Northampton County's Administrative Code requires all county contracts over $100,000 to be approved by council. A five-year property and casualty insurance contract, valued at $4.8 million, certainly fits that category. So last night, county exec John Stoffa dutifully asked for council's blessings on an insurance contract with the County Commissioners Association of Pa. (CCAP).But he had a problem. Council Prez Ann McHale noted that Stoffa had already signed the contract. He's even paid the first year's premium. "Do we lock him up?" asked Ron Angle.
McHale was not amused. She's in the insurance business, and noted coverage is inadequate because it fails to include bi-county agencies or advisory boards, among other things. She was also miffed her offer to help the county prepare specs for this contract, had been turned down. "Those are the worst specifications I've ever seen."
Perhaps the county thinks it's just a tad inappropriate for a council member in the insurance business to play a major role in selecting the county's insurance carrier.
After McHale had slammed Stoffa for about ten minutes, he finally got up to explain that CCAP was the only bidder. That resulted in even more shrieking and tearing of garments from Dertinger. Stoffa admitted there had been a "slip up" in getting this matter on the agenda.
"Would you rather that we not have insurance? Forty-six counties have this coverage. What are you doing?"
I'm not really sure what the hell they were doing. I do know this. They never did approve that insurance contract.
I'm a Lehigh County guy, so I do not know the people over there - but this was real sloppy on Stoffa's part, and not politically smart either.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion - if you have a commissioner that specializes in insurance, then use them! I get headaches and blackouts whenever I read insurance policies, I need help on it and it's not a flaw to need assistance.
The Banker
Banker,
ReplyDeleteAs a LC guy, your opinion about this is a lot more unbiased than mine. Stoffa should never have submitted a contract for approval nunc pro tunc.
As far as not using McHale is concerned, I undertand the thinking. Despite her best intentions, it presents an appearance that the fix is in for the outfit ultimately selected. Moreover, she is running for Stoffa's job. Finally, she made her offer in January, not long after her "nice guys finish last" comment about Stoffa.
It sucks when politics get in the way of doing a good job...
ReplyDeleteIt would absolutely present the appearance, no argument there. If McHale could not fill the advisory role, do you know if the County has anyone advising it? I've entered into contracts in that price range, and if I don't have the expertise on the topic (and insurance is one of those), then I hire a consultant to help me through it.
The Banker
Banker, Don't know the details here, but the county usually forms an evaluation committee when it decides on things like this. It will bring in volunteers from the private sector. But I don't know whether that occurred here.
ReplyDeleteSomeone close to Stoffa told me that McHale and her husband had insurance policies with the county from the Riedman Administration. Apparently two of the policies were cancelled or expired and she was not too happy. Stoffa did not renew them. Maybe this is all that this is about. How can she do business with the county and serve on County Council? Would she exercise this kind of judgement if she were county Executive? Bernie, do you have any information about this?
ReplyDeleteI have heard the story. I even heard that Stoffa mentioned this to McHale at last night's meeting, but I never heard it from where I was sitting in the peanut gallery.
ReplyDeleteA few months ago, I actually asked the county to produce records of all payments made to McHale's insurance agency. A few payments were noted, although the amounts escape my memory.
I decided to call McHale, and she made it very clear to me that neither she nor her husband benefited in any way from those insurance contracts. Her agency was merely a pass through agency for someone else. McHale offered to produce any records to substantiate what she said, but I took her at her word.
McHale may be a bit imperious, but I don't question her integrity for a second.
Stoffa is unable to govern.
ReplyDeleteA pass through? Sorry but you know as well as anyone if you are an elected official you don't get involved in putting business through your business.
ReplyDeleteNot giving even the appearance of impropriety is politics 101. Elected officials doing business with the County, bad move.
What I do remember is that whatever answer McHale gave me was satisfactory. I don't think it's approptraie for you to discuss this anonympously when you know nothing about it. I am a harsh critic of county council and that includes Ann McHale. But in all the years I've known her, I would never question her integrity.
ReplyDeleteHey Annon 1:44,
ReplyDeleteBernie says don't talk about it that means end of discussion.
No, what I'm saying is that I would not make this charge without eveidence to substantiate it. What I do know leads me to believe that McHale acted ethically. Neither she nor her husband benefited, directly or indirectly, from any business relationship with the county. If she did, then her ethics statement is a sham.
ReplyDeleteI support Stoffa. I'd support him over McHale any day of the week. But it appears to me these rumors are unfounded. Because they challenge McHale's personal integrity, I am disturbed they would be hinted at anonymously. But what I will do is approach McHale next week and get her side of the story.
No offense but why bother? You have already said you are satisfied with her answer and that her integrity is above reproach, so again why? Other than a self-serving commercial by her majesty, I don't see the point.
ReplyDeleteBernie you are like a ref who claims one team cannot not lose but says he will call the game fairly.
Again. why bother. You are satisfied she would never try to profit off her position and no one else really cares.
Because I'm more interested in the truth than in being right. i will talk to McHale ... again ... and this time I'll be taking nots so I remember. If she or her husband personally profit, the public hasd a right to know. I don't think that is so, and would not anonymously sling the accusation that you just did without more evidence. You want to muddy her up but don't want me to find out the truth and clean it off.
ReplyDeleteYou are one bitchy dams. When did annon 2:59 say anything negative just made a good point.
ReplyDeleteYou are one bitchy dams. When did annon 2:59 say anything negative just made a good point.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Someone has slung mud at McHale but has noi evidence to back it up. What little I know contradicts the smear. But since my recollection is vague, i will inquirte again. To the assertion that nobody cares, bullshit again. people care very much if an elected official or a member of her immediate family uses that office for personal gain.
ReplyDeleteThe accusation has been made ... anonymously ... and I believe it will prove to be a spurious charge.
Any agent/agency who places insurance business gets a commission for thier services, that is what McHale is upset about. Her husband's agency lost a commission (probably a large one at that) from the County's business to another agency. Also, the county does have an INDEPENDENT broker (who was at the meeting, but never called on to speak.
ReplyDelete