Unnoticed by almost anyone in Talbot County, on May 24th the Talbot County Council awarded an engineering contract that is likely to have the greatest impact on Talbot’s future of any, ever. An engineering contract? BOOOOORING, you say.
But this one is different, for two reasons: the contract involves the Keys to the Kingdom, and the contract was awarded to none other than Rauch, Inc., the eminent wearer of so very many hats around here—not least, the agent (perhaps partner?) of the Lakeside developer, Rocks.
The Task Contracted For: The critically important task to be completed under this Contract #22-07 is to “update,” or essentially rewrite, the entire Talbot County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan (“CWSP”). That is the crucial legal document of chief concern for every development project in the County, past, present and future.
You understand: Development is all about sewerage. Development is money. Development is the story of how our County’s future will play out—with fidelity to the vision of our Comp Plan, or not. (You will recall also that the central disputes about Lakeside are embedded in the 2002 CWSP document that Rauch is now revising.)
The CWSP was last restated in 2002, and has been amended piecemeal over sixty times. There is no question that the CWSP is long overdue for update. But the CWSP, a subordinate document, is also supposed to conform to our master Comprehensive Plan which, being on a 10-year cycle, is soon to be revised. To me, the cart is now in front of the horse. To mix metaphors, one can imagine how the tail comes to wag the dog.
In “updating” the CWSP, Rauch will reorganize and reword the whole thing, including reclassifying and remapping every parcel in the County from an antiquated three-tier system into a new six-tier system. Most eyes will glaze over by page four, but every nuanced clause of every section has the potential to be important, ultimately helping some property owners, harming others, often in ways not self-evident. And it all impacts the future of our County.
(Rauch’s description of work says it “will involve extensive evaluation of existing facilities with controlling authorities [e.g., Town of Trappe] and coordination with Planning Commissions, DPW staff, and other vested stakeholders [unclear, but perhaps “vested” refers to Rocks or other developers?]. Italics added.)
Rauch Inc., of course is not delegated the authority to do all this on its own. Rauch will work at the direction of the County Engineer, Mr. Clarke, with whom Rauch has worked closely for over two decades. Ultimately the work—likely a document of a couple hundred pages, with maps, charts and exhibits–will come to the Public Works Advisory Board at some meeting for comment, and to the Planning Commission for approval. So, in theory, it all gets “checked” by these folks….and finally there is public comment (3-minute rule) followed by County Council adoption in, say, 2024.
The issues surrounding the award of this contract are in some respects very complex, but in other ways very simple indeed. A full recounting, elaborating every important point pro and con, would be very long, and is not the purpose of this piece. For now, the Talbot community at least needs to know what has befallen us, and how we got here.
The Bid Process and Award:
To be clear, while specific questions exist, a layman’s quick review of the file (obtained through a PIA request) shows no clear evidence that procedurally the contract was bid or awarded improperly. The County Engineer asserted in a recent meeting that it was all by the book. A request for proposals (“RFP”) was advertised in the Star Democrat and on a website. There was a pre-bid conference. Two (2) qualified bidders submitted proposals—Rauch and a firm from Towson, MD.
In its bid (here) Rauch emphasized the many close ties between the firm and the County that it portrayed as favoring its selection. Mr. Clarke explained to the Planning Commission that the Bids were evaluated by a “Review Committee” made up of Mr. Clarke and two people on his staff. He did not say anyone else was consulted…for example, anyone from the Public Works Advisory Board. Rauch, Inc. was clearly qualified technically, is totally familiar with the County water and sewer systems, and was by far the low bidder. Story over.
It would have been both easy and entirely appropriate to include provisions in the RFP and Contract that would have precluded conflicts of interest and the attendant risks. The result would likely have been elimination of local bidders and a higher contract price. But the benefit would have been the assurance that this important task would be completed without regard to the interests of any party, other than the County itself.
On May 24th Mr. Clarke recommended to the Council that Contract 22-07 be awarded to Rauch, Inc. during the County Manager’s report. With less than 3-minutes of discussion, the Council approved the award to the low bidder. Few if anyone in the public noticed, and Planning Commissioners did not learn of it until passing reference was made (to some considerable surprise) at a meeting two weeks later.
