Bi-Partisan Effort to Limit NorCo Executive Spending Fails

A bi-partisan effort that would give Northampton County Council more oversight over Executive spending has failed. On February 5, seven members of Council voted for an ordinance proposed by conservative tea party member Hayden Phillips that would require Council approval for any contracts over $25,000. "I just think it's better government," explained Republican Seth Vaughn. The only Council members opposed were Glenn Geissinger and Mat Benol, who have been Brown's most ardent supporters.

Previously, Council approval was only needed for contracts that exceeded $100,000. But last year, Brown executed several controversial no-bid consultant contracts, including one for a public relations and several cost control deals.

Brown vetoed the ordinance because it would "restrict the ability of the current and future administrations of Northampton County [to enter contracts] in a timely and cost effective way."

Since seven members of Council supported the ordinance, and since only six votes are needed to override a veto, you might think this Ordinance is veto-proof.

Welcome to the People's Republic of Northampton County.

The attempt to override Brown's veto failed by a five to four vote, with Peg Ferraro, Seth Vaughn, Mat Benol and Glenn Geissinger voting No.

Vaughn, who was all for "better government" on February 5, probably just meant "OK government." Council President Peg Ferraro, who hates her wishy-washy reputation, lived up to it with an about face, too..

Baffled, Lamont McClure asked Ferraro what caused her to change her mind.

"I don't think I have to answer," responded Ferraro.

"Two weeks ago, you and Mr. Vaughn show courage and vote with Mr. Phillips, and tonight, you and Mr. Vaughn show the opposite of that. A lack of courage."

I can tell you what is going on, Lamont. John Brown's closet consigliere, consultant Matt Deibert, was sitting in the audience, watching. Brown doesn't fart without Deibert's permission. After the meeting, Deibert gave Peg, Mat, Glen and Seth their very own rubber stamps.

Brown Vetoes Ordinance Limiting His Spending Power

NorCo Exec John Brown has vetoed an Ordinance adopted by a bi-partisan Council last week that limits his ability to issue no-bid contracts. Under the new County law, Council must approve all contracts that exceed $25,000. The previous limit was $100,000.

This move by Council follows several controversial no-did contracts that Brown issued in 2014 for consultant services, including a public relations consultant as well as a cost control consultant.

In his veto message, Brown insists that the Ordinance is not "in the best interests of the County." He argues it will "restrict the ability of the current and future administrations of Northampton County in a timely and cost effective way."

Lamont McClure had proposed an ordinance limiting the Executive's power in 2014, but it failed. This Ordinance was sponsored by Hayden Phillips, a Republican, and Scott Parsons, a Democrat.

This Ordinance appears to be veto proof. Only Glenn Geissinger and Mat Benol voted No. The remaining seven members supported the measure. Under County law, six votes are needed to override a veto.

Brown's No-Bid Health Plan Consultant Deal Looks Illegal

Northampton County Controller Steve Barron is one of two elected officials who were banned from an Executive John Brown news conference last week. Like Council member Bob Werner, he said he was just there to listen. But he had some paperwork with him, and shared it with me after the news conference. It related to a Scranton-area based firm called the C3 Group, Cost Control Consultants. "We guarantee to boost your bottom line," boasts their webpage. This is the outfit that recommended that Brown reduce the health benefits being paid for County workers. Colin D. Healey, associated with that firm, is the helpful fellow who told employees, "Nobody subpoenaed you to work here." Barron is concerned that Brown has ignored the requirements of the Administrative Code in his selection of yet another sole source contract. I'm not suggesting another lawsuit because this horse has already left the barn, but Barron appears to be right.

Who the Hell is C3?

Their webpage boasts of "decades of combined experience in helping businesses improve profitability and control costs." That must be in dog years or maybe gerbil years. According to the state corporation bureau, its parent company has only existed for five years. Its three partners are Christopher Rothwell, Thomas Boles and Jeffrey Raider. It only has one other County Client, Lackawanna, where the Deputy HR Director was once a C3 employee.

Colin D Healey, the Employee Benefits Consultant who claims to have come up with the benefits reduction plan for Brown, appears to have nothing more than a bachelor's degree from the Indiana University of Pa. in '86. He's been with C3 since 2010, but claims to have 25 years of "management" experience. Prior to hooking up with C3, he bounced around for 12 years as an analyst with the Global Business Exchange, which provides corporate training.

