City documents worth reading

New-Long-Beach-City-Seal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here are some City documents worth reading. Please review and let me know your comments.

Here are links to several city documents just recently sent to the City Council which residents should read:

City of Long Beach Tree Maintenance Policy
Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee -- Call for Nominations

Housing Long Beach Report to City
Closure of Redondo Post Office
Announced Retirement of City Attorney Robert Shannon

Get Ready for the Push for a Private Public Partnership In Long Beach to Rebuild a Civic Center -- Experts Say These Arrangements May Be New Subprime Problem that Caused Mortgage Meltdown

Cartagena is one of the Colombian cities whose water supply is provided by a mixed public-private company. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There are many ways in which the public sector can work with the private sector for the benefit of both. But the push across the US to form "public-private partnerships" or "P3s" is raising concern of some who see this new way to finance public infrastructure as the next "subprime" problem that caused the mortgage meltdown in this county.

Our current Mayor and some of the City Council are supportive of possibly rebuilding the current City Hall and Main Library using a P3.

Before this goes too far, the public needs to know about P3s and why they aren't all they cracked up to be.

In his paper: "The Political‐Economics of Private Infrastructure Finance:  The New Sub Prime 
Elliott Sclar, Professor of Urban Planning, Director, Center for Sustainable Urban Development,  The Earth Institute at Columbia University (http://csud-admin.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/ACSP%20Paper_final.pdf) notes that the same financial institutions which were part of the economic crash caused in part by subprime lending have: 

"fallen in love with public infrastructure. They're smitten by the rich cash flows that roads, bridges, airports, parking garages, and shipping ports generate—and the monopolistic advantages that keep those cash flows as steady as a beating heart.  Firms are so enamored, in fact, that they're beginning to consider infrastructure a brand new asset class in itself. (Thornton, 2007)"

Sclar notes that this has negative impact on "democracy."  Sclar writes: "When infrastructure is 
privatized (or corporatized), the decisions about its size, shape and placement are driven by market demand. The private partners are interested in elements of infrastructure that can yield the longest and strongest streams of privately capturable revenue not the ones that yield the largest public benefits. "

A much more disturbing article on the negative impact of P3s on "democracy" was penned by Ellen Dannin in "Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance "(http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=njlsp)

Dannin reviewed numerous public-private-partnership agreements and found: 

"Our decision-making processes and ways of thinking about privatization and
infrastructure are proving unequal to the complexity and long-term effects of transferring public infrastructure to private hands. It is urgent that we change the terms of this discussion quickly, before contracts have locked away so much of our infrastructure that we have can no longer make critically important policy decisions outside the straitjacket contract terms impose on our legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. 

 We must, therefore, replace our constricted focus on “dollars and driving, public versus private” with appropriate substantive and procedural principles and processes in order to achieve our articulated goals. Issues that have emerged as important to this discussion include (1) protecting the public welfare; (2) ensuring value for money; (3) taking all contingencies into account; (4) establishing principles to justify the inclusion of each contract term; (5) demonstrating the superiority of privatization over public provision; and (6) establishing a process that ensures all relevant information is presented and properly evaluated. Each of these principles is easy to articulate and should have broad—but not unanimous—support. The difficulty will be in unpacking their content and identifying the contentious issues each presents. Achieving those goals requires a participatory and open-ended process, one that extends into the future. What can be done here is to lay the groundwork by briefly articulating issues related to each of these principles, examining pending proposals concerning infrastructure privatization, and, finally, considering whether those proposals provide a satisfactory way to deal with the complex issues that lie at the intersection of public and private provision of infrastructure."

Dannin (and I echo her sentiments) concludes: 

"Political leaders ignore the public interest at their peril. Reactions discussed throughout this Article have shown that when the citizenry has been kept in the dark and when the public interest has been ignored, people have been deeply indignant. They are likely to be concerned that a fair process be used in making such an important decision. It is possible that people may decide that privatizing public infrastructure is the best alternative for many reasons. They may also decide to reject agreements that put infrastructure, paid for with public funds, under private control. People may also reject contracts that give such strong protection for contractor revenues and place limits on governmental decision making. Without information, however, people cannot meaningfully participate in these important decisions."

Before the City of Long Beach goes any further with discussions about using a P3 for our City Hall and Main Library -- there needs to be extensive public discussion to make sure it is clear that we know what we would be getting our City into if we went down that road.

Related articles

• New public-private partnership bill for infrastructure projects signed into law
• City Council proposal would end direct city investment in business projects
• PennDOT open to privatization ideas

Why Agenda Item on Using Outside Experts to Analyze City Payroll Systems

Since joining City Council in 2006, I have pushed consistently for City Management to procure an automated time keeping system: A system that makes city employees check in every day when they come and when they leave. Most major organizations that employ close to 5,000 have a system. The City of Long Beach does not.

