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 19 - DAY 5

From a "roving reporter."

"A couple of days ago, I was on Fishinger Road around noon, and saw one of the contractor's big packer trucks going westbound.  He stopped, backed across the yellow line, stopping traffic in both directions, backed into somebody's driveway, and then proceeded to go eastbound to pick up trash on the other side of the street.  Wouldn't it have made more sense to go down a side street  to turn around?

"So I called the city, woman in the City Manager's office said , 'We have no control over the contractor.'"

Let me get this straight ...

The City has no control over its own contractor?  So ... we at the mercy of the whims of a company whose workers are traveling UA streets with 35,000 lb trucks each and every week day?  Do they not have to obey the same rules that you and I have to?

This is absurd.


Week 19 - Day 4

Come to the Solid Waste Initiative Kickoff Meeting!
Thursday, August 28 at 7 PM, Thompson Park Shelter House.

We'll outline next steps, tell you how you can get bumper stickers and yards signs, and talk about other ways you can be a vital part of this effort.

Bring your family/friends, and lawnchairs for yourselves.

Any questions, contact Mike Schadek.
Phone: 554-5607 or email: uatrash@aol.com.

See you then!

 

We're on the ballot!
And with tons of signatures to spare!
Thank you to all who signed and circulated!

Week 19 - Day 3


In today's UA News, there's  a Guest Column, "Facts about trash service change aren't as the city states them," written in response to the City Manager's column published last week.

Lest there be any doubt about the facts in the column, here they are.

1. The Signature-Gathering Process

Here are the facts:

- 100% of the 2030 signatures were those of UA residents.  That's the only number that counts.

-  67% of the signatures were gathered by UA residents. The remaining 33% were gathered by solid waste employees, their relatives, or other persons who were donating their time to keep/restore the prior high level of service and safety and  to help the workers keep their jobs.

- In calculating that 51% of the signatures came from circulators directly associated with the solid waste employees, Ms. Barney counted Mr. Schadek's 414 signatures among those workers, rather than treating his signatures as those coming from a UA resident.  Hmmm ...

2. The Value of the Vote

First, the $30 fee would indeed be abolished if the initiative were to pass.  Shirley Mays, professor of Local Government Law at Capital, stated in the following "ThisWeek" article from March 7, 2008, "I don't see the [legal] basis for the keeping the fee."

 

Second, here is a copy of the May/June correspondence between the contractor and the City regarding the no-fault offer of termination.



Here's what the letter from the contractor's president says:

"Obviously, we would prefer to work through these issues [disagreements arising from contract interpretation] if you desire [we] would be amicable to a no-fault termination of this agreement at a date to be mutually agreed upon, provided that arrangement can be made for the City to take back possessionof their old equipment."

On May 30 the City Manager responds back, 

"I appreciate the offer to have a no fault termination to the contract, however at this time the City is committed to making Inland successful and the residents satisfied with the service."

To which the contractor indicates that with this being the case, they will need to charge extra for certain services that were included in the old service but not in the new contract.

To make matters more interesting, the next day after we reported this (see Week 15), Mike Schadek received the following email from the City Manager ...

"I have concerns that public records are not being shared in their entirety on your website and therefore lose their integrity.  Council knows that Inland rescinded their no-fault termination offer and recommitted themselves to working through the issues at hand."

Click here to see this email.

We know for a fact that at least two of them knew NOTHING about the offer as of July 18, much less when it was made by the contractor on May 22, or the claim that it was rescinded. 

And, last week, the Assistant City Manager told me during a phone conversation, 

"Council was not told because a half hour after [the City] got the letter [of May 22, presenting the no-fault termination proposal], the contractor rescinded."

The City Manager's and Assistant City Manager's relay two opposing positions.  And why would the City Manager, on May 30, write a letter turning down the offer if it had already been rescinded?

Someone in the City Manager's office has been careless with the truth.

What is an "emergency?"

According to the Ohio Revised Code,

"An ordinance or resolution shall go into immediate effect or as stated in the ordinance when Council by an affirmative vote of five members determines that the ordinance or resolution is an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, provided that the reasons for such necessity are set forth in the ordinance or resolution. [ORC 731.30]"

Remember that this thing was passed on December 11, then repealed re-passed three days later but as an emergency, preventing a referendum.

Not one member of City staff or Council has been able to provide any explanation as to what happened in those three days to cause it to become an emergency.

