The blog has readers all over the world.

Someone in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan is searching for Nick's email address.

IP Address: 58.27.146.26
ISP: National Wimax/ims Environment
Entry Page Time: 3rd January 2009 11:24:50
Visit length: 9 mins 12 secs
Browser: Firefox 3.0
OS: WinXP
Resolution: 1024x768
Location: Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
Returning Visits: 0
Entry Page: August 2007
Exit Page: September 2007
Referring URL: http://esd15.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

My archives (of just the last 500 entries) also reveal a lot of activity in the Fairmont Royal York Hotel in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A total of 18 hours, 48 minutes and 31 seconds.

Oddly, someone in Tabriz, East Azarbaijan, Iran has been reading about the Piano Scam.

Well, to our international readers... Happy New Year.

Perhaps NPI should audit that piano transaction.

Living in Edmonds, we have a great resource right at our fingertips. There is an organization called Northwest Procurement Institute that offers training in public agency procurement practices. Just take a look at the current list of course offerings. Wouldn't it be great to tap that exceptionally endowed organization to review the piano scam and truly put the issue to rest, once and for all?

We could also ask NPI to review the Powerful Partners (conveniently renamed Powerful Tutors) lease and see if it truly is a legally binding document. I don't run an "Institute" but I am fairly sure that I know a lease when I see one, or in this case, write one. If NPI can wield the weight of their considerable intellect and publicly declare whether the lease is valid, it could take a lot of pressure off of the Board and offer a respite from sniping by the blog.

But wait a minute. Isn't that the same organization that is owned and operated by a member of the school board? So, wouldn't it stand to reason that such a review has already taken place? If the Board accepted and endorsed the manner in which the pianos were acquired and declared the lease with Powerful Partners invalid, that would undermine the strength of management at NPI. This is a rather sad turn of events. The Board seemingly had an expert among them and still allowed district management to run amok. It wasn't as if there were five imbeciles on the Board. One of them actually passes himself off as an expert in the realm of procurement practices.

The same can be said of the contaminated site slated to accommodate the new administration building. Someone trained as an engineer should be able to understand the concept of contamination. So, if such an engineer were to be a member of the Board, and I am led to believe that there is such an engineer on the Board, wouldn't he be in a position to know what constitutes a significant threshold? Wouldn't he have an idea as to what constitutes a mathematical certainty and what can be relegated to a less significant margin of acceptability? Wouldn't this person's inability to grasp the concept of contamination cast a questionable shadow across his employer's ability to hire the best and brightest engineers? Of course, since he only recently asked if the site was contaminated, he clearly must have been sleeping since 2005.

We need better people on the Board. While the public may have tapped the current board members for the illusion of intelligence, it hasn't generated the sort of results we have been seeking. Having the credentials to serve the public and using them are two entirely different things. Saying you seek public accountability and actually promoting it are two different things. The Board is currently unable or unwilling to truly govern our district with the sort of leadership we desperately need.

I find it surprising that, as a nation we were able to take an awe-inspiring step forward by electing a relatively unknown senator to become our next president and yet locally, we collectively refuse to embrace the opportunity to change things for the better.

I wonder if the owner/operator of NPI truly believes that the piano scam wasn't a scam at all. I wonder if he truly believes that a signed lease with a public agency doesn't mean anything.

I wonder if an engineer in the aerospace industry truly believes that the new administration site isn't contaminated because Marla confirmed it. Perhaps if Marla taped cardboard wings on a bicycle and confirmed that it could fly, this board member would be packing his bags to fly it to his next vacation.

The foolish choices made by our elected board members, and Gary Noble, do very little to promote the intelligence and objective deliberation of district leadership, but they also weaken the strength of companies in our region.

Blog: Simplified Acquisition Procedures - Advanced - 5 Days - $830. If a public agency seeks to procure anything, just write a lease. Give Perkins a call and I am sure they can draft something hardly intelligible but that meets the minimum legal threshold.