He appears to have no real experience actually working in any of the companies where he has given advice or training on cost control.

Brown's Arrangement With C3.

When John Callahan ran for office, he said he would look to the people who work here to find ways to keep expenses down. But Callahan was defeated by John Brown, and his approach to cost containment has been government by consultant. He attempted unsuccessfully to bring in a business consultant for an exorbitant sum. He rammed a controversial PR consultant down the County's throats, though he had to do it twice to get it right. He's hired Donna Taggart, who seems to get consultant contracts everywhere. He's also hired Integrity Personnel. These all started out as no-bid contracts, meaning he never sought out proposals from anyone else. He did finally go through a Requests For Proposals on his second try for his PR consultant.

His specific arrangement with C3 appears to consist of three mini-contracts.

The first, dated 5/23/14, is a $24,000 consultant agreement for "cost containment measures for the County's group health plans". It's for three months beginning in June. C3 is to provide an "eligibility audit" and is to make recommendations concerning different benefit plans. Brown authorized payment on June 4.

The second, dated 7/24.14, is a $10,000 consultant agreement to control workers compensation claims costs.It's for three months, beginning August 1, and is for $65 per hour, not to exceed $10,000. It includes accident investigations. All claims are supposed to be investigated. Though the contract is a per hour contract starting August 1, Brown authorized payment of the full $10,000 on August 5.

The final mini-contract, dated 8/31/14, is basically a continuation of the first contract, related to the group health plans. Though no term is set forth in the agreement,a bill to Brown indicates it's for another three months, beginning in September, for another $24,000. Brown authorized payment of this bill on September 9.

That's three mini-contracts totaling $58,000. All but $10,000 relates to the health plans.

The Administrative Code

The purchase of services from outfits like C3 is governed under The Administrative Code. All services in excess of $25,000 require a written contract approved in advance by the Solicitor (Section 13.16a), as well as an Executive Order. The reason an Executive Order is required is because that serves to notify both Council and the Controller.

In this case, each of these mini-contracts is under $25,000. But this is "piece-mealing", defined in The Administrative Code as making a series of contracts for less than the actual purchase price, when there should have been one contract for one price. (Section 13.02(i). In this case, the benefits contracts totaling $48,000 were piece-mealed in violation of the Administrative Code

Brown's own invoices refers to C3's services as "professional services". Because they exceed $25,000 and they are "professional services", he was required to seek proposals from different vendors (Sec. 13.09(a)) unless he determined that it would be impractical and had permission from County Council to go ahead without seeking proposals. Sec. 13.07(b).

The Administrative Code also requires that the report or study made pursuant to a professional services contract must be supplied to Council. Sec. 13.16(f). Obviously, some kind of report had to be furnished to Brown before deciding on fairly drastic reductions in health benefits, but that has not been provided and Brown has claimed there is no written report.

Should Brown Be Sued?

I think it's pretty clear that Brown violated The Administrative Code. ... Again.  But is it knowing and intentional? "These contracts pieced together have the sole intention of avoiding disclosing the agreement with the consultant and keeping my office and council in the dark about the goings on in the county," Barron told The Express Times. Though I'm growing suspicious, I doubt Brown was playing games. I think the more likely explanation is that he has been in office less than a year and failed to consult with his Solicitor.

There's no point in suing. The horse has already left the barn. C3 has been paid.

But I would demand that the Executive provide all written communications between himself and C3. I'd ask for the "eligibility audit" supposedly performed by C3 as well as any documentation reflecting its review of different plans.

NorCo Controller Suing Over No-Bid Contract

On Wednesday, Northampton County Controller Steve Barron filed a declaratory judgment action to challenge the validity of a controversial $84,000 no-bid contract awarded by Executive John Brown for public relations. The lawsuit names Brown, the County and Sahl Communications as Defendants. Barron is being represented by his Solicitor, Tim Brennan.

Barron complains that there's been a "breakdown in essential internal controls" that have resulted in him not being invited to bid openings, something required under County law. He claimed that, as a result of an audit of the County's compliance with the Administrative Code, he had three major concerns with the Sahl contract. First, Brown never stated why a no-bid contract was necessary, which is a requirement. Second, like four members of County Council, he believes this is a contract for "professional services," and as such, must be bid. Finally, he called it a piece meal contract, meaning that the Executive would continue issuing contracts with Sahl, but would keep them under the $100,000 threshold that would mandate a Council review.

