Memorandum 

Date: July 11, 2011 

To: Karen Rushing 

Mark Simmons 

Clerk of the Circuit Court 

Sarasota County, FL 

From: Cathy Antunes 

Pat Rounds 

Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government 

Thank you for meeting with us on Friday, June 17, 2011. We appreciate the opportunity to 
discuss our concerns and look forward to future discussions about improving our government. 
As you know, our meeting was focused on the Clerk’s July 2010 limited scope audit of 
procurement processes associated with the hiring of a Stadium Negotiations Facilitator in 2008 
(RFQ/PO 840824), and an Owner’s Representative in 2009 (RFP 09851). 
The purpose of this letter is to summarize some of the concerns shared, highlight additional 
issues, and suggest further action to address the concerns raised. 

Omission of Key Procurement Terms 

As discussed in our meeting, Sarasota County Procurement Code and Manual do not include a 
definition of competitive bidding—neither does the 2010 audit, although numerous terms and 
definitions are included in the audit’s appendices. 
Below is a definition of competitive bidding (Source: www.usac.org): 


“The competitive bidding process must be fair and open. “Fair” means that all 
bidders are treated the same and that no bidder has advance knowledge of the project 
information. "Open" means there are no secrets in the process – such as information shared 
with one bidder but not with others – and that all bidders know what is required of them.... 

In order to be sure that a fair and open competition is achieved, any marketing discussions 
held with service providers must be neutral, so as not to taint the competitive bidding process. 
That is, the applicant should not have a relationship with a service provider prior to the 
competitive bidding that would unfairly influence the outcome of a competition or would 
furnish the service provider with "inside" information or allow it to unfairly compete in any 
way. For example, a conflict of interest exists when the applicant's consultant is associated 
with a service provider that is selected and is involved in determining the services sought by 
the applicant and the selection of the applicant's service provider(s).” 

Regarding this audit, in the Owner’s Representative RFP (09851), Sarasota County is 
the applicant, Dan Barrett (Barrett Sports Group, BSG) is the applicant's consultant, and 
International Facilities Group (IFG) is the service provider. Details will be provided later in 
this document demonstrating how county employees and others violated or circumvented this 
definition of competitive bidding, Section 6.8.6 of the County Procurement Manual, and Sect. 18 
of the RFP for Owner’s Representative. 

The scope of the July 2010 audit appears to have been determined by County 


Administration. 
The Clerk is a constitutional officer, independent of the County Administration and County 
Commission. Troubling findings were not fully explored in the 2010 audit; a reason given by the 
Clerk's office is the audit's was “limited scope”. 
The Clerk has both the authority and responsibility to fully explore problematic procurement 
practices, something that the July 2010 audit does not appear to accomplish. However, on April 
22, 2010, after the 2008/2009 bidding irregularities were printed in the local media, Jim Ley, 
County Administrator, sent an e-mail to the County Commission, copying the County Clerk 
that he was issuing a request for the Clerk to audit these identified questionable procurement 
activities. 
In his message Ley comments, “I have made it clear that aside from the interviews they might 
undertake, they are doing this work solely for me and are to report their results directly to 
me.” It appears the Clerk's Office was not acting independently of County Administration, but 
rather was taking direction from them. 

2008 Stadium Negotiator RFQ irregularities are not adequately addressed by 
Clerk’s audit. 

During the 2008 RFQ, County and City employees discovered that an application submitted 
by Dan Barrett (Barrett Sports Group) exactly matched the “scope of work” documents being 
used by the City and County to evaluate vendor submissions. At least one employee expressed 
concern about the “matching” documents. When an employee expressed concern about the 
impact on public perception of the process, the Deputy County Administration was noted to 
reply, “You worry too much.” Despite apparent compromise of the RFQ process, Mr. Barrett 
was ultimately chosen as negotiator. 

In the audit, the “matching” scope of work documents initially used by the joint City/County 
RFQ committee, were incorrectly attributed to International Facilities Group/IFG (See Audit, 
Sect. A, p. 14). Actually, Dan Barrett sent them via e-Mail to county employee Larry Arnold on 
August 27, 2008. This key e-Mail is missing from the audit files. 

Mr. Arnold was considered the “resident” baseball expert and had been asked to help with 
finding suitable sample RFQ reference documents. Mr. Arnold accepted sample scope 
documents from Dan Barrett, who was applying for the facilitator position. An example from 
Mr. Barrett was somehow incorporated into the RFQ. 