But to approve this arrangement on the basis of “low bid,”–as if there were nothing else bearing on the most important County contract in memory–was to disregard reality and purposefully ignore the obvious risks of conflicts of interest. It’s not as if the problem of conflicts was discussed and then a decision knowingly made; it seems the word “conflicts” was never so much as whispered in the halls of local government.
The Unique Position of Rauch, Inc.
Rauch, Inc. wears many hats in Talbot County. Quoting from the company’s bid, “As the first Talbot County Public Works Director, Bob Rauch, P.E. has a long-established relationship with the County, as the first and youngest Director of Public Works and County Engineer for Talbot County, where he served for six years. His department [note first-person possessive] reviewed, managed, approved and oversaw operations of all County WWTPs…. His historic knowledge and recent projects with the County, contribute to a keen understanding of current and ongoing challenges.”
But now and in the future, Rauch, Inc. also represents many developers and property owners, often involving some of the biggest projects in the County—and that is not at all limited to Rocks Engineering. (Regarding Lakeside, Rauch’s bid includes this: “As part of the Lakeside development project, Rauch, Inc. …was actively involved in amendments, updates and resolutions to the Town of Trappe Water and Sewer Plan… is in the unique position of being the most familiar with the Talbot County W/S plan as it relates to Trappe.”)
In its private work, the company may know about contemplated projects not known to the public. And, the Company, or its principals, or friends and associates, could certainly hold equity interests, directly or indirectly, in properties affected now or in the future by the CWSP.
All of this is obvious to everyone, and there is nothing whatever illegal about it–because the Talbot County Public Ethics Ordinance does not apply to contractors.
About Conflicts of Interest
If you are to believe your eyes and ears (I don’t), it literally never occurred to anyone in the Department of Public Works at any time, nor to anyone attending the County Council meeting of May 24th—which included the County Attorney–that any possible conflict of interest could be relevant to this most important contract.
Everyone else to whom I have spoken, and who knows anything at all about land use regulations, has reacted with dismay and (sometimes) disbelief. Rauch was awarded the contract to rewrite the CWSP that will govern and regulate development in Talbot County, when that firm also represents so many developers large and small?
Rauch, Inc., as contractor, is not bound by the Ethics Ordinance even in such a fraught position. Rauch did not need to disclose who else the firm works for, or what interests the firm and its principals hold which might be impacted by the CWSP. It has no limitation on using information it learns for the benefit of itself or others. I don’t think Talbot County has even confirmed whether or not Rauch, Inc. or its principals are partners in Lakeside in some fashion, as had long been thought. (Rocks’ attorney wrote in August 2021 that “the project has always been, and is still, owned and controlled by the Rocks family.”)
Among the people obviously troubled by this is one of our Planning Commissioners, who probed with a series of question to Mr. Clarke at the July 6th Commission Meeting. She asked, “Was the potential conflict of interest with Rauch Incorporated discussed when evaluating the bid?” The reply: “I don’t kn…I mean that was never… referred [to] as a conflict of interest…I’m not sure where you’re coming with conflict of interest.” Question: “And so there was no perceived conflict of interest?” Reply: “No. No.” Watch the entire exchange yourself, here.
So there you have it. The contract is a done deal. Nothing to worry about.
Dan Watson
The Talbot Integrity Project
J T Smith says
The Community remains indebted to Dan Watson who strives to hold County government to close account. Surely the award of this contract to Rauch under all current circumstances presents either a conflict or a strong appearance of conflict.
Michael Davis says
Thanks Dan for writing this.
The only solution to this is coming up in November. We need to elect new members of the County Council
Dealing with conflict of interest is so easy and standard that it is disheartening that it was ignored for the award of this contract. In the RFP, they should have asked asked bidders to name other customers and to address any real or perceived conflict of interests. A plan to monitor conflict of interest could have been written into the contact statement of work and each bidder could have explained how they would work with the County to implement that plan. Conflict of interest is not a one-time thing. It needs to be part of the whole management of the contract.
