Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from California State Association of Counties - AB 1250 Call to Action, Latest Developments Menchaca, Clarissa From: Bennett, Robin Sent: Thursday,August 31, 2017 1:02 PM To: Hahn, Paul Cc: McCracken, Shari; Menchaca, Clarissa Subject: FW: AB 1250 Call to Action, Latest Developments Attachments: SEIU Email to Legislators What do Counties Have to Hide.pdf;Transparency in Contracting Current Law.docx;AB 1250 Talking Points Rumor Amends 08.30.17 FINAL.DOCX See the atutched BBS correspondence from CSAC. requesting AlCA"ION. RoblIn Bennett. (530) 872-6304 i-beiiiiett(,4,bitttecouti,tv.rtet Biate (.'.'outqy Supervisors Qf lice Stipert4sor Doug Teetel", Board of,Sttpervisors, Distriv ,,5 7117 Elliott Road Paradise, C,f 5969 From: Matt Cate (mailto:mcate@counties.org) Sent:Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:23 AM To: Matt Cate<mcate@colunties.org> Cc: DeAnn Baker<dbaker@counties.org> Subject: AB 1250 Call to Action, Latest Developments To: County Supervisors From: Matt Cate, CSAC Executive Director DeAnn Baker, CSAC Deputy Executive Director, Legislative Affairs RE: No on AB 1250—Call to Action, Breaking Developments Counties are urged to contact your Senators and Assembly Members immediately following the latest developments on AB 1250, the de facto contracting ban bill. Resources provided in this email include: 1) SEIU Hit Piece Delivered to Legislators 2) Outline of Transparency in Contracting Laws for Counties 3) Talking Points in Response to Expected Amendments SEW Hit Piece Fraudulently Calls Out CSAC County Practices CSAC obtained a copy of the latest SEIU hit piece (below and attached)that was emailed to all Legislators. It claims that we are behind a misleading and deceptive campaign to keep county contracting practices in the dark. it also mentions that counties are involved in "billions of dollars in questionable contracts". The message is part of the false narrative that the sponsors push in the Capitol claiming counties lack sufficient transparency when awarding contracts when in reality, rather than targeting transparency, the bill is about severely restricting the abi'lity of counties to contract out for 1 vital services. Please note,they make a reference to examples but their document was corrupted and cannot be opened. We have provided a document"Transparency in Contracting" (attached)that provides an outline of existing state statute and requirements that apply to all counties when contracting out for services.We are also aware that counties have adopted additional transparency and accountability measures locally that apply to your contracting procedures. Please reach out and express this to your delegation and cite examples of legitimacy in contracting out for critical services. Anticipated Amendments Do Not Change Core Problems with AB 1250 Draft amendments to AB 1250 appear to make substantive changes but in reality do very little to change the impact of the bill or ease any of our concerns. CSAC has a conceptual outline of the amendments planned for the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this Friday September 1, which will likely be "in print" by September 5. It is important to note that with the amendments: 1) Nothing changes the prescriptive cost analysis requirement that combined with other provisions would significantly restrict counties ability to contract out 2) AB 1250 would NOT be limited to only new contracts despite intent of sponsors 3) 2011 Realignment programs would NOT be exempt from the AB 1250 requirements 4) Private employee names and wages would STILL be subject to the Public Records Act We have provided talking points in response to the anticipated amendments.These can be used in your conversation with Legislative Offices.The sponsors may scramble to take additional amendments on the Senate Floor given the technical and core policy problems that persist with the bill, but these will not provide any comfort to our service providers,the public dependent on county services nor reduce the harm this bill creates. Next Steps and Reporting Back The status of AB 1250 may rapidly change. We ask that you please report back to CSAC the status of your conversations with Legislators or questions/requests for information that may come up so we can be helpful with responses. Thank you for your continued efforts to stop AB 1250.Additional resources and materials are available on the coalition website,www.stopabl250.com. Below is the email sent from SEIU to legislators. -------------------- Subject: AB 1250: What Do Counties Have to Hide? The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) has been spending more time and money protecting the status-quo of county contracting practices than they've ever spent to secure funding for critical services such as foster care, public safety, indigent health and others. But they've organized a misleading and deceptive campaign against AB 1250 (Janes-Sawyer) by claiming that county contracting will halt under the bill and that important specialized services that non-profits provide will come to an end. That is just false. By making the non-profits the face of their campaign they are hoping to avoid the scrutiny of billions of dollars in questionable contracts. These contracts have left taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in cost-overruns and stuck communities with shoddy services. 