So ... is the emergency clause used by UA Council because something is "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety," or because it conveniently precludes a vote by the residents?

The City Attorney answered that question at a Rules Committee meeting.



Transcript:

City Attorney: "If you really want to make your rules not subject to referendum, you add an emergency clause to it.  That solidifies it."

3. Service Quality

Here's the letter the Assitant City Manager wrote the contractor on Friday, April 18, stating, "Have we made an error in believing [the contractor]?" and signing it, "Frustrated."
Click on it to get a larger version.



And here's what he said at the Council Conference Session on Monday, April 21, not two days later.
Transcript:  "Things [with the contractor] are improving incredibly.  I'm pleased with the progress that's being made."



Here's the email he wrote the contractor on June 17 (see Week 15), , stating, "I need [the contractor] to be successful.  I'm working hard to keep public opinion moving in a positive direction."



That was the email that led to the Dispatch article, "Allegation of cussing latest in trash fight."  



Click on these weeks to wee where whole streets were missed ...

Week 5 ... Week 7

And here's a collection of emails to the city from residents regarding their trash service (Week 14) ...



and a report from a reader about dumping used motor oil along into the regular trash (see Week 3).
  

"I just happened to be looking out our front window when the new recyclable truck stopped to pick up our items.  The employee looked at my two plastic disposable jugs with screw-on lids and labeled with a black marker "DRAIN OIL."  This was two gallons of used motor oil identified as recyclable as I have done under our old system.  The employee then untied our closed household refuse bag, inserted the two containers of oil and retied the bag.  The bag was later picked up by the refuse truck."
  
My favorite quote comes from an update to Council on June 20 ...



Transcript:
City Manager:  "Joe, do you want to give us an update on Solid Waste?"
Assistant City Manager:  "No."
City Manager: "Hmmm ..."
Assistant City Manager: "Actually, yes."
 
4. Lack of Background Checks

On June 20 (Week 11), the Dispatch broke the news that a convicted felon was among the contractor's workers.  This led to the revelation that nearly half of the employees came from temp agencies and could not be background-checked.


Article in The Dispatch today.  "Upper
Arlington Residents Concerned About Background Checks on Trash Crews."

Here's the Council President 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.”

Here it is on the city's website.
Here it is published in the UA News on February 27.
 
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.

Here is the trail of emails when we sought documentation of the background checks back in April, showing that the city is impotent in monitoring background checks. ...




The most disburbing thing, though, is that both the City Attorney and City Manager, signatories on the contract, sat silent while the Council President made this false statement.
Certainly they should have known that no background checks were specified in the contract ... after all, they signed it.

The other promise we were given is that there were contractual penalties for contractor performance.  Listen to the City Manager her on February 25 ...



There are indeed penalties, but as of August 8, NO penalties have been levied in the first 4 months of operation, even though they have been justfied in countless cases.

5. The Evaluation Process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Barney refers to the "detailed research" that was done.  Click here to see the Solid Waste Task Force report.  Note on page 13 of the report how resident focus groups "overwhelmingly" preferred that solid waste collection remain in-house.

Ms. Barney also refers to how "much council scutiny" took place.  Listen to audio clips on the "Council and Staff Quotes" page to hear some of Council's comments.

Also, look at the "Buy the Numbers" page to see how the Finance Department bid analysis figures as presented to Council were off by over $2,000,000, due to calculation errors and the omissions. 

6. Cost Savings?

Here are the calculations, using the $3.50 per sticker quoted by Ms. Barney in November.

Sticker Usage	City-Employees At-the-Door Service	Outsourced Curb-Side Service
1 per month	$42	$30 fee + $28.80 = $58.80
2 per month	$84	$30 fee + $57.60 = $87.60
3 per month	$126	$30 fee + 86.40 = $116.40
1 per week	$182	$30 fee + $124.80 = $154.80

The difference between the two scenarios using 1 sticker per week is $27.20 per year, or $2.27 per month.

---------------------------

The net result is tht you need to know where you can go for reliable information.  If you're new to UATRASH.ORG, I recommend going through the various weeks to see all that has transpired.  What we've put here is just a small sample of what's occurred.

Even the city comes here to see what's going on!
 

 
  
Week 19 - Day 1
 
We're leaving this up because it clearly compares the two services.


 
After studying it,
YOU decide which one you want for the next 5 years.