And just where are those fourteen pianos?

Many people have been asking, just where are those 14 pianos purchased, sorry "leased" from Seattle Piano Gallery? If anyone knows, please tell the rest of us.

It is one thing to thwart legally-required procurement processes and direct business to friends. It is entirely a different thing if the pianos purchased, sorry "leased", never stayed in the District.

Please click on the link and check if one of these pianos ended up at your site.

Someone could make a public records request, but I suspect the District will tell you that no such records exist that reveal the whereabouts of these magical pianos.

"Friend" enriched through "poorly written" lease.

There are a few subtle problems with the manner in which the Auditor conducts their evaluations. While they are overly-focused on the technical nuances regarding this transaction, they fail to realize that the seller of these pianos is a friend of Tam Osborne and Marla Miller. With very little effort, public employees funneled business to a friend and propped up the entire transaction on shoddy work from legal counsel.

As one of our readers mentioned earlier, the District fully-intended to receive pianos from Seattle Piano Gallery. The "Lease" was the weapon through which funds were ripped from the hands of taxpayers.

What is also rather sad and pathetic is the second payment that was made "in error". This payment was intentional and the claim that it was made "in error" was to conceal an obvious violation in bid processes. [Just how easy do you think it is to get a check from Business Services for $40,000.00?]

Whether it's corruption or incompetence, the outcome remains the same. One of the District's friends made off with $109,511.00 in special treatment.

The following is from the State Auditor.

Piano Lease

The District was not able to ensure that they received the lowest reasonable price for 13 pianos the District received. The District entered into a lease agreement with the intent to receive 14 pianos for use during the 2006 – 2007 school year, and receive reimbursement for the full amount initially paid for the pianos. The District paid a total of $109,511 and were able to obtain possession of the pianos following the bankruptcy of the piano distributor, as agreed upon in the lease. Included in the total paid was a payment of $39,748 that should not have been paid. Due to miscommunication at the District this amount was paid and could not be recovered. Though the District is in compliance with the lease agreement they can not ensure that they received the lowest reasonable price for the pianos because they did not go through the bid process.

I talked to Marta [DeLeon] about this item as I was concerned that based on what they paid they were not in compliance with bid law. She looked over all the information and said that though the lease was poorly written they were technically in compliance with bid law requirements, but based on how they handled this situation they can not ensure that the lowest price was received. She didn’t feel comfortable reporting it as a finding, but was ok with a ML or an exit item. Based on the dollar amount paid, I thought a ML was appropriate, but wanted to confirm with you that that reporting level is consistent.

Thanks!
Courtney Amonsen
Assistant Audit Manager
Washington State Auditor's Office
3501 Colby Avenue, Suite 100B
Everett, WA 98201-4794
(425) 257-2137 - Main Line
(425) 257-2149 - Fax
amonsenc@sao.wa.gov

State Auditor provides no legitimate oversight.

July 8, 2008

Brian Sonntag
sonntagb@sao.wa.gov

Dear Mr. Sonntag:

Thank you for your response to two of my many concerns regarding the Edmonds School District. Your response leaves me, and many others, appalled by what passes for an audit these days. If the Internal Revenue Service conducted personal audits in a similar fashion, no one would pay federal income tax but rather expect a meaningless letter to arrive more than a year after someone else decided to complain.

Piano Scheme

First, the evidence for conflicting interests is abundantly clear. Ms. Miller and Mr. Osborne met with Mr. Tucker numerous times outside of and prior to this piano transaction. They had an established relationship through the Edmonds Jazz Festival and connections through Rotary in Edmonds going back a number of years.

Second, the piano "lease" was crafted with the sole purpose of transferring ownership of a number of pianos from Seattle Piano Gallery to the Edmonds School District. Taking possession of these pianos under the auspices of a lease scheme was merely a ruse to avoid legally required procurement processes.

