LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

The Legislative, Finance, and Administration Committee Meeting was held on January 12, 2004, at 5:15 p.m., with Chairman Speed presiding. Members present were Mr. Ritter, Mr. Truitt, Mr. Shelton, and Mr. Gorman. Other members of Council present were Mr. McGlumphy, Mr. Carey, Mr. Pitts (arrived at 5:22 p.m.), Mr. Salters, Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Williams, and Mayor Hutchison.

AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS

Mr. Gorman moved for approval of the agenda, seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.

Community Leader and Organization Recognition Policy

Mr. Speed stated that members have had ample time to review the Community Leader and Organization Recognition Policy, formally known as the Gift Policy, and requested any comments and/or questions from the committee.

Referencing Section II, Permitted Gifts/Awards & Restrictions, item B, “No Cash donations are permitted”, Mr Carey requested the addition of “...with the exception of those sent in lieu of flowers in the event of a death.” He stated that many times, donations to a particular charity are requested in lieu of flowers.

Responding, Mr. Speed alluded to item F, which indicates that the policy is not intended to restrict “get well” and sympathy expressions.

Mrs. Williams suggested amending item F, to read as follows: “This policy shall not restrict ‘get well’ and sympathy expressions”.

Mr. Truitt moved to recommend approval of the amendment to item F as suggested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.

In an effort to be uniform, Mr. Ruane suggested replacing the word “gifts” and “awards” with “recognition” throughout the policy.

Responding, Mr. Truitt felt that the words “gifts” and “awards” should remain in the purpose statement to better explain the purpose of the policy.

Mr. Ritter moved to amend the policy by replacing, where appropriate, the word “gift” and “awards” with “recognition”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Shelton and unanimously carried.

Mr. Shelton moved to recommend adoption of the Community Leader and Organization Recognition Policy, as amended (Attachment #1). The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.

Reapportionment of Council District Boundaries (Recommendation of the City of Dover Election Board - Meeting of November 3, 2003)

During their Regular Meeting of December 10, 2001, members of City Council considered a recommendation of the Election Board for a Redistricting Plan for the City Council Districts. At that time, it was apparent that there were serious discrepancies in the census data. As a result, members referred the proposed redistricting plan to the Planning Department to verify the authenticity of the population numbers. On February 11, 2002 City Council was advised that as a result of a review and analysis of the 2000 Census Block Data, Planning staff detected 34 block area discrepancies. During their Regular Meeting of September 8, 2003, City Council authorized the City Planner to pursue corrective action through the Count Question Resolution process for the various census blocks that were identified as having a high probability of error. During their Regular Meeting of September 8, 2003, members of City Council were advised that the U.S. Census Bureau revised the block level data for the City of Dover. Members adopted the revised census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and referred the matter to the Election Board for Realignment of Council Districts.

Members were provided a report of the City of Dover Election Board, which included a recommendation for the reapportionment of Council district boundaries. Due to the absence of Mr. Leary, Chairman of the Election Board, Mrs. Green, City Clerk, was requested to present the item for the committee’s review.

Mrs. Green gave a brief description of the proposed reapportionment of council district boundaries and the factors taken into consideration that assisted in their development. She reminded members that certain criteria was used in considering the redistricting which included: providing for each district to be approximately equal in population; maintain the legal obligation of a 65% black district; utilization of natural and man made, understandable boundaries; and an attempt to keep neighborhoods together.

Mr. Ritter expressed concerns with the recommendation and questioned how the proposal was developed. He questioned why there was only one (1) recommendation when previous realignments resulted in several alternatives being presented for consideration. He also questioned why a staff member developed the proposed realignment when it was the responsibility of the Election Board. Mr. Ritter relayed concern with the reliability of the software that was used by staff in the development of the proposal and questioned why the software that is available through the State of Delaware was not utilized. Noting that the University of Delaware was utilized in previous realignments, he questioned why they were not requested to assist with this matter. Mr. Ritter questioned the rationale for the recommendation to move certain areas that were previously assigned to the Fourth District, specifically Governors Avenue, and William and Division Streets, and are now reapportioned to the Third District when the Woodcrest Development was taken from the Third District and reapportioned to the Fourth District. He also questioned why the make-up of the apartments and townhouses near the Woodcrest development, which have residents that are majority minority, were not used to assist in complying with the 1988 Consent Decree.

Responding, Mrs. Green stated that, as the City Clerk, she is appointed to serve as a liaison member to the Election Board. She reminded members that this was the Election Board’s review of the reapportionment after receipt of revised census data. It was evident from using the original recommendation, developed by the Election Board, that the revised census data indicated that there was a need to increase the population in the Third District and reduce the population in the Second District. Based on this information, staff developed a proposal for the Election Board’s review. The Election Board amended staff’s proposal, which is the recommendation that has been presented to the committee at this time.

