Charter Review Commission
March 20, 2008
Agenda
We will meet in Cleveland City Council’s Committee Room (Room 217)
1) Continued presentation on Finance from a representative of Director Sharon Dumas
2) Civil Service (Chapter 27)
Charter Commission Meeting
March 20, 2008
Chairperson Cleveland called the meeting to order at 8:47 AM and mentioned that there will be a continuation from the Finance Department, as Purchasing Division Commissioner Hardy will finish his discuss on contracts. Commissioner Hardy provided an overview on his presentation last week regarding some of the shortcomings seen in the contracting process. The Finance Department is asking for $50,000 cap for the bidding process. Hardy also provided information regarding the bidding process along with financial information that was requested last week by the Charter Review Commission. The Commissioner also provided an explanation on the document. These are annual numbers according to the Commissioner, who also stated that 50% of the city’s transactions are spent within the city of Cleveland and 80% of the transactions are spent within the greater Cleveland area. There is much effort to keep business within the city of Cleveland.
Every firm must fill out a bid form which usually requires 7 to 8 pages to complete as well as obtaining a bid bond. Public improvement also requires plans and specifications as well, which can also be time consuming. The Commissioner also mentioned that the Division of Purchasing is trying to upgrade the procurement process in order to bring it up to the 21st century. We can get real bids and a more efficient and effective bidding process should these revisions and changes be made.
The Commissioner stated that once you get above $50,000 it becomes more complicated and it becomes more like a construction contract. The amount of paperwork is currently the same for $11,000 as it is for $750,000. Moving the cap to $50,000 would eliminate a lot of paperwork for the businesses and the city. This should, in turn, stimulate competition. Councilperson Kelley mentioned that $50,000 is fairly common and comes up a lot; this is the level that the state uses according to Commissioner Hardy. Hardy also indicated that he looked at other cities in Ohio and across the country and other cities use this format. He also mentioned that the City’s bid bond process has at times been labeled a pay to play system by the business community.
Councilperson Coats mentioned that he tends to think that our budget expenditures really allow the city to further empower businesses and entrepreneurs. Coats mentioned that one of the concerns is regarding participation across the board, which may be possible to bid on projects amounting to $10,000 or $20,000 bids, however it may be difficult for small businesses and others businesses. The smaller the bids are, the more opportunity you allow for smaller businesses to participate in the process. Small businesses can probably encounter difficulty in going for the $50,000 bid.
Commissioner Hardy mentioned that efforts should be made to help develop the businesses and that we should give them opportunities to build up a track record, and we can be a good partner with these businesses. The city can help these companies become bondable and to build up their businesses, which allows them to expand their operations.
Bill Callahan mentioned that he would like to hear more about the process of oversight.
Hardy stated that there is very little value to bringing small bid so the Council. The body still has the opportunity to examine the bids but they create minutia at the table. The transition should make Council more efficient and allow for more time on the more important areas in the purchasing process.
Ken Johnson mentioned that there is a mayor’s emergency when it comes to doing emergency repairs on emergency vehicles, and that it dos not have to sit for five days in order to get done. We have never had a vehicle out of service for 4 or 5 months. Commissioner Hardy mentioned that there is a systemic problem; Ken Johnson indicated that City Council authority for more than $10,000 is being taken away; Council was elected for a reason to scrutinize those items that the city spends money on. Ken Johnson mentioned that he does not want to see this taken away, and there could be a future Mayor who may decide to do things differently which could pose problems. Council is willing to bend, and the limit needs to be adjusted, however, we do not want to give away the bank. You want the Council to have the authority to raise the limit.
Ken Johnson further added that if you want to take it out of the charter just take it out. Ken Johnson mentioned that what the Commissioner is proposing is dangerous and the Council should not have that much authority to raise the limit, because it bring politics into the picture and will make the charter useless.
Vickie Johnson mentioned when would council see what was done under the different bid amounts? This would be done quarterly according to the Commissioner. Councilperson Coats mentioned that Council must be able to do oversight and the buck stops with the council, there should be some movement in the area, and there may be some other measures that should be put into place, council should be able to do oversight.
Chairwoman Cleveland clarified that there is nothing in the Charter regarding the reporting process for Accounts to Council on bids.
Councilperson Coats mentioned that we have always had the emergency situation where the Mayor and the Finance Chairperson would get together and discuss the issue and make the decision.
Ken Johnson cited the example of the tree planting program where Council never saw the project come before it for review and discussion, and was bypassed in the process and the project had cost the city millions of dollars. This is the fear the Councilperson has.
Callahan clarified that there is nothing preventing Council from passing legislation requiring bids under $50,000 to go through the full bid process even if a change was made in the Charter.
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that this is a topic that needs a sub-committee to examine further.
