Week 12 (June 23-27)
Be a roving reporter! Send us your pictures! We'll publish them here. Send them to uapetition@aol.com.
Click a button below for other news.
Week 12 - Day 5
As it turns out, the city is paying for all medical exemptions over 210 households ... This amounts to an additional $12,000 per year.
Hmmm ... the cost savings keeps dwindling.
Here's a copy of the latest invoice ...
Week 12- Day 4
Great article in ThisWeek regarding the Rule Change Ordinance. Way too much time and energy being spent by Council on this, given other, more pressing issues going on in the city.
Week 12 - Day 3
A "bumper crop" day in the UANews ...
An article about the Rules Changes,
and a letter about our city misleading us on trash.
Also ... if you get the UA News, read the letter, "Maybe city officials need a (permanent) vacation." If you don't get the UA News regularly, go buy one ... it's worth the 50 cents just to read this letter.
Week 12 - Day 2
So ... while we're waiting for our city government to explain why we were misled about background checks -- and more importantly, what they're going to do about it --
let's talk about these new proposed rules.
If you attended Monday's Meeting, you know that Council is back-peddling on its revised changes. They're thinking about having two readings, with a third if requested by a resident/speaker.
There was one speaker (ONE speaker?) at the meeting, and they ran the 3-minute clock on him/her.
But they encourage residents to attend?
Week 12
(We're keeping the following up because it's important.)
We were not told the truth by our city government.
Listen to Council President (and Mayor) Leach
talking to over 300 residents
during a Council Meeting on February 25 ...
Here's the transcript ... “When it comes to safety, we want to assure all of you that Inland is required to conduct thorough background checks on employees, to extensively screen and train all applicants, and to as a whole maintain the highest levels of performance and professionalism. Inland and the city both recognize that service and safety are of the highest priority and so not only does our contract require both but you can expect the city to be monitoring their performance to make sure that happens.” This is not true.
Here it is on the city's website.
Here it is published in the UA News on February 27.
There were and are no stipulations regarding background checks in the contract.
Here's what the contract says with regard to employment practices ...
Can't read it? It says ...
"Contractor shall provide information regarding the hiring practices such as backround checks, drug testing, or any other information deemed relevant to the decision of selection of the successful bidder."
It says nothing about requiring background checks.
All it says is that the contractor "shall provide" information on its practices.
And what about the monitoring?
The city is impotent.
Just see the trail of emails when we sought documentation of the background checks back in April ...
That's why nearly half of the contractor's workers come from temporary agencies,
none of whom are background-checked
(and according to the contractor's representative, cannot be background checked) ...
one of which is a convicted felon.
The contract never called for the background checks.
The President of City Council told us something that was
not the truth.
And what about our City Manager?
Listen to her on February 25 ...
No penalties for the first month. No penalties for the second month.
Do they think we're stupid?
The question is ... on February 25, who knew the truth?
Fact: The City Attorney was a signatory on the contract.
Fact: The City Manager was a signatory on the contract.
They both sat there and listened while President Leach told over 300 residents something that was not true.
Was it ignorance? negligence? misrepresentation?
YOU DECIDE.
Article in The Dispatch today. "Upper
Arlington Residents Concerned About Background Checks on Trash Crews."
What??
The contractor has hired a convicted felon to pick up our trash?
Half of the contractor's workers are temporary workers whose backgrounds can't be checked? And the contractor's solution is to keep them close to the trucks?
But the worst part is that our city thinks that it's OK!
They've sold us out.
We have a law in UA (507.18) that prohibits sexual predators from working within 1000 feet of any school, daycare, preschool, park, pool, library or playground.
The city has no way to enforce this because they, and the contractor, can't check the background of these workers!
We have absolutely no assurance that our homes, families, and children are safe.
And there's nothing the city can do about it.
Why? Because the contract they negotiated didn't include the requirement for background checks.
Our safety will continue to be in jeopardy as long as this situation exists.
Thank you to Councilperson Wade Steen who is the only person who has expressed his concern.
Is this how we want to spend the next 5 years?
The only thing we can do about this is to reinstate the city workers who were trustworthy. And for that, we need to be able to vote on it in November.
If you haven't already done so, sign the petition.
Call Mike Schadek 554-5607.
I hate to say, "I told you so," but we brought this to our city's attention two months ago ... look at "Week 5" news.