For some reason, the 2008 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a spring training contract 
negotiations facilitator was converted into a purchase order (PO 840824) after a joint 
procurement process was conducted by the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County. The audit 
does not provide any explanation for the conversion of an RFQ to a purchase order for legal 
services---a situation exempt from procurement policy. 

The audit states that because the "procurement of facilitation services for negotiation with the 
Baltimore Orioles was deemed exempt, our review of the procurement of those facilitation 
services was limited to confirming that Competitive Procurement Exemption Request forms 
were properly documented and authorized." This appears to conflict with one of the stated 
goals of the audit (See p. 3), to “determine whether the controls in places, if adequate, have 


been applied effectively to obtaining facilitation services to assist with negotiations with Major 
League Baseball team franchises.” 

So the procurement process began as an RFQ, subject to procurement rules. It was only after 
Mr. Barrett was selected through the RFQ procurement process that the RFQ was converted 
to a a solicitation for legal services (which is exempt from procurement rules) and a purchase 
order was issued. Instead of contracting directly with Mr. Barrett, the legal firm Jacobs Chase (a 
known business associate of Dan Barrett) was hired, and Jacobs Chase subcontracted the work to 
Dan Barrett. 

A solicitation and acceptance of scope documents from a favored bidder appears to have 
occurred. But because the Clerk's audit confines itself to confirming the proper completion of 
exemption forms, the possible favoring of a bidder is never fully explored. 

2009 Owner’s Representative RFP (09851)—Violation of County Procurement 
Manual, Sect. 6.8.6 

On July 23, 2009, Dave Bullock, Deputy County Administrator and chief county negotiator, 
sent Dan Barrett an e-mail requesting samples of owner’s representative RFP and scope of work 
documents. He copied Jenny Yarabek, who was assisting with the RFP, and Stephen DeMarsh, 
the county attorney. On July 27, 2009, Dan Barrett replied to Bullock, Yarabek and DeMarsh, 
indicating that the several attached sample documents were from IFG. IFG was a known 
prospective bidder for the owner’s representative contract. 

Section 6.8.6 of the County Procurement Manual prohibits any contact between members of 
the relevant business unit and potential or known bidders during the procurement process. The 
procurement period for the Owner’s Rep RFP was defined as July-October, 2009. 

The documents provided by IFG were used by the County to write the RFP. Within a few hours 
of receiving the IFG sample documents from Dan Barrett, Jenny Yarabek informed Carolyn 
Eastwood, the author of the RFP, that she had received sample RFP material. Ms. Eastwood 
consequently informed a colleague to “call off” her on-line search for samples—a search which 
had not yielded much fruit. 

The Clerk's audit states there was no attempt to hide that the source of sample RFPs and scope 
documents used by the County for the 2009 Owners Rep RFP was IFG (p. 10). How does 
copying colleagues on an e-Mail soliciting RFP references and accepting them from a known 
bidder justify the circumvention of procurement policy? It is concerning that the Clerk’s audit 
appears to rationalize a violation of procurement code. 

Moreover, numerous others were not informed about the source of the RFP references. Ms. 
Eastwood was not informed by her superiors that she was using reference documents provided 
by IFG to formulate the RFP. In her audit interview, Ms. Eastwood stated "She was unaware 
that IFG had been the source of Dan Barrett's material provided to her for RFP development 
and that in her experience it would be normal in such a situation to consider excluding the 
contributing firm from submitting a proposal. She said that had she been aware of IFG's 
involvement at the time, it would have been of concern to her." According to Mr. Arnold, Ms. 


Yarabek also sent him the e-mail containing the IFG documents, but removed the reference to 
IFG as the source. Audit interviews show that members of the Owner’s Rep RFP evaluation 
committee were also unaware of this fact. Finally, the other nine bidders for the contract were 
certainly unaware that documents selected by IFG served as the foundation for the creation of the 
County’s RFP. 

The Deputy County Administrator openly solicited RFP reference documents from an 
IFG business associate (Dan Barrett). He subsequently accepted reference documents 
which identified IFG as the source, copying others (including the county attorney) on the 
correspondence. This behavior appears to demonstrate contempt for county codes, which attempt 
to ensure an open and fair bidding process. Open violations are no less troubling than those 
hidden from scrutiny. 

Missing Documentation 

In addition to the county e-mail referenced earlier (Aug. 27, 2008), we expressed concern that a 
number of relevant e-mails, either in the public record or on the county server, are not included 
in the audit files. 

