Comments on: Tuesday, March 2 at 8pm – BOA’s Legislative Matters Committee to Discuss Russell Contract

By: Courtney O'Keefe

Courtney O'Keefe — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:12:01 +0000

The Somerville Journal Blog has just picked up this story if anyone wants to comment there too.

By: davis76c

davis76c — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:25:14 +0000

Courtney you are right that Russell based in Somerville should be a good reason. If the trucks are registered in Somerville and paying the excise tax to the city. The funny thing is that the trucks I see in my neighborhood say Woburn on the side. The company has many local ties to a lot of the decision makers in the city too….

If cost is the only factor when it comes to doing business with the All American City than anyone who can quote a low price at the expense of their workers should only be allowed to do business with the city.

It will be a black eye for Somerville when other cities and towns change trash/recycling vendors from Russell like Lowell did.

By: Xumi

Xumi — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:20:12 +0000

You know I would be all for Russell keeping the contract and telling the city to go take a flying you-know-what at the moon, but after their latest frisbeeing of my barrels…. we really need a new contractor. At least one that doesn’t seem to relish flinging barrels as far as they can.

Oh… if I were the Russell employees — I’d just be happy to have a job with the progressives / socialists / marxists we have running this state and country now. We just have to all hang in until November and then the adults can take over.

By: Janine D.

Janine D. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:22:22 +0000

Adding language to a contract after the fact is always dangerous. A party (let’s say Russell) would almost definitely object to the language. I would say from this point forward that any contract with Russell or anyone else have this language.

By: Courtney O'Keefe of Ward5Online.Com

Courtney O'Keefe of Ward5Online.Com — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:37:27 +0000

According to the Mayor, Solicitor, and the DPW Commissioner, the contract wasn’t cancelled because Russell did not breach terms of the contract with the AG ruling and because it provided the lowest bid among the 4 companies that submitted one. I’m sure the fact that it’s a Somerville-based company plays a huge role too.

The Solicitor did state that Somerville has the legal right to revisit the contract, at any point, if they feel that Russell has not lived up to the terms of the agreement.

Clearly the AG ruling was not a good enough reason to revisit. I would like to see how many of the 300+ employees that received back payments were Somerville residents.

@Janine: Rebekah Gewirtz asked if a clause could be added that tied in ethical practices to the contract. Is that something that’s feasible? (I think you’re an attorney, right?)

By: Janine D.

Janine D. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:44:08 +0000

Then if this paragraph is in the contract, this only begs the question why hasn’t the city cancelled the contract? Something is missing from the contract if it had not been cancelled. I assume the city lawyers are dragging their feet to give any responses. Plus, I am not saying any “breach of contract” lawsuit has to be successful. I am just stating that I can see someone filing one.

By: davis76c

davis76c — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:22:26 +0000

By violating this provision Russell should have no grounds to go after the City for Breach of Contract.

Most contracts with the city or any government agency contains this clause, especially with the amount of the contract and the # of workers involved. It protects the city or government to ensure that they are working with legit contractors who are following all the rules for reporting their employees for tax purposes etc…
To Somerville’s credit they go above and beyond with it’s “living Wage ordination.”

By: Janine D.

Janine D. — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:45:15 +0000

I would need to read the contract. I doubt the tax certificate was part of the contract with the city.

By: Barry Rafkind

Barry Rafkind — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:04:33 +0000

While violating that provision appears to constitute a violation of state law, I’m not sure how it would void Russell’s contract, unless it contained an explicit statement to this effect. Am I missing something?

By: davis76c

davis76c — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:53:01 +0000

Russell breached their contract with the city when it signed the Tax Compliance Certificate under the “penalties of perjury”. Attorney Curtatone and Attorney Gannon have to look no further than this:

“Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 62C, §49A, I certify under the penalties of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I am in compliance with all laws of the Commonwealth relating to taxes, reporting of employees and contractors, and withholding and remitting child support, as well as paid all contributions and payments in lieu of contributions pursuant to MGL 151A, §19A(b). ”

By not paying these 352 people Russell violates and the AG proved this when they charged:

“Russell has been cited by the Attorney General’s Office for three intentional and one unintentional violation of the Commonwealth’s wage and hour law”

These facts may have been brought up Tuesday Night or perhaps will be brought up next time the Committee meets.