This sounds like the Council was more interested in making a quick award than protecting the County from potential fraud
Jerry McConnell says
Good Lord—-Is Ray Clarke (not to mention the Country Council) really that naïve/ stupid to ignore the conflicts Rauch has with any involvement—let alone the sole responsibility for designing and implementing—ANY sort of environmental rule book for this county??
Isn’t Rauch’s connivance with the County Council on behalf of their builder/ developer client(s), I.e., “Rocks”, and others, enough to cancel them from being considered for the CWSP?
Guess not. I’m sure it’s all just an honest mistake. Largest ( only?) pro-growth, deleloper-beholding engineering outfit in Talbot County gets to re-write the rules. As soon as Mr Rauch’s lawyers crank up their chirping section, however, we’ll all hear why what on the surface is so monumentally improper, is really just perfectly honest and wholesome. These are the same “professionals” that got the knuckleheads on the Council several years ago to determine that tiny, 1950’s Trappe, MD was a good place for 5,000 new homes.
Awesome, dudes. This is like hiring the bobcat as the night watchman in the henhouse.
DANNA MURPHY MURDEN says
Just a little food for thought and not at all relevant but I thought you might find interesting. Many many years ago when the Talbot County Council was called Talbot County Commissioners there was talk about making all new waterfront lots 20 acres. Well we all know what happened there— GREED — . But oh how different if things may have been if they had acted on that.
Mr.Watson we can’t Thank You Enough!
Kathleen Carroll says
I always learn more local information from reading Dan Watson than I do from other sources. Great job, Dan!
David Lloyd says
I agree that the real key here is to elect new members to the County Council this November. The current majority has a constant willful ignorance and rejection of the rules of law governing what should be their primary interest: citizens in Talbot County, not special interests that profit from their actions.
Hugh (Jock) Beebe says
Would it be of interest to ask an attorney, at pro bono rate, to review:
2015 Maryland Code
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Title 5 – MARYLAND PUBLIC ETHICS LAW
Subtitle 8 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONS.
Part II – PUBLIC ETHICS LAWS FOR COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
§ 5-808 – Conflict of interest laws
Bob Jones says
Mr. Clake MUST be terminated, immediately. His performance is incompetent and his ethics are highly suspect.
Diana Dardis says
Sickening. Thanks for keeping us informed.
thomas hughes says
Mr. Clark is NOT the problem. I worked with him for years while on the planning commission. Like the planning officer and county attorney, he is an “at will” employee of the county. The majority of the county council can replace any of them at any time. If one wants to keep one’s job, it is generally not a good idea to anger your bosses with facts or opinions counter to theirs.
The problem is that we need at least 3 members on the county council who will preserve the rural character of Talbot County and the quality of life of its citizens. This also underscores the importance of making good appointments to the planning commission who serve five year terms and cannot be replaced at will.
Jamie H Garner says
Nothing to worry about, indeed. Mr. Clarke has been involved with the Lakeside project since its inception and surely knows that Mr. Rauch has also been very involved over the 20+ years of the project no matter whose name is on the principals’ list at the moment. This is another example of the myriad sleight-of-hand maneuvers with which we, who have been following this project, are familiar. Now, as County residents, we are faced with yet another (successful?) attempt to bypass common sense procedures where this mega-development is concerned. It slipped the notice of the vigilant County County Council in placing the award with Mr. Rauch. Only Ms. Ghezzi on the County Planning Commission seemed to take issue with the glaring conflict apparent in the contract having been placed in the hands of someone so heavily involved with the large-scale Lakeside development and other developments to follow in Talbot County. What could possibly be wrong with this? Who is guarding the hen house?
Barbara Denton says
What amazes me is that Mr. Clarke acted so surprised with the intelligent Lisa Ghezzi questioned the potential conflict of interest. His reaction was astonishing. Has he been living under a basket? How well was the RFD advertised? Why didn’t Lane engineering submit a bid? You get what you pay for. Cheap in this instance is a disaster.
Stewart Smith says
Wonderful to have a responsible, intelligent, and energetic citizen such as Dan Watson raising issues of importance to the county—issues evidently ignored by county officials.
In your debt, Dan Watson.