An e-Mail to Dave Bullock (Deputy County Administrator) from Larry Arnold (July 23,2009) 
demonstrates that Mr. Bullock was aware of Arnold’s connection to and advocacy for 
International Facilities Group, a known bidder for Owner’s Representative in 2009. The 
Deputy County Administrator stated in his audit interview that had he known of Mr. Arnold's 
connections and communications with IFG, "he would not have appointed Larry Arnold to the 
Owner's Rep RFP evaluation committee" (Bullock interview, audit files). The e-mail referenced 
contradicts the Deputy Administrator's claim that he was unaware of an Arnold/IFG connection. 
The omission of this e-mail from the audit report and related files is troubling. 

The audit report and publicly accessible audit files also do not appear to include relevant 
communications between IFG and Dan Barrett. All communications between IFG and Mr. 
Barrett regarding Sarasota County business are public records; Mr. Barrett's computer hard drive 
and relevant documents were part of a sunshine case in Sarasota County. At least one of these 
e-mails shows a concerted effort by Dan Barrett and IFG to create an advantage for IFG in the 
competitive bid for Owner’s Representative—a $500K county contract. 

In this e-Mail to Dan Barrett (July 24, 2009), an IFG official discusses the RFP sample 
documents requested by the county, notes that a scope of work document had been “tweaked” for 
the Sarasota project, and lists qualifying criteria which would help to “whittle down” the field of 
bidders. These criteria made their way into the RFP and helped to formulate the Past Experience 
criteria used on the scoring sheet to evaluate bidders. 

Missing Procurement Rules and Definitions 

The July 2010 audit fails to include Sect. 6.8.6 of the Sarasota County Procurement Manual in 
effect at the time. This is most relevant as it prohibits county employees from having contact 
with potential or actual bidders during the procurement period. The Clerk's audit defines the 
procurement period as July 1 -October 15, 2009 (p. 9) and June -September 2009 (p. 13) for the 
2009 Owner's representative RFP. 


Section 6.8.6 states: 

“During the time when the document is being drafted, the advertising period, the evaluation 
period, and as appropriate after recommendation of award, the Business Unit shall have no 
contact with potential or actual proposers, and shall direct all communications regarding the 
RFP to Procurement.” 

The July 2010 audit states that auditors "did not identify any instances of non-compliance with 
the Sarasota County Procurement Code of Procurement Manual". The contacts that county 
employees outside of procurement had with IFG (in 2009) appear to be in violation of Sect. 

6.8.6. Mr. Arnold's contact with Dan Barrett during the 2008 RFQ also appears to violate 
County standards. 
The July 2010 audit also fails to include Sect. 18 of the Sarasota County Owner's Representative 
RFP Document which addresses lobbying. Sect. 18 states that "Proposers, their agents and 
associates shall not contact or solicit any County Commissioner, County employee, or official 
regarding this RFP during any phase of the RFP. Failure to comply with this provision may 
result in disqualification of the Proposer, at the option of the County. Only that individual listed 
as the contact person or Sarasota County Asset Management shall be contacted." It appears that 
this County prohibition was violated repeatedly by both vendors and staff, yet it is not included 
in the July 2010 audit. 

The July 2010 audit does not define the following terms: "competitive bidding", "undue 
influence", or "conflict of interest". However, terms such as collusion and bid-rigging are 
defined—neither of which applies to the situations in question, since both terms are concerned 
with competing vendor interactions. 

Defining “Undue Influence” 

We also take issue with the claim that undue influence is limited to influencing others to vote 
a certain way. Regarding a procurement process, wouldn’t a reasonable definition of "undue 
influence" include situations where a position of power or trust is misused to benefit a person, 
group, cause or business? Placing a personal associate of a known bidder on a RFP selection 
committee seems to represent a clear conflict of interest by any reasonable standard, as well as a 
potential interjection of undue influence. 
Section 6.8.8.c of the County Procurement Manual states, "The makeup of each RFP Evaluation 
Committee must be approved by the Procurement Official". Ms. Eastwood, the procurement 
manager for the RFP states in her interview that "Dave Bullock made the final determination 
of the evaluation committee members". In addition to making the final determination, the 
initial appointment of Mr. Arnold to the RFP selection committee was made by the Deputy 
County Administrator. As a practical matter, if Ms. Eastwood's authority to approve committee 
members were intact, would any Procurement Official feel comfortable vetoing an appointment 
by the Deputy County Administrator? In June 2009, Mr. Bullock accepted professional 
assistance from IFG regarding the spring training contract language--at no charge. During 
the procurement period he was reminded of IFG's help by Mr. Barrett. Did IFG's assistance 
influence Mr. Bullock's decisions about the RFP selection committee? Was it consistent 
with County Policy for the Deputy County Administrator to make the final determination of 


the composition of the RFP selection committee, rather than the Procurement Manager, Ms. 
Eastwood? 

