Monthly Vouchers
Travel Vouchers
Misc.
Initial bid proposal from city
Attorney Vouchers
Trenton city council is preparing to vote on a resolution to renew the expired contract of supposed gang expert Barry Colicelli for a two-year period. The entire Colicelli experience for the last three years has many people in Trenton scratching their heads in wonderment on what Mr. Colicelli's achieved for Trenton and question what he will accomplish in the next two years.
Trenton Facts has obtained over twenty vouchers submitted by Mr. Colicelli's business On-Target Law Enforcement & Security Consultants, the 2007 resolution approving last years contract and the expired contract. In reviewing these documents I have found some rather interesting actions and inactions on behalf of Mr. Colicelli and the city of Trenton, which ultimately calls into question the accountability of the Palmer administration.
Some of the more titillating examples will be mentioned here, but to get a true feel for yourself I've provided links to all the vouchers submitted by Mr. Colicelli to the city of Trenton.
Some rather interesting observations I've come across the last two days while preparing this update includes the fact that the advertised bid was for a one-year contract at $91,000. As reported in Councilman Coston's blog on February 5, a completely different contract is to be presented to council that calls for the length to be increased to two years and a total amount of $119,000. While I admit to being a novice in municipal bidding procedures, I would think that since the parameters of the initial bid have changed substantially that a new bid would have to be proposed by the City of Trenton? Also, does this new two-year contract stipulate a maximum amount to be spent each year or can Mr. Colicelli collect the entire $119,000 allotment in the first 12 months and then return to council on bended knee asking for more since the monies were exhausted prior to the end of the contract?
Another oddity I discovered is the fact that there is no pending contract available for council to peruse prior to voting. According to city officials the only documentation available, and it is not necessarily provided, is the purported invalid bid proposal and Mr. Colicelli's proposal.
Prior to being awarded the contract, and subsequent to receiving the contract, Barry Colicelli billed the City of Trenton exactly $7583 each month for services provided in 2007 for a total of $90996.
Legal experts indicate that without an approved contract, payments to Mr. Colicelli are improper and potentially unlawful. Vouchers submitted for the partial month of December 2006, full months of January 2007 and February 2007 and partial month of March 2007 were during the timeframe that no valid contract was in existence.
Some questions that need to be asked are:
Were payments to Mr. Colicelli valid and legal with no signed contract?
How did Mr. Colicelli know he was getting the contract when he continued to work after the contract expired on Dec. 14, 2006 and why did Business Administrator Jane Feigenbaum authorize payment without a valid contract in place?
How did Mr. Colicelli know he would be working exactly the same amount of hours each month for the entire 12-month contract when he started billing $7583? In January 2007?
Barry Colicelli submitted three additional vouchers relating to business expenses incurred during 2007, which totaled $1457.51, therefore receiving a total of $92,453.71.
Nowhere in the contract does it say the Client will provide free gasoline to the Contractor.
As reported previously by the Times of Trenton, Mr. Colicelli uses the city car for other contracting jobs unrelated to Trenton.
City Council needs to determine how much gasoline Mr. Colicelli used during the contract period and demand reimbursement for the entire amount of gasoline.
By contrast, in reviewing vouchers submitted by attorneys working for Trenton, their vouchers show an itemization for work performed and detailed how their time was spent, which translated into differing amounts for all vouchers submitted.
City council needs to demand from Mr. Colicelli proof of hours work during the contract timeframe and demand proof of how his $75/hr was earned. They then need to question how he came up with the $7583 figure he billed each month and ask how he knows he worked the billable hours.
Just below his signature is the CERTIFICATION BY RECEIVING DEPARTMENT OR OFFICE that reads, "I certify that the above articles have been received or services rendered as stated herein in full conformity to specifications and offer or proposal."
In 2006 Mr. Colicelli submitted at least four vouchers prior to actually performing any work and all were signed and approved for payment by Business Administrator Jane Feigenbaum.
July 2006 Voucher submitted
on 6/26/06 and approved by BA on 6/30/06
August 2006 Voucher submitted on 7/18/06 and approved by BA on 7/26/06
September 2006 Voucher submitted on 8/22/06 and approved by BA on 8/24/06
October 2006 Voucher submitted on 9/26/06 and approved by BA on 10/04/06
Although this practice has since ceased, it calls into question the integrity of the entire voucher system employed by the city.
All 18 include the following services:
Attend Cabinet Meetings
Coordinate Safer Cities program Liaison to Rutgers
Attend Workforce Investment Board Meeting as Member
Meet with Ceasefire Group
Implement 1-800 AT RISK Y telephone hotline
Attend Homeland security Meetings & Grant Search
Supervise and Manage Truancy Program
Chair Youthstat, Create Conduit with Juvenile Gun Court
17 vouchers include - Further Faith Based Partnerships Within City
One would think with over three years of employment with the city of Trenton Mr. Colicelli would have some sort system in place to present his progress to council and the citizens regarding these ongoing projects. A perfect example would be a demonstration of the 1-800 AT RISK Y phone number during a council meeting. Instead, it seems the only time Mr. Colicelli appears is to support Mr. Santiago or at contract renewal time.
And secondly, some will continue with the numerous worn out excuses of why I'm doing this, including its insignificance because it's coming from a former disgruntled Trenton cop. To them I simply say, "Refute the facts, and don't distract."
WILLIAM OSTERMAN 2-6-2008
