Abele is upset that alegally appointed review panel voted to spike his decision to award ahalf-billion-dollar contract to MV Transportation to run the Milwaukee CountyTransit System.
Abele doesn’t want tobe overruled ever again.
Here’s Abele’s letterto the board:
From: "Abele, Chris"
Date:03/10/2014 9:41 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: "Alexander, Deanna" ,"Borkowski, Mark" ,"Bowen,David" ,"Broderick, Gerry" ,"Cullen, David","Haas, Jason" ,"Johnson Jr, Willie" ,"Jursik,Patricia" ,"Lipscomb, Theodore" ,"Mayo Sr, Michael","Rainey, Khalif" ,"Romo West, Peggy" ,"Schmitt,James" ,"Stamper, Russell" ,"Staskunas, Anthony","Taylor, Steve" ,"Weishan, John" ,"Dimitrijevic,Marina"
Cc: "Grady, Mark" ,"Bargren, Paul" ,"Dranzik,Brian" ,"Martin, James" ,"Fudge, Joshua" ,"Tyler,Don"
Subject: Transit and Procurement CompromiseSupervisors,
I am writing you today to try toreach a compromise on the transit situation.
As you may be aware, counsel hasexamined the options that are available and has indicated it is very likely anappeal of the decision of the Administrative Determination Review Committee(ADRC) to Circuit Court would be successful. This is a road I am willing toexplore, but like you, I would rather work toward a solution together.
While I strongly disagree with theruling from the ADRC, and believe the committee's action was illegal andpolitical in nature, my biggest concern is the broader appeal process, themessage this appeal process sends to vendors and ultimately the detrimentalimpact on our services.
Milwaukee County does not follow theAdministrative Appeal Process laid out in state statue (Chapter 68). In 1997,then County Executive Tom Ament’s administration, proposed a different processthat is known as Chapter 110 and it was adopted by the Board. The County’sChapter 110 process currently does not specify qualifications, requireprocurement expertise or require any specific skill set to hear a Chapter 110procurement or contracting appeal. Lacking that requirement allows electedofficials and other individuals with limited to no expertise in procurement andcontracting, and with possible conflicts of interest, to hear these appeals.Allowing elected officials to serve in this way is directly contrary to bestpractice.
According to the American BarAssociation (ABA) [2000 Model Procurement Code for States and LocalGovernments], appeals should be heard by a Chief Procurement Officer or someonein a similar position. According to ABA Model Code, the County may also set upa Procurement Appeals Panel to hear a subsequent appeal. The ABA recommendsthat such a panel be made up of experts. If an aggrieved party disagrees withcounty’s final decision, they can then appeal to court of law.
The National Institute ofGovernmental Purchasing, Inc. (NIGP) agrees with the ABA’s best practices. NIGPlooked at some counties across the Country to see how they handle this issue.They note that Waukesha, Wisconsin and Fairfax County, Virginia each havesingle individual procurement experts hear all appeals. NIGP also looked atGwinnett County, Georgia, where any appeal goes directly to court of law. TheInterim County Attorney in Gwinnett County says that since that process was putin place in the 1990’s only two decisions have been challenged in court. Inboth cases the court sided with the County experts who awarded the originalcontract.
Given this context, I am proposingthat we reach a solution that would allow us to move forward with a new RFP andavoid a potential costly court action. I will commit that neither the DOT or Iwill take this issue to court if a majority of the Board makes a commitment towork with me and the Comptroller’s Office to change the Chapter 110 process tofollow best practices, including specifically to remove politicians from theappeals process. If at least ten Supervisors will commit by March 19, 2014 tochanging this process as set forth above, we will not move forward with legalaction. This compromise will allow the DOT to move forward with reissuing theRFP for transit with an improved and clear appeals process. My hope is that byworking together, we can together improve transit service for our community.
Sincerely,
Chris
Can you believe he called this threat a "compromise"?