It was explained to us that because five bidders were invited to participate in the final evaluation 
round that the process was fair. In our June 17th meeting, we pointed out that Mr. Arnold 
appeared to be instrumental in the RFP evaluation committee’s decision to include IFG in the 
final round of oral presentations. The audit doesn't recognize how IFG benefitted from Arnold’s 
advocacy (p. 11). Three evaluation committee members seemed poised to eliminate IFG in the 
first evaluation round. Mr. Arnold's lobbying for IFG was a significant factor in the committee’s 
decision to include them in the final round. 

The audit also does not consider the impact of recommendations from IFG that appeared on the 
scoring sheet used to evaluate bidders in the final selection process. Both Mr. Barrett and IFG 
recommended emphasizing Past Experience in the County’s evaluation criteria. All but one of 
the qualifying criteria suggested by IFG appeared on the list of qualifications required to achieve 
a perfect score of 50 points. Indeed, IFG was the only firm to receive perfect scores for Past 
Experience from every member of the selection committee, which represented 50 of a possible 
90 performance point total, or 56% of the performance criteria. 

Prior to the final round of oral presentations, the Deputy County Administrator scheduled private 
meetings with the three RFP evaluation committee members who had been critical of IFG in the 
first round. Is it appropriate for Mr. Bullock to hold private meetings with some RFP evaluation 
committee members and not others? The auditor's interview does not ask Mr. Bullock to explain 
why he met with some committee members and not all. 

Mr. Arnold's advocacy for IFG and the evidence of IFG/Barrett contributions on the scoring 
sheet represent possible undue influence and/or a conflict of interest. Mr. Bullock's role in 
approving the Owner's Representative evaluation committee members and his meetings with 
select RFP evaluation committee members are also troubling. The fact that four other bidders 
gave oral presentations is not sufficient to rule out undue influence or show that a procurement 
process was fair. No other bidders were given the same opportunity as IFG to provide references 
and recommendations which were incorporated into the RFP process. 

Defining "Conflict of Interest" 

In our discussion we disagreed with the assessment that conflict of interest is apparent only 
when a person stands to reap financial or personal gain. Doesn’t a conflict of interest also occur 
when a County employee's obligations to the public could be influenced by self-interest (not 
necessarily financial), competing loyalties or an inability to be objective? 

In August, 2009, Larry Arnold, a high-level county employee with personal connections to IFG, 
was chosen by Dave Bullock to serve on an Owner’s Representative RFP evaluation panel to 
select one of ten bidders—which included IFG. Mr. Arnold had previously been involved in the 
questionable RFQ process occurring in 2008, involving Dan Barrett—a business associate of 
IFG. 

The Clerk’s audit documents multiple contacts Mr. Arnold had with IFG officials during July-
August, 2009. (IFG is owned by the son of Jerry Reinsdorf, an MLB owner who became 


acquainted with Larry Arnold when he was employed in a local government position in St. 
Petersburg, FL.) Arnold sent Dave Bullock an e-Mail containing an endorsement of IFG for 
owner’s representative sent to him by Jerry Reinsdorf in July, 2009. Mr. Bullock noted in 
his response to Arnold that Dan Barrett also had endorsed IFG for the owner’s representative 
contract. (This e-mail is missing from the Clerk’s audit.) On July 23, 2009, Mr. Arnold 
received an e-Mail from Joe Briglia (IFG) indicating that the County had requested RFP sample 
documents. This e-mail included a note from Dan Barrett who expressed how he wanted to 
differentiate IFG from other bidders. 

In spite of his contacts with IFG, Mr. Arnold signed a statement indicating he had no conflict of 
interest. The Clerk’s audit raises no questions about Mr. Arnold’s ability to serve as an objective 
fiduciary for Sarasota County taxpayers. Even the Deputy County Administrator acknowledges 
in his audit interview that Mr. Arnold’s contacts with IFG were a basis for disqualification from 
the RFP evaluation panel. 