Perhaps your audit team never viewed a summary of the scheme drafted by the attorney for Mr. Tucker. It may also be found at www.esd15.org/henry.pdf

Recommending that the District use a legally required process for future transactions confirms that this transaction was, in your opinion and in fact, illegal. Why would any law-abiding entity have to be reminded to follow the law?

Purchase of Land

First, a point of clarification. I never stated a belief that the District "paid more than the asking price" for the new administration site. The District paid every cent of the seller's asking price of $5.6 million immediately after their own appraisal determined the value to be $3.3 million and without regard for obvious and documented contamination.

Second, the District's own Board Policy requires that a Site Acquisition Committee be convened, in writing, by the Superintendent prior to the purchase of land. That never happened. The closest thing to such a committee was a group of consultants all advising the District not to buy the property.
[http://staff.edmonds.wednet.edu/users/kernsj/5000/5200r1.htm]

Third, state law requires a review appraisal. WAC 468-100-103 "A qualified reviewing appraiser shall examine all appraisals…" A school board may be elected by voters and have the power to make decisions to buy property but the voters do not expect their elected officials to disobey the law.
[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=468-100-103]

If I wasn't a resident and taxpayer in the State of Washington, I would find it uncomfortably funny that the State Auditor stands behind the statement that an appraisal is required but need not govern the final purchase price. The State Attorney General has numerous published opinions that call such overpayments a gift of public funds.

As a public employee with continued involvement in the procurement of goods, services and property, I am flabbergasted by the lack of oversight provided by the State Auditor and, quite frankly, embarrassed by your dismissive attitude toward the misappropriation of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,

Mark Zandberg

When your ship is sinking, throw documents overboard.

With regard to the piano "scam", the auditors were looking into it as part of the "citizens concerns" investigation over the last couple of weeks they were at the ESC. Their requests for original documents on this went unfulfilled due to these originals no longer existing in any of the last 4 years of files.

The former administrative assistant to Ms Miller spent a good deal of her time prior to her surprising early retirement shredding reams of paperwork. Ms Miller insisted that she had made copies of everything relating to this piano purchase and had provided them in a packet for the auditors. This information was not included in the file the auditors were given however, no matter how much Ms Miller insists it was.

I believe we are left to conclude that these original documents providing proof as to who authorized the double payment of pianos to the "tune" of thousands of dollars (there was even an attempt to pay for them a 3rd time that was successfully halted in defiance of the insistence by Manny Juzon that the purchase go through) have mysteriously disappeared, probably during the mass shredding of what can now only be referred to as evidence.

Again, if you're not guilty of anything then important documents should not go "missing". If you are not guilty of anything why do you lie about providing information to auditors and why do you continue to act so nervously?

Editor: Thank you to another anonymous contributor.

A den of vipers and thieves.

Funny thing about real estate, the government always takes first chair when it comes to collecting on a debt. If you obtain a mortgage and then refuse to pay your taxes, the government can take your home to settle your debt.

Mortgage companies get quite irritated and frequently become panic-stricken and irrational when a federal lien is filed on property they financed. Essentially, the feds take their crack at the asset and the leftovers are used to settle the mortgage.

Now, what happens if an individual gets a check from a school district that does not belong to him? The recipient apparently went through the motions of claiming that he intends to repay the money, it is just a matter of getting the money together.

Is the District actually planning to recover some of the $40,000? Certainly not. This conversation between Arnie Tucker and Marla's deputy has no real substance. It is a dog and pony show - nothing more. The auditors might appreciate seeing letters traded between friends but they were manufactured to maintain the illusion of financial responsibility. The time for financial responsibility is when competitively bidding such a purchase. These silly letters give the false impression that the District is looking out for the public - when in fact it was management's scheme in the first place that resulted in all of this free money for friends.

Mr. Tucker just sold his condo on January 11th, 2008 for $289,950.00. He had one lien against it for $20,000.00 from the Boeing Employee's Credit Union. That would suggest that his net on this property was more than $250,000.00. (Real estate agents normally work for a commission. Maybe Arnie paid his with pianos.)

