mdude85 wrote:
Actually you can legally accept money from whomever you want, if they\'re willing to give it to you.
Sorry, but that is just simply NOT TRUE.
If it were, bribes would not be illegal. Even as a gift with no specific attachment of expectation, many public officials are restricted from receiving such monies. I\'m not saying it doesn\'t happen because we all know it does, but that does NOT MAKE IT LEGAL.
Another note that comes to mind. The OP mentioned a NEW contract for a DIFFERENT company ... I\'m guessing (pure conjecture) the school went with some form of \"low bid\" to save a buck or make a buck in their decision to change horses ... and this is yet another byproduct of \"Ya gets what ya pays fer.\" Gee, no wonder a company can be cheaper ... especially if they are willingly ripping off other people\'s work.
I\'d be interested in hearing from LAST YEARS company (or the other non-winning bidders) on this one.
NOTE: As a public official ... I\'ve had to \'oust\' companies for such violations and \'re-award\' the contract to a \'losing bidder\' for lesser violations that went against contract/purchasing policies. Just because you were awarded the contract doesn\'t mean that you are automatically entitled to keep it. Generally speaking, it was the new awardees that had the most problems with terms of compliance ... only once in a blue moon was it an old dog that was up to bad tricks.
If the new company doesn\'t have enough sense to know how to conduct business within the confines of the law ... they have no business doing business with the school and putting the school in such situations. The school should require full restitution by the offending party and/or rescind the contract with the vendor who is involving them in criminal activity ... re-awarding the contract to another company. By the school NOT doing so, the school then opens themselves up for some potentially very serious litigation problems.
And, just because the OP was the offended party, and is willing to be a \"nice guy\" about this ... DOESN\'T preclude ANY OTHER PHOTOGRAPHER (i.e. one who didn\'t win the contract) from suing the school for continuing to doing business with a company involved in criminal activity. The school needs to PROTECT THEMSELVES ... AND NOT WORRY ABOUT PROTECTING THE OFFENDING COMPANY. The school can really like the company and they can feel sorry for the new company making a mistake, but neither of those will absolve the school for not properly addressing the situation should someone turn their attention toward the school\'s role in this.
I appreciate that the OP is not trying to \"strong-arm\" anyone in this matter, as I find it admirable. But, if he truly cares about the school ... he might want to alert them to the hazards that they may not be aware of ... for their sake, not his. Diplomacy & tact are certainly in order, but this could become a big can of worms for the school, even if the OP doesn\'t pursue it any further.
Think about it ... you\'ve got a guy suing for a photographer to redo his wedding more than six years post shoot in another thread. What would keep multiple photographers/companies from suing the school for the revenue they lost because the school continued to do business with a company that should have had the award rescinded and the school failed to do so. It could easily accrue to multiple years of revenue involved ... only compounding to the amount of \'lost revenue\' for those non-offending companies that did not get the award. The school really needs to nip this one in the bud for their own protection.
Many will disagree, thinking \"mountain out of a mole hill\" ... but once you\'ve been officially responsible for awarding/rescinding contracts in the public domain and involved with defending suits from non-winning bidders against your institution ... I\'d prefer to see it as an \"ounce of prevention\" more than a \"mountain\". Lessons learned and forewarned is forearmed.
HTH ... good luck.
Nov 08, 2011 at 09:31 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10067471 « I've been violated! »