Third Party Source Data 

On pages 3 and 13, the Clerk's audit report states that "we did not have access to original source 
data under the control of third parties outside Sarasota County Government". 
We have been given two explanations by the Clerk's office about the nature of the missing third 
party source data: 


1. The missing third party source data refers to e-mails between Dan Barrett and IFG. 
Mr. Barrett's communications with IFG regarding Sarasota County business are public record 
as Mr. Barrett was a vendor working for the County. One Clerk auditor explained that e-mails 
between Mr. Barrett and IFG were omitted to prevent prejudicing the audit's findings. E-mails 
between Mr. Barrett and IFG concerning Sarasota County business belong in the audit report 
and files. The local sunshine court case included relevant Barrett/IFG e-mails accessible to the 
Clerk's office in Sarasota County Court records. However, the sunshine investigation was not 
conducted by certified fraud examiners. The auditors should conduct their own inspection of Mr. 
Barrett's relevant communications with IFG and key Sarasota County Employees. 

2. The missing third party source data refers to the financial records of Mr. Arnold, IFG 
and Mr. Barrett. The Clerk's audit files contain documentation on Mr. Arnold's real estate 
holdings and his automobile. We also note that five pages from the audit report contain criminal 
state statutes regarding bribery and unlawful compensation or reward of a public servant. If 
the Clerk's auditors find themselves including documentation of a County employee's personal 
assets, has the audit moved into territory that exceeds the Clerk's authority? Is it the Clerk's 
responsibility to refer their inquiry to a government agency with the authority to access the third 
party data? 
The public has a right to understand what "original source data" the audit is referencing, 
who the "third parties" are, and how that data is relevant to the audit. 

The "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Standard 

We are concerned that the threshold for identifying problems with procurement practices used 
in the July 2010 audit is unreasonably high. The "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard 


was described to us repeatedly in our June 17th meeting. The Clerk's office does not conduct 
criminal investigations, so a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard sets the bar far too high for 
identifying procurement violations. 

The audit's stated goals included determining "whether controls in place are adequate in 
comparison to generally accepted best practices for procurements of consulting services". 
Yet less than one year later, the National Institute of Government Procurement (NIGP) report 
completed in May, 2011, found 151 problems with Sarasota County's procurement department. 
The standard used by NIGP was not a criminal standard but they were not deterred from 
uncovering scores of inadequacies in procurement policies. The Clerk’s Audit in July 2010 
represented an opportunity for Sarasota County to initiate meaningful procurement reforms—a 
significant opportunity lost. 

Simply put--it should not take an arrest to recognize procurement violations and recommend 
disciplinary actions. And it appears that the auditors did not compare Sarasota's procurement 
practices to a national "best practices" standard, although that was a stated goal of the audit (p. 
3). 

We are also concerned that the audit's focus on a criminal guilt standard misses the exposure to 
civil liability that result from unfair procurement practices, another reason why the "beyond a 
reasonable doubt" standard appears to be inappropriate. Finally, the seemingly unethical nature 
of staff actions associated with the 2008 RFQ and 2009 RFP ought to be sufficient evidence of 
policy violations and cause for reform. 

The Clerk's audit states that they found no indication in the public record that 
IFG acted on Dan Barrett's offer of assistance to help differentiate IFG from other 
bidders. 

We strongly disagree. An e-Mail from David Perez (IFG) to Dan Barrett (July 24, 2009) was 
aimed at providing RFP samples and selection criteria for the County to benefit IFG. Perez 
discusses several files “for your use”. He mentions “tweaking” the scope of work to “match the 
Sarasota project.” He also indicates that one sample document will “give them an idea of what 
we like to see in an RFP…” 

Perez goes on to list five qualifying criteria--“Also, we’ve made a list of a few possible 
requirements to submit to be considered for an Owner’s Rep RFQ. If the county includes any 
two of these in the quals to bid, they should whittle down the field to a very strong few…” In 
response, Mr. Barrett states “he will send the attachments to the County” and asks Perez to send 
“the scope in word so they can incorporate it into their RFP.” 

While the auditors were aware of this e-Mail, it was not included in the auditor’s report. 

Buried in the Clerk’s audit notes under “Experience Criteria” (and absent from 
the audit report) is the following statement: “…there was no undue influence in 
the development of the “past experience” component of the scoring matrix used to 
establish final rankings.” 

Again, we strongly take issue. The documents used to arrive at this conclusion do not include 


the Perez (IFG)/Barrett e-Mail mentioned previously. Perez lists specific qualifying criteria, “the 
quantities are flexible”…. “We have room to increase any number on this list should the County 
choose.” In addition, it seems that the criteria provided by IFG are largely represented in the 
County's “past experience” scoring matrix. Of particular concern is the requirement that the 
project team “demonstrate experience with five recent similar sports projects”. Have the auditors 
fully explored how these particular quantities were determined? If evaluators were required to 
strictly adhere to the matrix, it appears that IFG was favored to earn the maximum 50 points 
for “past experience”. 

