Harper Trying To Close Potential Ethical Loophole In IT Contract
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 8/21/08 @ 11:55 pm - Filed Under City Council, Featured, Uncategorized
In a previous post I put up the video of councilman Mitch Harper’s comments during the IT contract debate. Harper pointed out that the contract requires the city to hire a consultant to monitor the benchmarks throughout the lifetime of the contract.
During the meeting he suggested that the contract be modified to ensure that no former city employee could fill this role without first having been removed from city employment for a period of at least two years.
Given the High Performance Government debacle from earlier this year Harper is right to try and close any potential revolving door between government officials and private consultants. Unfortunately, the administration is resisting these efforts thus far suggesting they be given the “flexibility” to hire whoever they wish to perform those duties.
Is it really too much to ask that the independent auditor reviewing these benchmarks not be a former city employee who has just recently quit? Why does the city continue to push this nonsense? The citizenry has very little tolerance for the hiring of consultants in general and even less for the revolving-door variety.
You can read Harper’s letter to Ron Ehinger (the attorney handling the IT contract for the city) below:
August 21, 2008
Mr. Ron Ehinger
Attorney at Law
Barrett & McNagnyDear Ron -
As you know, I spoke about the Benchmarking provisions in the proposed IT contract at the Tuesday evening Council session.
The benchmarking section contractually mandates the employment of a third party consultant during the life of the contract and, therefore, binds future councils in future years to an expenditure for a consultant. As I expressed at the Council table, members of the public have expressed strongly an aversion to the extent to which the City of Fort Wayne is reliant on outside consultants.
My further concern is that the provision should provide the public with assurances that enhance confidence in local government.
I am requesting that there be language added to the benchmarking section that would provide a bar on any former Fort Wayne or Allen County employee being employed in the benchmarking role for a period of two years after their separation date from Fort Wayne or Allen County employment.
This would not affect the obligation of ATOS per the contract and should not encumber any negotiations between the parties if the City/County seeks its inclusion in the contract.
Sincerely,
Mitch V. Harper
Member of the Fort Wayne Common Council
4th District
Comments
6 Responses to “Harper Trying To Close Potential Ethical Loophole In IT Contract”
Leave a Reply
If so interested in ethical issues and faith in government why ignoring the Felts case? More people have been affected by this legal/money making system and cast doubt on the legitimacy of government than zoning issues. Does it take a tip to raise questions of how the “legal” system works or is it only an issue if it affects upper middle class folks?
Well stated Mitch - I really see no problem with this.
We’ve had enough ethics issues in this town from the HPGN to the Plan Commission.
I also think consideration should be made to prevent City or County employees who were involved in the decision to contract with ATOS from going to work with that company until 2 years after the contract expires.
Kevin’s right…there should be a predetermined period of time before being able to get hired in that regard.
In much of the private sector, when working for one “major player” (say it’s a breakthrough technology), you leave the company for “whatever” reason. You sign a paper that says you will not seek a like position for ANY competitor for at least a year (or more).
Sounds reasonable.
The Federal government has something similar.
Let’s say you work for the Treasury Department (IRS division), and you decide to leave. You cannot just step over to H&R Block and just hire up with them. You’ve signed a paper that disallows such actions.
You cannot take the knowledge of the current tax year (system) and it’s “secrets” to the private sector.
After 2 years, you can, because tax laws will change, and your information is no longer proprietary.
In some cases, knowledge/information you’ve accrued while in the service of the Feds/Military “can” be classified for anywhere from 7-20 years, depending on “sensitivity”.
(I never said that,& I was never here)
But I still agree with you, Kev.
;)
B.G.
How about a one-year go-back and consult-lobby
“waiting period” for ALL such occassions so that the Common Council doesn’t need to do so on a case by case basis? This could be done by an ethics ordinance, and yes it it’s ethics.
I find it very odd that a local IT firm quoted the entire project and came in lower than the current dollar amount from ATOS. They did not even make it out of the 1st round of selection.
This entire thing was fixed and attempts were made to contact members of the council. I called and emailed almost all members, one called me back, Karen Goldner.