For a man that claimed he was just trying to get some money together, he certainly wasn't looking very hard. But then, your contractual relationship was with Seattle Piano Gallery and, of course, they don't appear to own this condo.

Editorial: Isn't that a very lovely piano? I wonder where Mr. Tucker bought such a beautiful instrument.

Boy, was I wrong about Arnie Tucker.

It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I was wrong. I thought Arnie Tucker was taking a bunch of dim-witted District managers for a ride when all along, it was the District playing the man like a fiddle. Oops, I mean piano.

Read Exhibit 1, where Manny Juzon tries to take back money that was paid to Arnie Tucker in support of this questionable lease that was clearly intended to avoid competitive bidding practices. It is no coincidence that the dollar figure is just a few dimes less than the mandatory required threshold of $40,000 for competitive bidding procedures - and this guy teaches management for some online diploma mill in Missouri.

Then read the response from Arnie Tucker's lawyer. Notice the fact that his lawyer questions whether legal advice was sought in constructing this "lease agreement" and also his interesting use of the term "scheme". It is very clear that Marla and Manny hoped to avoid competitive bidding requirements and were fully expecting to exploit a small company just trying to make a buck. I am not so sure I like District managers financially screwing businesses on behalf of the taxpayer. The rules are intended to protect everyone.

Then you have to take a look at the actual invoice that Marla and Manny claim is false. It isn't "false" but it does show the effort they exerted to keep the dollar amount just under $40,000.00.

There is nothing honorable about this transaction. In fact, there is nothing honorable about the conduct of District managers putting this deal together and going out of their way to avoid legally-required processes.

There is an absolute failure of leadership at every level. The board didn't know what they were looking for when they hired Nick Brossoit and he has absolutely no understanding of the operations side of the house. This gives seasoned schemers every opportunity to hatch questionable transactions for the benefit of themselves and their cronies.

I am disgusted.

Love is a piano dropped from a fourth story window.

First, thank you for the comments. I will try to respond as fully as I can.

The board presentation didn't do a thing to resolve the piano scam. The board members are easily fooled and have no idea how to craft an intelligent question on this topic. No one bothered to ask how Seattle Piano Gallery was selected. They just seem so transfixed by the "process" after the vendor was selected - they failed to investigate as to the nature of the relationship between the seller and the District's representative. Perhaps they need a refresher course in how the public sector works.

If you assume for a moment that what spews forth from Marla's mouth is true, the summary of events would lead the casual reader to believe that the District purchased the pianos for slightly less than full list price. However, the District apparently did not set out to buy all of these pianos. Or did they? Why would the District take pleasure in knowing they purchased more pianos than they needed for slightly less than full list price? Would I buy 14 cars for a fraction under sticker price? Would anyone? Of course, my expenditures would be made with private money and where I chose to park them would be a private problem.

Over the last seven years of service in the public sector, I have grown accustomed to obtaining assets for less than full list price. For instance, Business Interiors Northwest offers most of their cubicle parts and pieces at 70% less than full list price. Yes, 70% less than full list price. For the mathematically-impaired that would be a purchase price of 30% of full list price. Would Marla and the Board be happier paying 95% of list price for their cubicle parts and pieces?

It has become even more obvious, since the release of the board minutes, that Marla's plan from the very beginning was to buy more than a dozen pianos from her friend, Arnie Tucker. It must be nice to have such a large wallet and so many friends with things to sell.

Arnie Tucker must have read those board minutes.

[Anonymous]
How many pianos did the Edmonds School District end up with?

[Arnie]
Four grands and I don't remember how many verticals...

I've decided to bow out of this and give you my contact for the pianos I've mentioned. Here it is.

These are the quality, warranted, restored pianos imported from Japan. You will find 3 pages of models and prices. They come from a warehouse in Kentucky or one in California. Many piano dealers use this source for their used piano inventory.

