discussion at the meeting even though <br />?fused you. Then the next meeting came up and this <br />icular contractor happened to be the employer of <br />^d and I was the one who complained like crazy and <br />"well, if he is an employer of record it is none <br />it business what his bid is, as long as he is a <br />table employer who we used in the past", and at that <br />we changed the rules or the guidelines or whatever <br />vant to call it, and that is why you were refused <br />ind he got the other - simply because we did change <br />t at that point in time. If I can hear on a per - <br />I basis where it is just me and you and your com- <br />its, that is one thing, but this is not the place <br />22 <br />