Such a system gives an employer important information -- such as who is at work and who isn't; who works their full shift and who doesn't. It also protects the employer because it documents when lunches are taken -- failure to do so puts the company at risk for a law suit from many employees who contend they never received their lunch break. (see below under related articles).

This automated system also gives the employer the ability to make schedules and assignments.; to track vacation and sick leave, etc. Employees are given a card to swipe or a code to use on the telephone. The system tracks work and ensures the employees are actually there at work doing their jobs for the number of hours they claims.

The City of Long Beach does not have such a system. Time keeping is done on green sheets of paper each week that are hand-written and given to staff whose job it is to put the information into a computer program.
The information is then sent to a payroll company that processes paychecks.

If we were to have an earthquake tomorrow. No one could tell how many city employees were actually at work.

That is insane in this day and age of technology.

Finally a year or so ago, City management put out a request for proposals for a human resources system. What they got back were program after program that offered numerous bells and whistles. Sadly, the City had not clearly indicated what it actually was seeking and so it received proposals that were all over the place. Consequently, the City pulled the RFP and nothing was selected and the manual costly system stayed in place.

ADP Government Services were one of the responders to the RFP and contact my council office saying that I should know what happened in the process and why there were serious problems. I met in my council office with two ADP representatives who explained that it was clear to them the the City did not have the expertise to clearly specify what kind of system was needed and that moreover, the City could not tell how much current systems used by the City cost. The reps felt (and I agreed) it was important that the City know what our current system costs to determine how to select and new one that should save the city money. However, it you don't have a benchmark, you can't set a goal.

ADP Government Services reps indicated that they contract with another company who can do a study to determine the "total cost of ownership" of current systems. In other words, they can determine how much per employee it is costing the city per month to track employees' work, to manually input time sheets and then to get a paycheck processed.

I sent this information to the City Manager and I did not hear back. So I met with Councilman Gary DeLong and told him of the possibility for the City to get an analysis done so we could determine a benchmark as we go out for a new system. Councilman DeLong and I met again with ADP Government Services and city staff from Financial Management, Information Technology and the City Manager's office. It was understood from that meeting that City staff would work with ADP to  have the no cost analysis done.

Several weeks later, I chaired a meeting of the Civil Service and Personnel Committee and asked for an update. I was told that our Financial Management Department had indicated it would not participate in this analysis.

Councilmember Gary DeLong and I decided to place the issue on the Council agenda so that the entire City Council could decide should the city avail itself of a no cost analysis of the costs of our current systems.
City management thereupon (that's a big legal transition word) went to the City Attorney and prevailed on him to write a memo in opposition of the proposed analysis on the basis that it would supposedly give ADP an advantage on future RFPs.

Really? This is very interesting in light of City Management's recent actions: 1) without an RFP it used Management Partners to identify efficiencies needed and then asked for $500,000 for Management Partners to do a more thorough study -- all without ever asking for other companies to bid on this effort; 2) without an RFP it spent $80,000 for a "feasibility study" of a tunnel between the new courthouse and the jail. It gave that work to AECOM which had already examined this issue some time ago and then the City Manager gave AECOM another $986,000 to design the tunnel (that would not be built) that AECOM had studied and found "feasible." There wasn't an RFP or any other company given a chance to bid on the design.

So let's be clear on what Mr. DeLong and I are proposing:

1. The City needs an analysis by experts in the field of human resources systems to determine what it is costing the city currently to process time keeping, payroll, leaves, vacations, etc.
2. ADP Government services will contract with a third party to conduct the analysis. All the information obtained will be public and available to the City as well as other companies who bid to provide the actual new systems that will be needed.
3. The City is under no obligation to select ADP for any system purchase.

Also full disclosure:

1. I have no financial interest in ADP Government Services.
2. I have never received nor would accept any political contribution from anyone associated with ADP.
3. All my meetings with ADP representatives have been posted on my calendar and held in City Hall.
4. I don't really care which outside experts conduct an analysis of our current systems and how much they are costing the taxpayer. I just want it done so we can start implementing costs savings and efficiencies into City Hall that should have been done years ago. 

P.S. No one inside City Hall can tell me how much it costs the city/taxpayers to keep track of employees' time and to process paychecks.