Richard Horvath also added that there are other issues that need to be addressed in this specific area. Richard Horvath mentioned that city could join into cooperative purchases with other entities which could give the city an advantage, the other area is in computer purchases, and Horvath provided an overview on the bidding process for computer purchases and proposed what the changes should be. Council could say that the city does not have to follow competitive bidding for computer purchases, which is something that the state general assembly may allow other cities to do. According to Horvath, there are four parts to this proposal from Finance: (1) moving the cap up from $10,000; (2) granting Council authority to move the cap up again in the future; (3) allowing Cleveland to pair with other governments on purchases without having to adhere to Cleveland’s bid process; and (4) allowing for competitive proposals/purchases rather than sealed bids in areas where market pricing fluctuates and the work specifications cannot be set in stone before work begins, such as in information technologies.
The evolving marketplace and changing technology is something that needs to be considered because it is so complicated and the city needs to have the right to react to such changes by having the flexibility to respond to such conditions.
Most cities have a process in place on how you competitively bid contracts and who decides according to Horvath.
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that a sub-committee is needed to look at the purchasing – Silversten and Britt have volunteered their services for the sub-committee..
Civil Service Commission
Richard Horvath provided an overview on the civil service laws and the charter especially in area of hiring, and the civil service commission. The Unclassified and classified distinction between the two categories was explained to the Commission members. There are three ranks of labor in the City of Cleveland: (1) the competitive/classified class, which is tested; (2) the non-competitive class, which is not tested; and (3) labor specifically spelled out by the Charter and legislation. If changes need to be made, it may be in the areas of who is in un-classified service category. Examinations are provided and, based on exam scores, people are ranked and placed eligibility lists, and when there are no eligibility lists, there can be temporary employees hired for specific time periods.
Richard Horvath mentioned that there are a number of issues in the area of civil service that need to be dealt with.
Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA): Patrick Managan noted that he is the President of the Civil Service Association.
The attorney for the CSEA provided an overview on the CSEA’s proposals.
Employment should be based on merits and qualifications instead of patronage and who you know. The laws safeguard the government. Political bosses awarded jobs to political supporters and family members commented on the spoils system.
Jobs should be awarded on merit and must also be a provision on accountability. Managan mentioned there are six provisions that need to be placed under consideration by the CSEA.
Managan went over each of the provisions that the CSEA would like to see changed.
Phyllis Cleveland mentioned that there are 6 recommended proposals to the charter and mentioned that we may not get through all of them today and will move this into next week’s session. The Chairperson then opened it up for questions.
Why are you proposing these particular proposals?
Pendergast mentioned that public records should be available to the public and that they should be available in the Civil Service Commission for anyone to come in and access these records if they choose to do so.
Ken Johnson raised a question if the current law mandates a public records state law, which stipulates some things? Public records are available to the public issue; the issue is if there anything in the records that we may not be able to give out, we need to look at this. We are bound by law to provide public records; there may be some items that may need to be looked at closely such as medical records, and social security numbers.
Private and privileged information is another issue that needs to be considered as well. The Law department would have to look at this and make a determination on which records can be made public and what other items may not need to be made public according to Robert Triozzi.
Ken Johnson is concerned that something may be given out that should not be given out. Councilperson Kevin Kelley mentioned the operation function in regards to the charter. Look at the management on how we provide records; is this something that we are trying to accomplish as well?
Roosevelt Coats mentioned is there a way to hear both sides in regards to the public request side of the law, there may be some circumstances and would like to hear what they are.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that the administration will be coming in to give their views.
Pendergast stated that people should be able to come in and look at eligibility list without having to make a public records request. Everyone has a right to look at these records.
Robert Triozzi mentioned that part of operation efficiency is to look at how we can move the process of handling public record requests more efficiently, try to speed up the process. We want to get them out as quickly as we can.
Bill Callahan raised a question if there has been history as to experiencing any difficulty in accessing public records, why is it important for CSEA for public records? Pendergast mentioned that private citizens do not have access to lawyer and the change would make access to such records much easier for citizens without going through the law department and making formal requests.
Perdergast mentioned that in the past he personally had trouble getting public records from the city.
Silverstien asked a question what are the reasons why people would want to see lists? Pendergast mentioned that people may want to see the list because they may feel that they were passed over for a position, temporary employees who are still on the payroll well past their deadline date. Speed is of the essence, if someone is hired off the street illegally. The timeframe if too long could pose problems because these employees may not be able to be removed once they have achieved tenure in position. This is reason why speed is of the essence.
Triozzi asked question if people have made specific request for such lists (eligible list), Pendergast mentioned that some eligible list may take too long in acquiring from the city.
Coats raised a question if there is intent to with-hold information. Pendergast does not believe this is so, raised question as to why citizens cannot just walk into civil service and look at eligibility list is a request is made to do so.
Comment was made about examples being provided in relation to each of the proposals that the CSEA is proposing, this would be provided at the next meeting. Chairperson Cleveland also mentioned if the contempt of court order can be provided as well and other pertinent information. Penderggast will provide this information, Cleveland also mentioned if information could be provided beforehand see Commission members would have an opportunity to review it.
Chairperson Cleveland mentioned that this procedure take place every 20 years, and at some point the Charter Review Commission needs to examine whether the 20 year review timeline is too long or needs to be shortened. Next week’s meeting will be held in the Committee room.
Chairperson Cleveland adjourned meeting at 10:30 AM.
|