As it stands, IFG was the only one of the five finalists to receive perfect “50s” from all five 
evaluators. In the end, IFG was awarded a near perfect 88 of 90 total performance-related points; 
Fawley-Bryant was a distant second with 75 points, followed by URS with 73 points. Scores for 
the other seven bidders ranged from 22-66 points. It appears that IFG provided criteria that was 
incorporated into the scoring matrix, and that quantities may have been adjusted to enhance the 
chances for IFG's success (as per IFG's e-mail). 

The Clerk's audit explains that the RFP documents provided by IFG were public 
documents, available on the internet. 
As we discussed during our meeting, all RFP documents are public documents. The issue here 
is that the County relied on source documents provided by a known bidder -the winning 
bidder. Other bidders were unaware of this relationship and were not offered the same access 
to the process. We are concerned again that auditors seem to be offering explanations that seek 
to mitigate a significant problem--County supervisors violated procurement code by accepting 
documents from one known bidder, and other bidders did not have the same access. The public 
nature of RFP documents does not change this fact. 

The Clerk's audit states that a key employee (Larry Arnold) ceased to have contact 
with IFG once he was placed on the evaluation committee (see Audit p. 14, Sect. C) 

We can find no exception in Sarasota County Procurement Code that allows for contact with 
a known bidder as long as that contact ceases after one is appointed to the RFP evaluation 
committee. Again, it appears that the auditors are offering explanations that mitigate 
procurement code violations. This commentary seems unnecessary and inconsistent with 
independent oversight. 

Conclusion and Requested Next Steps 

We support the independence of the Clerk of the Circuit Court as a Constitutional officer of 
Sarasota County, and we believe the just exercise of the Clerk's authority as an independent 
auditor is critical to ensuring honest, fiscally responsible local government. That said, nearly 
a year ago, we reviewed this bidding audit and arrived at similar conclusions covered in the 
Sarasota Observer in August, 2010. 

Now, it is only due to the recent arrest of a county employee by a prosecutor in Palm Beach 
County that Sarasota procurement policies are currently being reviewed and investigated 
thoroughly. For such a serious situation to exist is evidence of the failure of Sarasota County’s 
internal auditing and oversight. Had the Clerk exercised independent and critical oversight in last 
July’s audit, is it possible that the current procurement scandal might have been avoided? 


The recent NIGP procurement assessment arrived at very different conclusions than the July 
2010 audit. 

We ask the County Clerk to redo the 2010 audit, as its stated objectives (listed below) were 
not met. 

1. Determine whether controls in place are adequate in comparison to generally accepted best 
practices for procurements of consulting services. 
2. Determine whether the controls in place (if adequate) have been applied effectively 
in obtaining Owner's Representative Services for the Design and Construction of Spring 
Training Facilities. 
3. Determine whether the controls in place, if adequate, have been applied effectively in 
obtaining facilitation services to assist with negotiations with Major League Baseball team 
franchises. 
4. Determine whether significant shortcomings exist in current policies and procedures 
associated with retaining consultant services, and if so, make recommendations to improve 
controls. 
The NIGP assessment is evidence of the difference between Sarasota's internal assessment and 
national standards. In order to restore faith in local independent oversight, in order to set a new 
standard for Sarasota's internal audits, the July 2010 audit must be redone. 
A new audit should: 


• Include information that was left out of the July, 2010 audit. 
• Outline facts and remove problematic and speculative commentary. 
• Hold County staff accountable for violations and changing the RFP process 
• Focus on clearly outlining how a proper RFP should operate. 
It is imperative that the Clerk's office be willing and able to produce an audit that is appropriately 
critical of County staff. In the wake of the Rodney Jones arrest in March, 2011, a number of 
County employees have been fired or have resigned due to upper management scrutiny of their 
compliance with procurement standards. The July 2010 audit focuses on procurement processes 
that call into question the actions of County Administration upper management. 
It is untenable for high level supervisors to seemingly demonstrate disregard for ethical 
procurement standards, and later terminate employees for doing the same. It is the 
responsibility of the Clerk's office to provide meaningful oversight for the County 
Administration. In order the meet the Clerk's obligation, a new audit is necessary. 

Respectfully, 

Pat Rounds 
Cathy Antunes 
Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government