Questions? Email me again. I'll be happy to help.
Good luck!
Arnie

Editorial: Next time the District wants to buy "quality, warranted, restored pianos" just click on the link above and cut out the middle man - even if he is a friend.

You just have to know what keys to poke.

Ms. Miller provided the Board with information on a recent public records request related to a lease agreement with Seattle Piano Gallery in 2005. She outlined the work with legal counsel to formulate the lease agreement with the vendor, the payment schedule, resale outcomes, an erroneous purchase order, and the company filing for bankruptcy. It was confirmed that the end result of payment for the thirteen leased pianos was less than the list price and the 2006 quote for comparable pianos.

This passage was pulled directly from the meeting minutes approved by the Board. Of course, I have a few questions. They won't be hard, I promise.

1. How was this particular vendor selected? Did it have anything to do with the fact that he was a friend of the person making the decision to lease the pianos? The fact that they worked on some sort of jazz function together? The fact they have a connection in Rotary?

2. Just which law firm worked on developing the lease agreement? Did they know how the vendor was selected? Would they have any reason to ask? Were they involved in that selection process? Would any law firm presume that a public agency isn't aware of public bid processes?

3. What payment schedule was developed? My records (and granted they could be incomplete) show a single payment for a rather large sum and then one very small payment back to the District.

4. What resale outcomes? Since when does the District sell pianos for a profit? Or a loss for that matter? When did the District feel a need to report on the sales success or failure of private enterprise?

5. What erroneous purchase order? I never asked for copies of erroneous or legitimate purchase orders, I asked for copies of checks. The truth is in the numbers and the checks were full of them.

6. What difference does it make that the dealer of these pianos filed for bankruptcy? If the transaction was legitimate and the pianos were leased, it is just a simple matter of returning the pianos when the lease was up.

Bottom line: "It was confirmed that the end result of payment for the thirteen leased pianos was less than the list price and the 2006 quote for comparable pianos." Hint: Leasing a car for a year should always be cheaper than buying it outright, unless you plan on driving to the moon a few times in the next 12 months. After 12 months of leasing, you have no pianos. After 12 months of ownership, you have one-year-old pianos.

How was the Seattle Piano Gallery selected? If you are going to scam the tax-paying public, why not take the extra effort to go out to bid and then disqualify every vendor you didn't like? Maybe you can afford to skip this critical step because you know the Board will never ask any questions.

Editorial: I am flattered that the contents of this blog are being discussed at Board meetings. I am just disappointed that no one understands public processes.

The trouble with law is lawyers.

[Mark Zandberg]
Please review Edmonds School Board Policy 3300 R-1 and help me understand how the purchase/lease of pianos from the Seattle Piano Gallery complied with this policy...

Please also review RCW 28A.335.190 and help me understand how the same transaction complied with state law...

[Duncan]
These questions appear to seek legal advice or opinion. As you are well aware, Patterson Buchanan has been retained to represent Edmonds School District, and provide legal advice on matters of its concern. Should you desire an answer to the questions above, I suggest you consult with your own counsel.

I have and it doesn't.

Editorial: Edmonds School District is a public agency and should have no concern other than that of serving the public. Spending public funds to insulate public servants from public scrutiny does nothing to advance the public's interests.

This is why you don't do business with friends and family.

Somebody needs to tamper with this witness. He isn't doing the District any favors and quite frankly, how much worse can it get? Here is the latest from an on-going email conversation.

[Anonymous]
There are now some concerns being voiced. Apparently, the Edmonds School District was burned by their transaction. What happened there?

[Arnie]
I guess there were some misunderstandings.

They asked me for an invoice and then sent me a purchase order for some pianos, and then a check to pay for them. Then they wanted the check back, though I could never figure out why.

I think they were rightly disappointed that my 5 year store warranty for the new Kawai made Diapasons that they bought will not be honored because I had to shut my store down.

