Haddonfield Commissioners Chose Iavicoli for Solicitor at $15K More Than Low Bidder
Mario Iavicoli, the long-time borough solicitor, is given the nod over other applicants.
Borough commissioners unanimously agreed to retain long-time borough solicitor, Mario Iavicoli, last week, even though his bid was $20,000 more than the low bid for the job.
Iavocoli, who has been the borough solicitor for the past 33 years, submitted a bid of $75,000 as a flat fee for all solicitor services, including court appearances and attendance of all municipal meetings and counsel for government.
The bid was $5,000 more than fee he had charged for the past several years. The commissioners, Tish Colombi, Ed Borden and Jeff Kasko, decided to rehire Iavicoli, but to keep him at his current rate of $70,000 per year. The decision was made in a commissioners' work session last week.
Iavicoli left the room during the discussion about him and three other applicants who responded to a Request for Proposal for the position. Officials promised to speak with him after the meeting to see if he would agree to stay on at his old rate. That meeting did not happen and he is on vacation this week, a borough official said.
The three-member Board of Commissioners rejected a $55,000, flat-fee bid from attorney Richard De Michele because he did not meet its requirement of at least five years of experience as a municipal solicitor. De Michele, who has been an attorney since 1995, has two years experience as a borough solicitor, in Haddon Heights, and has been a planning and zoning board attorney in Laurel Springs since 2005. De Michele, like Iavicoli, is a Haddonfield resident.
Two other applicants, Eric Bernstein and Stuart Platt, were rejected because they submitted hourly rates and not a flat fee.
Jim
9:19 am on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Hopefully no pension or health benefits are being paid since they paid these benefits to an outside at attorney named Mario for years[ same as the attorney who has been re appointed every year]. Let see the Borough open the bidding to be more fair and see more experience attorneys in the marketplace with out paying benefits
Robert Grady
2:22 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
One of these days your headline will not sensationalize the story. The other bidders, by your own reporting, were either not qualified, or did not comply with the rules for bidding. That left Iavocoli as the only bid. And he has not, again by your own report, accepted the offer as of your report.
As to Jim's comment, where was the bid process not "open"? Where was it "unfair"? And why do you suppose more "experienced" lawyers don't bid on a flat fee??? Think about that. Mario has been our solicitor for years because he has always held the highest regard for the boro interests.
Roland W
6:47 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Where did he say is was unfair? He said more fair, not unfair. That means open the process more. Don't give this guy grief because he cares about saving some taxpayer money. Don't give the Patch grief for reporting about money we shell out. I'm tired of you guys running up my taxes and having the stones to have an attitude about it. I can always tell when some arrogant guy has dough by the way he talks and you're one of them. Flip me some cash to help with my tax bill and I'll talk sweet.
Jack Tarditi
8:21 pm on Wednesday, November 14, 2012
I agree with Mr Grady, that the Patch headline does not accurately describe the result, as Mr Iavicoli was the ONLY attorney of the four who responded that met the experience requirement and complied with the correct compensation response. It also appears that the selection process used by the Three Commissioners for the position of Boro Solicitor was 'fair and open".
For the record I was one of the three Boro Commissioners who selected Mr Iavicoli a number of years ago. I believe he has served us well for all these years and we were fortunate to have him as our Boro Solicitor.
Jack Tarditi, Washington Avenue
Jack S
3:04 pm on Thursday, November 15, 2012
Jack, I assume that the Commissioners could have waived the 5-year requirement, if they chose to? Most solicitations reserve the right to waive individual requirements and conditions. Even if this solicitation did not contain such a clause (or the requirement of 5 years could not be waived for statutory reasons), it's not clear that 5 years of borough solicitor experience versus 2 years is a meaningful requirement, since more than one of the applicants possesses many years of municipal government experience from his private practice. Ultimately Jim raises a very good question about whether there are in-kind costs that make one candidate much more expensive than the other. Personally, I don't have an opinion at this point as to the legal skills of one of the attorneys versus the other, but in tough economic times questions such as Jim's need to be asked and answered, since the Borough's goal should always be to get the best services for the lowest possible cost.
Jim
3:31 pm on Monday, December 3, 2012
they have give the older [ friend] attorney pension benefits which adds several thousand of dollars to the flat fee costs