On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, der.hans wrote:

> Am 07. Jul, 2002 schwätzte Robert Bushman so:
>
> > MC1-902 is a clause in the Maricopa County procurement procedures
> > that provides for the treatment of high-risk vendors, including
> > convicted criminals and companies which engage in illegal business
> > practices. Microsoft is a major vendor to Maricopa County, and has
> > been found in violation of federal anti-trust laws. Does Maricopa
> > County intend to begin the debarment process against Microsoft?
>
> As was suggested Sat we might not want to hit this one at the Mon mtg. We
> want to find out more about the county's dependency issues and rfp issues
> first. The debarment issue might be better for once we've reviewed the
> county's actual policies.
>
> Then again, they know we want to ask it. They certainly already have a canned
> answer. It's certainly not the answer we want, but now I'm the one making
> presumptions :).

When I first read Jim's message I worried about the
same risk. But then I thought maybe it's good to
get an official answer, just as a part of the formal
process. Like you said, they definately know it's
coming.

To make it a little more friendly,
how about changing the last sentence to, "Is Maricopa
County planning to debar Microsoft?" Sounds a little
softer, no spin - just pure slow pitch softball.

> > I think this is what the current questions do - do
> > you agree?
>
> I think the questions you sent out earlier are a better tack. I think the
> discussion will certainly lead to the debarment issue. I'm certain we don't
> want to start with the debarment issue. The RFP is a much better way to
> initiate the Q and A.

I think as long as George says it with a smile,
and makes it apparent that he's just looking
for the official answer, that it won't upset
them.