LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee meeting was held on August 25, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. with Chairman Slavin presiding. Members present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Salters, Dr. Jones, and Mr. Shevock. Other members of Council present were Mrs. Russell, Mr. Leary, Mr. McGiffin, Mrs. Williams, Mr. Ruane, and Council President Hogan.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Slavin requested the deletion of agenda item #1 - Dependent Vision Coverage (to be considered during a future meeting).

Dr. Jones moved for approval of the agenda, as amended, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.

Independent Accountant Report (Haggerty & Haggerty)

During their meeting of February 25, 2008, members were provided the Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed Upon Procedures pertaining to the Dover Fire Department prepared by Haggerty & Haggerty, Certified Public Accountants and Management Consultants, and accepted the Report, with the understanding that the Fire Chief and Finance Director will report back to the committee within two (2) to four (4) weeks with a set of procedures that will be beneficial to all parties involved.

Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, advised members that several meetings were held and the agreed upon procedures were reviewed and agreed upon with the City Manager. She provided members with several solutions developed by staff members of the Finance Department, Central Services, and the Fire Department. At the request of the Fire Chief, Council President Hogan and Councilman Slavin met with the Fire Chief and the President of Robbins Hose Company to discuss this issue on July 3, 2008.

Staff recommended acceptance of the agreed upon procedures.

As a result of some discrepancies, Council President Hogan advised members that he, along with the City Manager, met with several members of the Fire Department to review the procedures. All participants agreed upon procedures 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. He stated that there were unresolved issues with 1, 3, and 4 and that the Fire Department submitted alternative recommendations (Attachment #1). Council President Hogan noted that item #3 of the Fire Department’s Recommendations should not have been listed since it was agreed upon. He also noted that an alternative Action Form, dated August 25, 2008 (Attachment #2), has been submitted by the Fire Department.

At the request of Mr. Slavin, Fire Chief Carey clarified that the Fire Department will only agree to Option 1 of the Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures by Haggerty & Haggerty.

Mr. McGlumphy recommended approval of staff’s recommendation for acceptance of the agreed upon procedures as listed on the Action Form submitted by Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Salters.

Responding to Mrs. Williams, Fire Chief Carey indicated that if Option 1 of the Independent Accountant’s Report is rejected, the membership of the Fire Department has requested to be provided a letter explaining their reasons.

Referring to Option 1, Dr. Jones questioned what the Fire Department views as the City’s role in terms of accountability for the funds once they are allocated by the City. Fire Chief Carey declined to respond, explaining that he was directed to bring Option 1 to members and request a response if it were rejected.

Mr. Ruane noted that the Action Form provided by the Controller/Treasurer indicates that staff’s recommendation is a result of several meetings with the Fire Chief and consists of agreed upon procedures. Responding, Mr. Slavin explained that when the meetings were held, each representative was attempting to come to an agreement for those they serve. He reminded members that the Fire Chief is elected by the membership of the Fire Department and that this membership does not concur with the agreed upon procedures and requested that the Fire Chief submit an alternative. He explained that the Fire Chief’s representation at the meetings was similar to that of Council President Hogan and himself. There was an agreement, in principle, between those that met; however, there was an understanding they would present the agreed upon procedures to those they represent.

The motion to approve staff’s recommendation for acceptance of the agreed upon procedures as listed on the Action Form submitted by Mrs. Mitchell, Controller/Treasurer, failed by a roll call vote of three (3) no, one (1) yes (Mr. McGlumphy) and one (1) abstention (Dr. Jones).

Mr. Salters moved to recommend that negotiations continue between the Fire Department, including the Controller/Treasurer and the members of Council who initiated the discussion, and come back at a future meeting of the committee for a final resolution of this matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shevock.

Mr. Slavin moved to amend the motion to require that those members of council participating be appointed by Council at their next meeting and be given authority to represent Council, seconded by Mr. Shevock.

Responding to Dr. Jones, Mr. Slavin suggested that the Fire Department would select their representatives to participate in the negotiations. Dr. Jones relayed concern that if a number of representatives of the Fire Department are not participants, the matter will not be resolved.

Chief Carey suggested that Council write a letter to the Fire Department explaining why Option 1 was rejected. Once received, the Fire Department would then make any necessary decisions.

