How Could the Westfield Town Administrator Accept an Affidavit of Non-Collusion?
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 • 10:37am
The following Letter to the Editor was also sent to the Westfield Leader newspaper. The owner of the newspaper, Horace Corbin, refused to allow it to be published. The letter is in response to Westfield Town Attorney Russ Finestein’s Letter to the Editor that appeared here at The Alternative Press and in the October 10, 2013 Westfield Leader.
Dear Mr. Finestein,
I’d like to thank you for your response to my letter since I only get silence or dissembling from Mayor Skibitsky.
I have no doubt as to your abilities as an attorney nor do I doubt that every necessary legal document was recorded according to the State laws.
I asked how the Town Administrator, Jim Gildea, could accept the affidavit of non-collusion.
Chief Wayman and Captain Battiloro were flown to Utah for the original meeting in 2012 at the manufacturer’s expense.
Two vehicles were sent to Westfield, along with the mobile command center in early 2013.
In February 2013, the Westfield P.D. organized a display of equipment, with another party acting as nominal host, at which the Mayor and Council were shown the mobile command center. The mobile command center and the two trucks were now in the possession and/or control of Westfield, hidden at Sevells.
The mobile command center was custom made to Westfield’s specifications before it left Utah.
So, Sir, before the Town Council ever voted on permission to draw up specifications and accept bids, the Utah manufacturer had incurred the costs of the Westfield Police Chief and Captain in Utah, the manufacture of a custom mobile command center, made to the Chief’s and Captain’s specifications, had transferred two vehicles to the possession of Westfield along with the decaling of at least one of those vehicles, obtained the patronage of a display at the Westfield Armory and last, but not least, obtained the agreement of the Town that they would take the mobile command center all over for various displays to other potential buyers. The Town of course would provide the officers to show it.
Since none of the above appears in the specifications finally printed, no other bidder could possibly know the promises and benefits that had been flowing back and forth to Utah. No other bidder could possibly have entered what might be considered an even playing field when you consider what transpired before the specifications were printed.
Mr. Finestein, did you know about the above? I have no doubt that every document needed to comply with the law, was created and filed. I’m talking about the truth behind those documents.
You state that the Town took title to the mobile command center and “related equipment” in May, 2013. Can you tell me why the “related equipment” was marked with W.P.D. decals while parked in Sevell’s garage in March?
How can the manufacturer say there is no collusion between his company and representatives of Westfield when the mobile command center, custom made for Westfield, was delivered to Westfield before the display at the Armory and never left Town before the bond was passed?
How can there be no collusion when the purchase price was known before the bond was suggested? Where in the contract does it say that Westfield will send its mobile command center around as a display of the manufacturer’s wares?
Mr. Finestein, you claim I am dealing in innuendo. I believe the above are facts for which I have supplied the Town Council with photos as evidence. Please do not demean my letter in that manner.