2 What do they have to hide? Attached are two documents that provide a snapshot of what they have to nide: pay-to-play contracts, cost over-runs, broken promises, fraud, compromised public health and safety, as well as other ethical improprieties. The attached documents are not exhaustive but a brief survey given the lack of public information available on county contracting. Why should counties be exempt from the contracting rules that other government entities that receive large sums of state dollars comply with? There is no reason other than they don't want to be meaningfully accountable to the public. Matt Cate Executive Director California State Association of Counties® 1100 K Street,Ste. 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-7500 x506 mc_ate_@counties.org www.csac.counties.org 3 Subject: AB 1250: What Do Counties Have to Hide? The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) has been spending more time and money protecting the status-quo of county contracting practices than they've ever spent to secure funding for critical services such as foster care, public safety, indigent health and others. But they've organized a misleading and deceptive campaign against AB 1250 (Jones-Sawyer) by claiming that county contracting will halt under the bill and that important specialized services that non-profits provide will come to an end. That is just false. By making the non-profits the face of their campaign they are hoping to avoid the scrutiny of billions of dollars in questionable contracts. These contracts have left taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in cost- overruns and stuck communities with shoddy services. What do they have to hide? Attached are two documents that provide a snapshot of what they have to hide: pay-to-play contracts, cost over- runs, broken promises, fraud, compromised public health and safety, as well as other ethical improprieties. The attached documents are not exhaustive but a brief survey given the lack of public information available on county contracting. Why should counties be exempt from the contracting rules that other government entities that receive large sums of state dollars comply with? There is no reason other than they don't want to be meaningfully accountable to the public. Transparency in County Contracting Existing Authority and Requirements Provided In State Statute I. Statutory Authority A. General Contracting Authority 1. A county may make contracts necessary to the exercise of its powers. (Government Code Section 23004) 2. A county may only exercise its powers through a board of supervisors or though agents and officers acting under authority of the board or authority conferred by law. (Government Code Section 23005) 3. Any contract, authorization, allowance, payment, or liability to pay, made or attempted to be made in violation of law, is void, and shall not be the foundation or basis of a claim against any county. (Government Code Section 23006) B. Purchasing Agents I. A county board of supervisors may employ a purchasing agent to enter into contracts up to specified limits. (Government Code Sections 25500 through 25509) 2. In counties with a population of less than 200,000: a. the BOS may authorize the purchasing agent to engage independent contractors to perform services for the county or county officers when the annual aggregate cost does not exceed $50,000. 3. In counties with a population of more than 200,000: a. the BOS may authorize the purchasing agent to engage independent contractors to perform services for the county or county officers when the annual aggregate cost does not exceed $100,000. II. Statutory Requirements A. Public Records Act - Contracts as Public Records 1. The Request for Proposal (RFP) materials are-public records and subject to disclosure. (Government Code Sections 6252, 6253.) a. Note: While negotiations are in progress the bid materials may be confidential. (Gov. Code 6255; Michaelis, Montonori&Johnson v. Superior Court(2006) 38 CalAth 1065.) 