Mrs. Williams questioned why members would reject Option 1 when it is no different than the Federal Government granting money to the City. Although she does not feel that it is the City’s responsibility to micro-manage the Fire Department, she felt that it is the City’s responsibility to assure that the monies provided to them are spent as dutifully as intended.

The motion to amend the motion by requiring that those members of council participating be appointed by Council at their next meeting and be given authority to represent Council was carried with Mr. McGlumphy voting no.

The motion recommending that negotiations continue between the Fire Department, including the Controller/Treasurer and Council, and that those members of Council participating be appointed by Council at their next meeting and be given authority to represent Council for a report back at a future meeting of the committee for a final resolution of this matter, was carried with Mr. McGlumphy voting no.

Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend that the negotiating principles are the eight (8) points found on the action form submitted by the Controller/Treasurer, seconded by Dr. Jones and unanimously carried.

Mr. McGlumphy moved to recommend denial of Option #1 of the Independent Accountant's Report, seconded by Dr. Jones and carried with Mr. Shevock voting no.

Scope of Review - Chapter 58, Human Relations, of the Dover Code

At the request of Council President Hogan, members were provided Chapter 58, Human Relations, of the Delaware Code, as well as correspondence dated January 16, 2007 from Council President Williams, correspondence dated February 8, 2007, December 11, 2007, and October 5, 2006 from Mr. Calvin Christopher, Chairman of the State Human Relations Commission (SHRC), and the City of Dover Human Relations Commission (DHRC) By-Laws for their review and recommendation regarding concerns addressed in the correspondence.

Mr. Slavin disclosed a potential conflict of interest, explaining that he may become an instructor at Delaware State University and serve in the department which is managed by Dr. Sam Hoff, who serves as the Chairman of the Dover Human Relations Commission. When this position has been finalized, he assured members that he would recuse himself from any discussion or voting on the matter.

Mr. Slavin suggested that members identify the scope of the committee’s review, perhaps to establish ground rules and boundaries and conduct the review. In reviewing the material, he suggested that members identify questions that should be further explored and provide Council with answers. He explained that members have been requested to review the scope of activities of the DHRC to ensure they are within the charge provided by City Council. He envisioned that the committee would present the questions and answers to City Council and not necessarily suggest any remedial actions, which would be determined by Council.

At the request of Mr. Salters, Mrs. Williams explained that, as Council President, she became concerned when the SHRC submitted complaints and concerns regarding the DHRC. She met with their executive director, members, and chairman. They discussed ideas that the SHRC felt would serve as a precursor to any action. It was felt that the DHRC had gone off mission whey they began reviewing complaints since that is the total purview of the SHRC. As Council President at the time, Mrs. Williams stated that she decided to delay any further appointments to the membership of the DHRC until the concerns were resolved. She stated that Mr. Christopher met with the DHRC and reported that the meeting was very difficult and felt that it was a disappointing experience; however, he would continue to attempt to provide training in order for the mission of the DHRC to be adhered. to. She explained that it was the opinion of the SHRC that the DHRC should be more positively directed in terms of creating events and activities to bring people together rather than serving as a judicial body that determines who is right and who is wrong.

After becoming Council President, Council President Hogan stated that he was made aware of the concerns and read the material to become familiar with the situation. It was his opinion that there are differences between the mission of the DHRC authorized by City Council and the DHRC Bylaws. He suggested the need for a review of the City Code and Bylaws for possible improvements. This suggestion was relayed to the DHRC and he stated his hope that the members would participate in this endeavor. Council President Hogan expressed his desire to make this a positive force to make this a commission that is viable and a positive source for the City. To do so, he suggested the need to examine several issues and indicated his feeling that the Bylaws of the DHRC seem to contradict the mission granted by City Council. He also advised members that the SHRC has suggested a change to the title of the DHRC, explaining that the State serves as the Human Relations Commission for the State of Delaware. Council President Hogan reiterated his feeling that a complete review is necessary for possible amendments in order for the DHRC to serve as a viable commission for the City of Dover. He noted that he has begun to make appointments to the DHRC.

