STORYLINE Local Government

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Council members want end to 'unfair advantage' for lobbyists, negotiators

by Brandon Darnell, published on July 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Storyline: Local Government RSS Feed
Community Tags downtown midtown politics

1 of 2
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 2
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image

After a recent Grand Jury report found that two former Sacramento city managers negotiating on behalf of a trash disposal company got a favorable contract that was a financial misstep for the city, City Councilwoman Angelique Ashby said she wants the city to implement a policy that would prevent the scenario from repeating.

Ashby said she wants to come up with a policy that would end what some have called the “revolving door,” where former city employees can join the negotiation or lobbying teams of private businesses.

Critics say their presence gives the private companies an unfair advantage in negotiations.

“When you work for the state and you retire, you can come back as a retired annuitant, but one thing you cannot do is come back as a consultant on subject matter from which you had direct involvement,” Ashby said.

A Sacramento Bee editorial said the trash services contract showed “gross incompetence and shocking indifference to the issues of ratepayer costs or basic fairness in public contracting.”

The Grand Jury stated that the presence of former city managers on the negotiating team influenced some current city employees.

“Lobbying from immediate past city managers was problematic for some city staff,” according to the Grand Jury report.

Councilman Darrell Fong agreed with Ashby on the need to take a look at stopping the “revolving door.”

“People coming back – I have a concern about it,” Fong said. “They leave and reinvent themselves and come back.”

He suggested not allowing former city employees to come back as negotiators for private businesses for a three-year term, but added that it’s early, and there needs to be discussion on whether that is an appropriate amount of time.

Fong said he did not like the solid waste contract from the outset, but he was not on the council when it passed, and he voted against approving the sale of the contract about six months ago.

Ashby added that there are numerous examples the city can develop a new policy around, and any policy would have to allow the city to tap into the “wealth of knowledge” that retired city employees often have, without compromising the city’s position in contract negotiations with private companies.

The contract between the city and BLT Enterprises of Sacramento, Inc. was negotiated in 2010, before Ashby was on the council, and she said the city should put in safeguards to ensure any future contract negotiations aren’t hampered by similar issues.

“It’s imperative that we discuss the Grand Jury findings and modifications to policy to address any issues we have,” she said. “I think there are still some opportunities to turn it into a win for the city of Sacramento.”

The Grand Jury report found other issues with the contract, including the length of the term – it expires in 2032 – and a lack of competitive bidding for it, which the report says is a violation of a city ordinance.

Ashby, who said she did not like the contract, said it’s unfair for her to judge the other council members based on hindsight. When the contract was sold to another waste management service, Ashby said, the city’s legal counsel advised against attempting to renegotiate it.

Calls to the other City Council members were placed Friday and Monday, but council is in a two-week recess and some members could not be reached. Here’s how they have responded so far:

• Rob Fong: His spokeswoman said he refused to comment on the issue.
• Steve Cohn: did not return calls.
• Bonnie Pannell: did not return calls.
• Kevin McCarty: did not return calls.
• Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy is recovering from surgery, according to her office.
• Jay Schenirer was unable to comment on Monday

We will continue to follow up with council members until we have all on the record as to where their views on the Grand Jury report and Ashby’s call for tighter regulations.  

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

July 12, 2012 | 1:15 AM
To at least some extent this is a cop out. Ex-staffers may have an advantage in knowing the system they are now negotiating with/against - but it's still a negotiation and somebody on the other side of the table has to pick a bid and say yes to it.
1 0
REPLY
July 12, 2012 | 8:29 AM
Why are we not seeing who these former city managers are? Are their names being withheld to protect the gulty? By any chance Would this be Ray Kerridge? The amount of bribery, graft and coruption that took place during Kerridge's unfortunate run as city manager (Thank you Mark Freedman) knew no bounds. The illegal building permits in Natomas are just the tip of the iceburg.
1 0
REPLY
July 12, 2012 | 8:50 AM
More research: It was Bill Edgar and Bob Thomas. It is amazing that even the relatively honest former managers would pimp for waste management and stick to their fellow residents so badly. Oh, does anyone know if they live in the city and are subject to the deal they negotiated?
1 0
REPLY
July 12, 2012 | 9:30 PM
What, no appology for the slanderous remarks about Ray Kerridge?
3 2
REPLY
July 17, 2012 | 10:16 AM
Looking forward to reporter's announced follow-up(s?) w/ on-record Councilmember statements AT MINIMUM.
And didn't Edgar "advise" the last Charter Review pony show?
0 0
REPLY
July 17, 2012 | 4:37 PM
The ciy council is as much to blame...after a lack of competitive bidding is a violation of a city ordinance.
1 0
REPLY
August 24, 2012 | 10:32 AM
And how's the article's announced follow-up piece coming along? Council back from recess yet? Attempts to reach named parties in negotiations described in GJ report? Why not? Too many new retail openings (ad potential) taking priority? GRRR.
0 1
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background