2. Final contracts are generally disclosable under the California Public Records Act. (Government Code Sections 6252, 6253) 3. Under the Public Records Act,the public agency must respond within 10 days or provide notification if the information cannot be disclosed. (Government Code Section 6253 (c)) Agencies may not charge for a public record beyond the cost of producing the document, with limited exceptions if new data retrieval is required. (Government Code Section 6253.9) B. Brown Act—Board Action in Public Meetings 1. Any contract required to go to the Board of Directors must be heard in a public meeting subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. (Government Code Section 54954.2) 2. Agenda and materials must be posted in a publicly accessible place as well as the county website 72 hours in advance of the public meeting. (Government Code Section 54954.2) 3. Opportunities for public comment on items under the jurisdiction of the county must be offered. (Government Code Section 54954.3) 4. Members of the public may request any materials from a public meeting. (Government Code Section 54954.1) C. Meyers-Milias-Brown Act—Meet and Confer 1. The contracting out of work performed by County employees who are represented by labor organizations is subject to the meet and confer requirements under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. (Government Code Section 3500 et seq.) a. Prior to contracting out work performed by represented employees, the MMBA requires counties to notify the affected unions and meet and confer with the unions upon request prior to contracting out. (Government Code Section 3505). AB 1250 Talking Points on Rumored Amendments (as of August 30) Bottom Line: • Rumored amendments fail to address our core concerns with AB 1250: - Undermines county discretion to serve communities; - Diminishes or simply stops service delivery, including safety net services; - Restricts county authority to contract with non-profits, community based organizations and private providers when the slanted cost-benefit analysis for potential contracts do not demonstrate savings. Explanation of Amendments: 1) Proposition 30 (2011 Public Safety Realignment) We understand amendments would add boilerplate language consistent with the current constitutional provisions of Proposition 30 that would shift the cost of preparing the cost- benefit analysis from counties to the state for 2011 realigned programs. • The "Prop 30 amendment" is not a carve out for 2011 realignment or public safety programs. They are still subject to all the requirements in the bill. • It simply means the State is on the hook for the higher county costs created by AB 1250 for Prop 30 related contracts. (Examples: mental health, drug courts, adult protective services, juvenile justice, community corrections) • The Prop 30 language simply restates what is already provided for in the Constitution. It's standard boiler plate language. It would apply regardless if it was explicitly written in the bill or not. 2) Santa_Clara County Amendment for Health and Hospital Systems Contracts We understand amendments would provide an exemption for Santa Clara County's health and hospital systems contracts. • The author pledged to take this amendment during the Senate Governance and Finance Committee hearing in July. • Santa Clara is the only county given a specific carve out for health and hospital contracts. (The City and County of San Francisco was previously exempted entirely from the bill when the cities were removed.) 3) Renewals and Extensions of Existing Contracts We understand amendments would strike language in an attempt to claim that the bill would not apply to renewals and extensions of current contracts. • The amendment striking Section (g)that explicitly applies to renewals and extensions only addresses a technical drafting error. Language in Section (a) remains, which does not limit the bill to new contracts. An explicit exemption would be needed in order to avoid potential litigation over the application to renewals and extensions. • The phrase "currently or customarily performed by" is a not a limiting term that makes AB 1250 only apply to new contracts. • Decades of civil service constitutional, statutory and case law says that "customarily performed by" means if the public agency has employees that could do the work,then it is work considered to be customarily performed by county employees. It doesn't have anything to do with whether it is a new contract or an extension/renewal of an existing contract. • Even if renewals and extensions were exempt,this bill would be just as devastating. New contracts with service providers are regularly needed to implement programs now underway (No Place Like Nome, Continuum of Care Reform) not to mention future programs developed by state or local policy makers. • Finally,there are major implications for how "existing contracts" may be treated as new contracts in the effort to update or modify contracts based on evolving needs. 4) Contractor Claims, Charges and Complaints Reporting Removed We understand amendments would remove a requirement on contracted service providers who, under AB 1250, must report to counties the past charges, claims or complaints brought against the contractor when bidding on a county contract. • This is just one requirement on service contractors in a long list of that creates a chilling effect for non-profits, community based organizations and private providers. • AB 1250 will still require service providers to share the names and wages of their employees and subcontracted employees on a monthly basis with counties.This information will be a public record, which raises serious privacy concerns and added costs to contracting.