Regarding the software concerns, Mrs. Green confirmed that when moving data in the first or last line of a cell, errors can occur in the calculations; however, she assured members that the calculations have been reviewed and that the information presented is accurate. She explained that the software utilized by the State of Delaware Department of Elections contains populations based on the initial census data. The software does not allow for changes to the data nor is the State of Delaware legally permitted to amend the data for the City’s purposes since the State legislators and other jurisdictions have developed realignment based on the original census data.

Mrs. Green advised members that in 1988, legislation was passed that mandated district voting (members of Council were previously elected by at-large voting). The University of Delaware offered assistance to the City at that time. The district lines were redrawn in 1992 based on the NAACP Consent Decree, which required the 65% minority district. There could have been more discussions and proposals submitted since both of these issues were new to the City at the time.

Mr. Salters reminded members that Dover itself is a neighborhood and that all neighborhoods should be important to members of Council and should be treated the same. He relayed concerns with members of Council developing districts based on issues other those determined by the Consent Decree and those recommended by the Election Board. If it is permitted, he cautioned that members may find themselves in disputes over racial issues.

Mr. Gorman stated that since final approval of the reapportionment of Council district boundaries rests with Council and not the committee, he suggested acceptance of the report and that the matter be forwarded to Council without a recommendation.

Mr. Gorman moved for acceptance of the Election Board’s report, as presented, and that it be forwarded to Council for review and a public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Truitt.

Mr. Ritter stated that he realized the amount of work done by Mrs. Green on this project; however, staff was not given the authority to develop proposed Council district boundaries. He stated that the proposal does not follow criteria used for the realignment of districts and felt that the development of the boundary lines have become a political event steered toward certain individuals and described the situation as being sneaky, dirty, and something being done in an underhanded way. Mr. Ritter suggested that the proposal presented could be modified for improvement.

Responding to Mr. Ruane, Mrs. Green stated that members of the Election Board were cognizant that their recommendation would split the Edgehill Development. She advised members that Mr. Leary reviewed an alternative developed by Mr. Ritter that would bring the south Edgehill neighborhood back into the Third District and had advised other Board members of the proposal; however, no request was received from members to consider the alternative. Mrs. Green stated that Mr. Leary had relayed concerns with the alternative since it would require census blocks to be split. Since Section 5 of the Charter requires the use of the federal decennial census for the realignment of Council districts, the Election Board did not feel comfortable considering or recommending a proposal to Council that would conflict with the Charter.

Having served as a member of Council during previous realignments, Mr. Pitts advised members that unfortunately, there will always be changes and splitting of neighborhoods that affect a member’s district that may not be desired.

Mr. Speed suggested when this item is forwarded to Council for their review, the proposal developed by Mr. Ritter also be forwarded for consideration. It was Mr. Salters’ feeling that any alternative proposals should be channeled through the Election Board. Mr. Speed explained that, ultimately, it is Council that is required to develop the realignment of Council districts; therefore, Council has the authority to amend the proposal as long as the NAACP requirements are met.

Mrs. Williams relayed concerns with considering proposals that are not presented by the Election Board. Responding, Mr. Ruane stated that since Mr. Ritter’s proposal was not officially presented to the Election Board at a meeting, it was not officially considered, nor officially rejected.

The motion for acceptance of the Election Board’s Report, as presented, and that it be forwarded to Council for review and a public hearing was carried with Mr. Ritter voting no.

Presentation - Pay for Performance Committee Recommendations

Mr. DePrima presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed Pay-for-Performance Policy (Attachment #2) and the proposed Bonus Policy (Attachment #3). Mr. DePrima expressed his gratitude to all the employees who served on the various committees. He stated that much time and research was spent in developing these policies.

Mr. DePrima explained that since there are many recommendations, no action is requested at this time. He requested that members submit any comments, suggestions, and/or questions prior to the next committee meeting for consideration.

Mr. Truitt moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Gorman and unanimously carried.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:08 P.M.

                                                                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                     Stephen R. Speed

Chairman

SRS/jg/lcg

S:ClerksOfficeAgendas&MinutesCommittee-Minutes20041-12-2004-LFA.wpd

Attachments

Attachment #1 - Proposed Community Leader and Organization Recognition Policy

Attachment #2 - Proposed Performance Based Pay Policy (For Non-Bargaining Employees)

Attachment #3 - Proposed Bonus Policy