Related articles

• Dollar Tree employees sue over "off the clock" work
• Hyundai Sued Over Hourly Workers' Lunch Breaks, Overtime - Bloomberg
• The Benefits of Automating Time & Attendance Management

Time for Long Beach to Ban Campaign Contributions from Contractors and Disclose Private Texts with Lobbyists During Council

California Watch (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Long Beach Needs to Ban Contributions From Lobbyists and Contractors, Make Elected Officials Disclose Conversations Before Vote Including Texts and Emails During Council and Disclose Private Text Messages or Other Electronic Communications About City Business

by Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske

As part of “Open Up Long Beach” – a project to make the City of Long Beach more open and transparent, I monitor the efforts of organizations that are working on transparency in government, such as the Sunlight Foundation. Recently, that organization announced that the District Court in the District of Columbia upheld the long time ban on political contributions from any person negotiating or performing a federal government contract stating:

The ban on such contributions guards against “pay-to-play” arrangements, in which people seeking federal contracts provide financial support to political candidates in return for their help securing government business. It also protects such contractors from pressure to contribute or risk losing their work.  

The Court further stated that it was not the “courts’ practice to “‘second-guess a … [legislative] determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared’.”

It seems then it might be time for the City of Long Beach to enact a similar contribution ban. Conceivably, that ban could be applied to those who seek approval for a development, an entertainment permit or those who are lobbying for a specific ordinance. Some would argue that it should extend to employee unions who are under contract with the City.

I was particularly taken back when year ago on February 14, the City Council voted on whether or not to ban operation of medical marijuana collectives.

Why? Because in excess of $8,000 had poured into the campaign and officeholder accounts of several council members from businesses and lobbyists representing the medical marijuana industry. Now that may not sound like a lot of money. But considering that contributions are limited to $350 for a campaign and $500 for an officeholder account, this is a considerable sum.

City Attorney Robert Shannon told the City Council over the past several months that we needed to ban the operation of medical marijuana collectives because the court ruled on a case specifically involving the City of Long Beach’s regulation of medical marijuana collectives. The court held that the City cannot regulate that which is illegal. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. A ban not only impacts access to medical marijuana by residents but stops an extremely lucrative revenue stream for those who operate the collectives. Some of these lobbyists who gave contributions also sent Council members language they wanted inserted into the City’s ordinance – a fact never disclosed during the discussion or the vote.

Long Beach should handle this situation in one of two ways: Either ban the contributions from anyone who is negotiating with the City or doing work for the City and/or require the elected official to disclose before voting at City Council if he or she has received a contribution and a statement that he or she does not believe there is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

Several cities have enacted laws which disqualify a council member from participating in decisions affecting his or her campaign contributors. These laws disqualify the council member from participating in certain proceedings if the official has received campaign contributions from a party, participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the decision. They also require disclosure on the record of the proceeding of all campaign contributions received from these persons during that period. In addition, these laws prohibit solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions during such proceedings, and for three months after the decision, from parties, participants or their agents.

The voters of the City of Los Angeles enacted changes to their charter in 2011 that create new campaign contribution restrictions on contractors bidding on contracts with the City. They have prohibited making campaign contributions to any elected City office, candidate for elected City office, or City committee controlled by an elected City official or candidate if the contract requires approval of the Council and the contract requires approval by the elected City office that is held or sought by the person to whom the contribution would be given. (In LA, the ban starts with contracts worth $100,000 or more.)

It is time that Long Beach strengthened our campaign finance laws by either prohibiting campaign contributions from those trying to do or actively doing business with the City and by requiring elected officials to publicly disclose before they take a vote whether or not they have received any contributions from anyone benefiting from a council vote.

Additionally, just this week the City Council of San Jose unanimously passed an ordinance requiring themselves to disclose if a lobbyist contacts a councilmember by text, email or handwritten note during a public meeting and to announce the identity of the lobbyist and the subject of the communication before it comes to a vote.

Another major development regarding texts and emails came last week with a court ruling that San Jose City Councilmembers’ private text messages, emails and other electronic communications about city affairs must be made public.

The City Council can pass these legislative items to increase openness and transparency or the voters can gather signatures to place a package of reforms on the ballot in the next general election. In either case, Long Beach needs to move forward on this issue.

Related articles

• Judge Rules That San Jose Officials' Private Texts About City Affairs Be Made Public
• Judge: Public-records law covers private devices

Schipske's Open Up Long Beach Efforts Highlighted in Statewide Report

California Forward, a nonpartisan, non profit organization whose mission is to bring government closer to the people has highlighted the efforts of Long Beach Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske in its “State of Transparency in California: 2013” report.

The report, which is an analysis that explores the core issues of governmental accountability and transparency in California, was released this week to coincide with Sunshine Week, which is an initiative promoting dialogue about the importance of having an open government and being able to access public information. Three cities are highlighted as “City Hall Success Stories in Public Engagement” in the report. The first story discusses the efforts of Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske to make Long Beach more open, transparent and accountable:

Long Beach Launches “Open Up Long Beach” In January of 2012 Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske of the City of Long Beach took public education and transparency efforts one step further. Her initiative “Open Up Long Beach” provides residents with increased access to the city’s every day affairs and includes opportunities to learn about what individual council members are working on, what committees they sit on and what projects they spearhead. The project combines an online resource with “Open Up Long Beach” community meetings.