And here’s howSupervisor Tony Staskunas, a member of the review panel that rejected Abele’srecommended contract, responded to Abele's threat:
County Executive Chris Abele
Office of the County Executive
901 North 9th Street – Room 306
Milwaukee, WI 53233
RE: TransitAppeal / Procurement Process
Dear County Executive Abele:
I am responding to your email dated March 10, 2014, relative to the recentlycompleted Administrative Determination Review Committee decision of MilwaukeeCounty's transit contract. I am deeply disappointed by the tone setby your email and the accusations and threats set forth in your email.
Specifically, your email states that you "believe the committee action wasillegal and political in nature". Isn't it possible forsomeone to disagree with you without their disagreement being either politicalor illegal. In my ten months on the Milwaukee County Board, myperception is that just about every time that the Milwaukee County Boarddisagreed with one of your positions, the Board's conduct was either"illegal", "political", or evidence of the "dysfunctional"County Board. In my 25 years of public service I have learned that it ispossible for reasonable people to have differences of opinion on public policywithout one side or the other acting in an illegal, political, or dysfunctionalway, while continued use of such inflammatory language only exacerbates thealready poor relations between the executive branch and legislativebranch. The reality is that you are also a politician and that youractions are no more or no less political than those of County Board members
The Administrative Determination Review Committee took its role veryseriously. We were advised every step of the way by CountyCorporation Counsel Paul Bargren. We issued detailed and specificfindings and conclusions. The Committee set forth a simple road map forthe Department of Transportation to make changes and corrections to the RFP andto the RFP process. I firmly believe that if those changes are made tothe RFP and RFP process that the Department of Transportation should be in aposition to issue a new RFP for the transit contract very quickly. Sincethe decision was issued on February 20, 2014, I have been open and willing tomeet with both you and the Department of Transportation to give you additionalguidance as to how I believe the RFP and RFP process can be corrected so thatwe can move forward and identify the most cost effective method to provide goodtransit service to the residents of Milwaukee County. Your threatsof a lawsuit do not help this process, but only hinder the process. Threats of litigation do not constitute "compromise" but serveinstead only to throw gas on the fire of an already difficultsituation.
You point out in your email that the administrative appeal process set forth inMilwaukee County Ordinance Chapter 110 is flawed. Nevertheless, it is thecurrent law. It is the law that was very strictly followed by theAdministrative Determination Review Committee. I don't know why thisprocess was instituted in 1997, but perhaps it was for a good reason unknown toboth you and myself. You imply that by not following Chapter 68that the County and County Board violated the statute when you know, or shouldknow, that Section 68.16, Stats., specifically allows a governing body to optout and enact its own ordinance. Instead, you are asking the CountyBoard, in advance, with no study or public input, to commit to a process usingunknown and unelected bureaucrats to make decisions rather than the officialselected by the people to make these decisions.
You have requested that board members "commit" to certain ultimatumsor you will commence a lawsuit. I can't prevent you from commencingthis lawsuit, however mistaken I believe the lawsuit to be, but I will committo working with you and your office relative to a review of the County'sadministrative appeal process. If the administrative appeal processcan be handled in a better, more efficient way, I will certainly be open tochanges to that process. However, I cannot commit in advance to aspecific outcome, and I'm not sure how any supervisor could commit to aspecific outcome since we haven't yet studied and discussed any of thenecessary information to make an informed decision.
County Executive Abele, as we move forward on the transit contract and otherissues, I to respectfully ask that you please tone down your inflammatory andpersonal rhetoric. People of good will can, and often do,disagree. There is always a natural tension between the executive branchand legislative branch of government. Personalizing ourdisagreements doesn't make the situation any better and doesn't serve theresidents of Milwaukee County.
Sincerely,
Tony
Abele simply cannothandle transparency, responsibility, or humility. Instead of learning from themistakes made during the RFP and correcting them, Abele is threatening to shut down a reviewprocess that includes democratically elected supervisors. Remember: This is theguy who wanted to give a half-billion-dollar contract to the lowest-scoringbidder on the service and operations portion of the RFP. MV won the contractbecause it low-balled its bid. Why would Milwaukee County transit riders andtaxpayers be thrilled to turn over our transit system to the operator whoclearly would provide worse service than all other bidders—including thecurrent operator?
I wish I could saythat this was the end of the story, but, unfortunately, it is to be continued.