So, now I am wondering. Why send a check and then ask for it back? How was this vendor selected from the long list of piano distributors that would have been happy to treat the District right? Just how much money did the District pour down this hole? I thought this hole was a friend of management. What happened?

Bank of America retains copies of all District checks.

A quick-thinking reader reminded me that according to the District's lawyer, they no longer retain copies of checks. [Read this entry] The question I am being asked now is, where did these recent copies of the Seattle Piano Gallery checks come from? Well, I don't have an answer for you, but I have a response that would likely come from the District - if we could wait 30 days for a response.

One of the checks - the one that was actually deposited - was apparently provided by the Bank of America after a district manager made a request. It was faxed to the District on November 14, 2007 at 11:54 am. This would support the premise that copies of checks are not retained by the District, but of course they are just a telephone call away.

The second check - the one that was not deposited - may not actually be a "retained" copy, but rather a copy made after my request for such. I suspect the original check is still laying around the ESC somewhere. Perhaps it is waiting for a legal conclusion through the courts or the passage of time.

Clearly, the whole picture is not evident here. The next request should be for "All communication between the District (or any of its agents, representatives or designees) and the Seattle Piano Gallery (or any of its agents, representatives or designees) since August 4, 2004". That might reveal a tiny bit more about how public funds are expended.

Editorial Note: Hey! Arnie's not responding to an email sent yesterday. Did somebody tamper with my witness?

Sometimes less is a whole lot more.

In an effort to get to the bottom of this piano scam, I asked for the following: "One legible copy of any and all checks from the Seattle Piano Gallery dated after August 4, 2004."

I received a copy of a check numbered 8277 from the Seattle Piano Gallery to the Edmonds School District in the sum of $4,617.36, dated August 31, 2005 for what is described as a Diapason #118506. I will confirm if this piano number might be among the pianos listed on the "lease" agreement between these two entities.

I also received a copy of a check numbered 8716 from the Seattle Piano Gallery to the Edmonds School District in the sum of $1,740.80, dated February 1, 2006 for what is described as "Profit refund on Diapason 118506". This check also had the following information printed on the reverse, "Negotiation of this check constitutes an accord and satisfaction and a release of all claims against maker."

The District's legal counsel states that check number 8716 was received but "not deposited or otherwise cashed by the District." I suspect it has everything to do with the statement typed on the reverse side of the check. Is there a problem? I thought Marla and Arnie were friends. Why would Arnie be reluctant to pay the appropriate amount due to the District? By my calculations he's just a bit more than $100,000.00 short.

Appeal to Counsel: This transaction doesn't look very good. Is there something for which I should be asking? Is there something missing? An "RCWs don't apply to me" card, perhaps?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Duncan,

I hope this email finds you happy, healthy and well-rested.

Please review Edmonds School Board Policy 3300 R-1 and help me understand how the purchase/lease of pianos from the Seattle Piano Gallery complied with this policy.

Please also review RCW 28A.335.190 and help me understand how the same transaction complied with state law.

Also, we seek to distribute information about the blog via a brochure and/or web-based announcement through the Edmonds School District per Board Policy 9060 and will be submitting a draft for the superintendent's review. Would this announcement be sent through your office or directly to the superintendent?

Hope your Thanksgiving was a pleasant one.

Mark Zandberg

Legal rendering of English language needed...again.

BID AND QUOTATION PROCESS
A. Purchase of Furniture, Equipment or Supplies, except Books
When the estimated cost of furniture, equipment or supplies, except books, is from forty thousand dollars ($40,000) up to seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000), quotations from at least three different sources shall be obtained in writing or by telephone, and recorded for public perusal.

When the estimated cost is in excess of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000), a formal public bid procedure shall be followed. Complete plans and specifications shall be prepared and notice by publication given in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the district, once each week for two consecutive weeks, of the intention to receive bids and that specifications and other information may be examined at the office of the board or any other officially designated location. The bids shall be in writing and shall be opened and read in public on the date and in the place named in the notice and after being opened shall be filed for public inspection. Items that are included in a bid must be purchased from the vendor awarded the bid, unless the district can document that the item was not available from the bid vendor at the time of purchase.