“I am very honored that California Forward has acknowledged ‘Open Up Long Beach’,” says Schipske. “I agree that with so many difficult decisions facing local government that the demand and need for transparency is great. I am doing what I can to make certain that Long Beach is open, transparent and accountable.”

Schipske frequently writes on her two blogs (www.openuplongbeach.com and www.gerrieschipske.com) , Facebook and Belmont Shore Patch on the issues before city council  and posts city documents that provide readers with background information on the issues. She also sends email alerts on events and issues and has launched a “behind the scenes” tour of city operations to give residents a closer look at how their government and its agencies operate. To date, Open Up Long Beach has visited: the oil islands, SERRF waste to energy plant, the Emergency Operations Center, the Long Beach Health and Human Services department and laboratories, and the inter workings of the Aquarium of the Pacific. Schipske was the first councilmember to post her schedule on line and to provide a 24/7 problem/complaint system on the city website.

The complete “State of Transparency in California:2013” report can be downloaded by clicking http://www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/the-state-of-transparency-in-california-2013

International Sunshine Week -- Making Government Transparent

Sunshine Week (Photo credit: Free Press Pics)

Government transparency is the cornerstone of democracy.  As such, it is our collective responsibility to protect our right to a government that is open, and whose business is the business of the people it serves.  Similarly, it is the responsibility of state and local elected officials to work to actively increase the public’s access to public information, to provide opportunities for citizen participation in key decision-making processes and report the results of those decisions back out to constituents.

Governments that create pathways for citizens’ effective engagement and participation typically learn that doing so, enables them to enhance their own performance; by using public feedback to guide their decisions, government leaders can fund and implement programs and services that are reflective of the public’s interest and that are highly impactful at improving their overall quality of life.

I am writing today because this week is International Sunshine Week—an initiative dedicated to educating the public about the importance of open government. As such, I would like to reassert my commitment to fostering a transparent government.

Here in Long Beach, I have been working to identify solutions for increasing government transparency and exploring opportunities that will encourage collaboration and innovation. In January of last year, I led the launch of “Open Up Long Beach,” a government transparency website that aims to provide residents with access to important information, including city budget documents, council agenda items, City departments, and other important resources. 

My council colleagues and I have also initiated several online applications that serve as dynamic two-way communication channels between residents and city staff and implemented new open government policies, requiring that all city contracts be posted online.

California Forward, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, is just one of the many groups throughout the state that are working to bring government closer to the people. This week, they are launching their “Government Transparency Portal,” an online tool that residents can use to access information about the inner workings of their local government as well as others throughout the state.

With the increased use of technology and the internet as well as of dozens of other online innovations, there’s no reason not to be more open and transparent, especially now in the digital age. I support open, transparent local government, and I encourage you to do the same.

Related articles

• White House celebrates 'Sunshine Week' for open government by keeping a butt-ton of secrets
• Sunshine Week: FOIA and the most transparent administration in history
• Sunshine Week: In Celebration of Civic Engagement

Politician Sets up Bogus Committee for State Treasurer to Have Slush Fund

Money for Nothing (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine getting a solicitation to contribute to a campaign for State Treasurer and then finding out the politician had no intentions of running for State Treasurer but wanted some way to get funds that he could use on another campaign which would result in going around campaign limits!

Well it seems this is all too common. While we have specific limitations on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign there is this gimmick going around in some political circles where politicians set up a number of campaign accounts and solicit contributions for all "campaigns" and then "donate" the funds from the campaign they are not pursuing to the real campaign they are. This allows donors to essentially give twice -- once to the phony campaign and once to the real. Consequently, this has created large political slush funds. But because these campaign reports are filed separately it is difficult for the public to track the double contributions.

This practice was highlighted in the Sacramento Bee as it detailed how Assemblyman Dan Logue set up a committee for State Treasurer and then admitted to the press, that he wasn't really running for State Treasurer but in fact raising money for other campaigns. (Most politicians never publicly admit that they didn't have a chance in hell of running for a statewide office because after all it might stop the contributions.)

We need to stop this practice because it creates political slush funds and makes a mockery out of campaign contribution limits. Most importantly it fails to provide the public with transparency about campaign finance.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/02/dan-logue-eyes-2014-treasurer-run-leno-goes-for-lt-gov-in-2018.html

Related articles

• Capitol Alert: Logue opens state treasurer committee, but not to run for post