Mr. Ruane stated that the Annual Reports of the DHRC provided to City Council have indicated positive actions, programs, public forums, etc. It was his opinion that this information provides a positive image of the DHRC and that it is difficult to document the reference to their acting as a judicial body. He felt that there needs to be a clear understanding of what the DHRC has accomplished, and that the scope should provide the DHRC with an opportunity to present, to City Council in a summary form, the steps that have been taken to meet their mandate, and clearly document the number of complaints that have been taken, how they were processed, which were referred to the SHRC in accordance with Section 58 and those that were not, if any. Also, he suggested that the scope should include an examination of what is the best method to make sure there is a variety of member to serve on the DHRC who meet the mandate of Section 58, noting that the method currently used is to interview potential members and submit a recommendation to City Council, which has been used on the basis of its understanding. The question would be to determine what would be the best method to be used to provide volunteers with the opportunity to be interviewed for those positions so that recommendations can be made to the Mayor and President of Council.

Mr. Ruane suggested that the scope would include the following: 1) method of selection of candidates for membership - what has it been and what it should be; and 2) what has the intake process been and what it should be. He felt that it should be a positive presentation and an opportunity to highlight what activities have been engaged in, what successes have been accomplished, and what some of the frustrations are, noting that some of the problems presented to the DHRC are not finalized.

Mr. Salters felt that the DHRC has served admirably and has acted responsibly. He suggested that any differences, such as the expenditure of funds by the DHRC and the manner in which appointments are made, can be resolved by respectful communications. He also suggested the possibility of an annual workshop between the DHRC and City Council in an effort to strengthen the DHRC.

Referring to the expenditure of funds for advertisements by the DHRC, Mr. DePrima advised members that there are several sources available to the City free of charge that would eliminate an unnecessary expense. It was his intent to write a letter to the Chairman of the DHRC making this suggestion.

Based on the committee’s discussion, Mr. Slavin submitted the following questions that require a response:

1)What is the stated mission of the DHRC and is it in alignment with the enabling legislation;

2)What is the history of accomplishments by the DHRC in those areas that are chartered and are there areas of activities that the DHRC participated in that are outside of the initial charter. If so, what are they, and what have their accomplishments been;

3)What is the best method to attract membership and achieve a balanced commission and what have the previous methods been to attract membership;

4)What is the intake process - what has it been, what should it be;

5)Do the bylaws of the DHRC contradict the Dover Code;

6)Does the very title of the DHRC cause confusion among the public with the SHRC;

7)Does the commission have the authority to remove members;

8)Review of the expenditure of funds.

Mrs. Williams suggested an additional question - has the DHRC successfully met its goal.

Dr. Hoff, Chairman of the DHRC, advised members that the DHRC is accountable and responsible to the City Council and that its membership consists of a diverse representation of the citizens of Dover. The DHRC has no concerns regarding the review of their performance; however, he felt it would be unusual, and perhaps inappropriate, for the committee to deal with problems outside of a regular and predictable review of every other appendage, committee, commission, etc. without one (1) of three (3) issues occurring, as follows: 1) Is there an allegation of inconsistent operation, such as the inconsistency between the bylaws and charter; 2) is there criticism of the effectiveness of the DHRC, which has diminished their performance, requiring the need for an inquiry; or 3) has there been a substantial change in the mission of the DHRC. To his knowledge, none of these issues have occurred. Therefore, although the City has the prerogative to conduct a review, Dr. Hoff indicated that it is extremely unusual and disappointing. He felt it was appalling that the disagreements were publicized, explaining that this did not result in a positive affect on the City.

Although there have been minor disagreements, Dr. Hoff indicated that they have been minor issues such as the reduction of the DHRC’s budget, elimination of City staff to serve as a liaison, etc. His main concern has been not having a full contingent of members appointed to the DHRC and any delay is unfortunate. Concurring with Mrs. Williams, Dr. Hoff reminded members that the DHRC was founded during a crisis; however, the DHRC needs to demonstrate its viability in a non-crisis atmosphere. The DHRC is not subordinate to the SHRC, which he felt is an important factor that needs to be expressed. He assured members that it is the desire of the DHRC to work with the committee and City Council to resolve any issues and looks forward to continued cooperation with the City.

Mr. Salters moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Shevock and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:12 P.M.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Timothy A. Slavin

                                                                                    Chairman

TAS/TM/jg

S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20088-25-2008 LF&A.wpd

Attachments

Attachment #1     - Fire Department Recommendation -Agreed Upon Procedures

Attachment #2     - Alternative Action Form, Dated 8/25/2008, Submitted by the Fire Department