Fun Factoid: Board Policy 3300 R-1 appears to be consistent with RCWs. Dare I ask the District's legal team for their interpretation?

Rules of Procurement no further than one's nose.

The district has developed a variety of ways for you to make purchases. Regardless of the method used, all purchases must meet certain requirements.

State Purchasing Law (Summarized)
Bid: When the total purchases of like items exceed $50,000 per fiscal year districtwide, the item must be bid. Items that are included in a bid must be purchased from the vendor awarded the bid, unless the district can document that the item was not available from the bid vendor at the time of purchase.
Three Quotes: When the total purchases of like items exceed $15,000 per fiscal year districtwide, the purchaser or with the help of the buyer must document that price quotes were obtained from three different vendors before the purchase was made.
Public Works Project: When the total cost of a building, improvement, repair, or other public works project exceeds $15,000 the work shall be awarded on a competitive bid process. If a small works roster (legally defined list of approved contractors) is maintained, projects up to $50,000 may be awarded to a contractor on the roster without a competitive bid on the basis of competitive verbal or written quotes.
Sole Source: Only the Board of Directors can declare a vendor to be the "sole source" of an item or service regardless of cost. However, this option requires extensive documentation that the vendor is in fact the only supplier of the item or service, and is not easily nor frequently applied.
To assist you in knowing what items have been bid and must be purchased from a particular vendor, the Purchasing Department has created a Bid List, available in paper form from the Business Services Department.

Fun Factoid: The source for this material came directly from the District's website. You can visit the website by clicking here.

You have to love those RCWs.

RCW 39.30.020
Contracts requiring competitive bidding — Violations by municipal officer — Penalties.

In addition to any other remedies or penalties contained in any law, municipal charter, ordinance, resolution or other enactment, any municipal officer by or through whom or under whose supervision, in whole or in part, any contract is made in wilful and intentional violation of any law, municipal charter, ordinance, resolution or other enactment requiring competitive bidding upon such contract shall be held liable to a civil penalty of not less than three hundred dollars and may be held liable, jointly and severally with any other such municipal officer, for all consequential damages to the municipal corporation. If, as a result of a criminal action, the violation is found to have been intentional, the municipal officer shall immediately forfeit his office. For purposes of this section, "municipal officer" shall mean an "officer" or "municipal officer" as those terms are defined in RCW 42.23.020(2).

More revelations from the Piano Man.

A number of you have been asking about the status of the Seattle Piano Gallery issue. Well, I have not received a copy of any checks from the District as of this morning (11/14/07) and something tells me they will never be arriving. It looks like the District may have paid more than $100,000.00 for just four pianos - from a friend of Marla's.

[Anonymous]
Do you know a woman named Marla in Edmonds? She mentioned your piano lease program as a viable way to secure good quality pianos.

[Arnie]
I do know Marla. She's a wonderful person. We've done business before.

[Anonymous]
How did you meet Marla?

[Arnie]
We met in the Edmonds Rotary Club. We co-chaired the Edmonds Jazz Conection concerts 3 or 4 years ago.

You will have to pardon me for not feeling the same way about Marla. Maybe if I received preferential treatment, didn't have to compete for public business and was a member of the Edmonds Rotary Club, I might feel differently about her.

Fun Factoid: As a Rotary exchange student to South Africa from 1986 to 1987, I was blessed to be placed in Johannesburg at the age of fifteen. While there, I directly witnessed the effect of a corrupt and misguided government imposing their will upon a grossly oppressed African majority. It was this experience that led me back to Africa for long periods of time over the following twelve years. Rotary International has my unwavering gratitude for changing my life so dramatically. A summary may be found at http://www.markzandberg.com/.