Comments on: Paragon Source CEO, State Finance Director Subpoenaed

By: motrctyman

motrctyman — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:07:23 +0000

“The woman lived in Sandra Jansky’s duplex”
I just searched 8368 WEXFORD WAY MONTGOMERY, AL 36117
and these are NOT duplexes. They are newer garden homes.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/8337-Wexford-Way_Montgomery_AL_36117_1108573815?mp=1

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:48:04 +0000

#11. Finance miraculously turned boxes of documents over to the Committee on Friday. You must be on Riley’s payroll. Who else, besides the taxpayers, is getting screwed over this deal?

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:38:27 +0000

#2 and 6. The first contract was never submitted to the Contract Review Committee. It was signed without bids or RFPs after the period when Riley was sneaking all such contracts through AUM’s Center for Outreach and when the Committee told them that all contracts must be submitted. Nobody but Riley approved the first one. The Millers; Bob Childree, former comptroller, and Andy Hornsby, former Finance Asst., were all in attendance at Wednesday’s hearing, along with Ken Wallace and others from Riley’s inner circle. They were petulant/nervous. The woman lived in Sandra Jansky’s duplex. Jansky was the risk manager at Colonial and had a dubious background in Florida banks. Are they connected?

By: CC Dollar

CC Dollar — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:31:41 +0000

really ¿¿

By: Corruption

Corruption — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:43:50 +0000

From what I have heard, the address of this company that apparently only has a pobox and a cell phone, also shares the address with some prominent montgomery/auburn businessman bankowner I believe it was said, that this address is also used on his reportings to the SEC.. Havent researched it further yet, butj ust heard someone typed the address of paragon source into google and found the link

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:21:11 +0000

May be wrong but this appears to have the Millers and Jim Main all over it.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:34:23 +0000

Don’t you think it is strange (and a bit insulting and arrogant) that someone who expects taxpayers to hand them $13 million will not come out in public after repeated requests and explain why they should get our money?

I say we start demanding this contract to be cancelled.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:32:35 +0000

#11 that is my whole point in my post about subcontracting. The Finance Department should have that information, because consent of the state is required for Paragon to hire subcontractors.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:22:11 +0000

What’s the cover up? Holmes requested records from the Finance Department. The Finance Department doesn’t have the records they asked for, so the Dems issue subpoenas. You can’t turn over what you don’t have.

By: Follow The Money

Follow The Money — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:52:49 +0000

And #6 when you double the size of payment, that isn’t “extending” a contract. That constitutes a fundamental change in terms. That isn’t “extending” a contract on this planet. By your definition, if a football player being paid $5 million a year signs a contract upping his salery to $ 10 million per year it is an “extension.” That’s just a bizarre argument.

By: Follow The Money

Follow The Money — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:49:15 +0000

I’m not working for any governor candidate. But I do happen to know that the Governor has met with other Democrat legislative leaders solely about this contract. Why is this so important to him? And why is it so imprtant that nobody connected to the contract talk publicly?

There is no getting around that this stinks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:45:58 +0000

A Republican brought this up for scrutiny, so don’t try and say this is a partisan issue. Bill Johnson thinks its something that needs to be addressed and the governor who won by running against no-bid contracts should have no problem with transparency on any contract.

By: Loyal Independent

Loyal Independent — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:42:10 +0000

It seems a new version of an old story is starting to come to the surface here – it’s not the crime that gets you, but the (attempted) cover-up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:27:31 +0000

They are the same. Extending an existing contract for doing same work. If they were extending your contract, you’d expect them to pay you, right? And, as I said, the Dems had no problem with the contract until it got closer to election time.

Second: the only Dem who said he met with the Governor was Bedford, who said he met with him about other issues, too, and that the Governor didn’t ask him to vote one way or another on the contract. If you’ve read an article that mentions the Governor met with other Democrats, please post the link.

‘Follow,” it sounds like you’re working for another candidate in the GOP primary with your several references to Byrne (who has nothing to do with the subject being discussed). Which just goes to prove my original point: this is all about politics.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:25:44 +0000

As I understand it, the contract with Paragon prohibits subcontracting and assigning without the written consent of the state. Yet Paragon lawyers admit that Paragon subcontracts the work, but they refuse to provide information on the subcontractors. The committees subpoena requires Paragon to turn over information on the subcontractors. It will be very interesting to see who is on that list.