Why does Normal have a purchasing policy?

By: Diane Benjamin

Tonight’s documentation: https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4489

Normal will spend $107,244.79 without bidding:

The policy should just be abolished since Pam Reece ignores it at almost every meeting.

Time for a lesson on government:

Fiscal responsibility doesn’t happen with government because they spend other people’s money (yours).

ISU closed the approximately 23 acres on Shelbourne in 2017. It sat empty for 5 years until it was sold to a developer in August of 2022. ISU didn’t even attempt to sell the property until 2021. Government has to be limited because fiscal responsibility with your tax dollars is an oxymoron.

All of these items are on tonight’s agenda:

Isn’t it wonderful to see THREE of Chris Koos’ hand-picked Planning Commission members didn’t bother to show for the hearing?

Since the changes to the Sign Code were voted on at the same Planning Commission meeting, the same three were absent for that one too. RC McBride already stated at the previous meeting the Commission didn’t need to listen to citizens, so they didn’t.

To comply with a Supreme Court ruling the Town simply needs to not regulate temporary signs. I FOIA’d sign complaints, Normal doesn’t have any justification: https://blnnews.com/2022/07/21/normal-doesnt-have-a-reason-to-regulate-temporary-signs/

This sign ordinance is fake news only to regulate campaign signs that may already be ordered for the April election. Once again the Town of Normal staff choses tyranny over freedom.

Another example is in the bills paid. Koosville can’t let the private sector drive development even though Uptown now has empty buildings:

Meanwhile developers for the rest of circle haven’t been heard from in a year: https://blnnews.com/2021/11/12/uptown-we-will-take-two-please/






3 thoughts on “Why does Normal have a purchasing policy?

  1. They don’t have to bid because the state of Minnesota already bid it. Normal joined a purchasing consortium, ergo, they are legally compliant with procurement law. It’s pretty common to use joint-purchasing agreements to use the results from another government’s procurement. In Illinois, CMS has a local government procurement program as well. I guess the Minnesota Toro was better than an Illinois Toro. You’d think Deere and Cat would have a say, but…

  2. In theory, the town joined a consortium that negotiated a bulk price to get the best deal. One is supposed to assume that the MN consortium negotiated a better price than any IL consortiums and thus the purchase as presented. Just because corrupt people do a thing doesn’t mean that thing is necessarily corrupt.
    But they Are corrupt people, so they need to provide justification. What other prices were looked at, and why the MN group? Elect honest, transparent government officials and they’ll be happy to answer those questions.

Leave a Reply