In his complaint, Barron noted that competitive bidding should be encouraged as a "guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance and corruption."

I saw a smiling Executive John Brown in a hallway as the lawsuit was still being filed, and gave him the bad news. It seems I'm always dumping on the guy. He seemed nonplussed.

But not long after that encounter, I received this email from Sahl Communications. It's the first and only email this "public relations" firm has ever sent to me. And as it happens, it is now the County's former "public relations" firm.

In a meeting held Monday March 31, 2014 Northampton County Executive John Brown, informed Sahl Communications, Inc that he will be pulling the company's public relations contract with the county. After having had a meeting with his legal team and advisors the decision was made on the best interest for the county.

"After decisions with legal council and the contractor, Sahl Communications, I decided it was in the best interest of the county to withdraw the agreement."

"We came to this conclusion prior to learning about Mr. Baron's decision to file suit," said Brown "I met with Mr. Barron on Monday morning and told him I would respond back to him after considering his request."

This is from a public relations firm? The decision was made "on the best interest of the county"? After decisions with legal council?

This kind of grammar and spelling makes me agree that Sahl was not offering professional services after all. In fact, I'm not sure what that firm offered.

Will Barron withdraw the lawsuit? That seems likely. The matter is moot.

Barron finally did something right.

Should Public Funds Be Spent on Public Relations Consultants?

Elected officials in the state and federal government have franking privileges under which the occasional mass mailing is permitted, but regulated. They also have public relations personnel, bound by state and federal laws that prevent or at least limit them from crossing the line from informational services and into propaganda.  One of the things that really others me about Kim Plyler's one-year, $84,000 public relations contract is that there is nothing in place to prevent wholesale abuse.

Although this contract is nominally with the County, the real beneficiary is the Executive. Plyler's "scope of services", refers to weekly phone calls with the "client," meaning the Executive, though the the bill for these services are being paid by the people of Northampton County. Nothing in that scope of services provides for communications with either the workforce or Council. It appears that she is being paid $84,000 a year to make sure brown appears in Bethlehem's Saint Patrick's Day Parade. In effect, the public has just made an $84,000 campaign contribution to Brown's next campaign. Why use NIZ twins J.B. Reilly and Joe Topper if you can get the public to foot the bill?

I am also disturbed that Plyler could use her inside knowledge to alert potential vendors to possible County business.

It's a bad contract.

At the last Council meeting, Council tabled a resolution condemning this contract, but the matter was only tabled until the meeting this Thursday. They are going to have to weigh in on the legality of this contract.

Solicitor Vic Scomillio told Council that no bid was required because public relations is not a professional service as that term is defined in the Administrative Code.  Since Plyler has had specialized training in public relations at the Defense Information School and is a member of the Public Relations Society of America, that's a tough sell.

But the biggest obstacle to the legality of this no-bid contract is that the Executive Order authorizing it occurred after the fact, in violation of the Administrative Code. Moreover, the order fails to state any reason why it would be imprudent or impractical to proceed with competitive negotiation. Scomillio noted this process is time-consuming and could take two to three months, but Brown has wasted nearly three months without appointing most of his cabinet.

This contract is certainly illegal, but worse than that, it is something that can easily be abused. Public relations should be performed by government employees who are barred from using their role to play politics or curry favor with vendors.

No-Bid Contract Repeal Tabled by NorCo GOP

Executive John Brown's no-bid contracts under review

If the four Democrats and five Republicans on Northampton County Council agree on anything, it's that the Administrative Code is due for a serious overhaul. But both sides disagreed sharply, at their March 6 meeting, over whether Executive John Brown had the authority to award a $84,000 no-bid, public relations contract to Bethlehem's Sahl Communications. Lamont McClure introduced a resolution to repeal it. But in a vote that went strictly along party lines, it was tabled.

In addition to being a battle between Democrats and Republicans, this dispute also pitted two County Attorneys against each other.

Phil Lauer, who represents Council, advised that the no-bid contract was unlawful. He noted that the Administrative Code requires that contracts for professional services be competitively bid. He added that, even when a no-bid contract is permitted, an Executive Order must be issued before it is awarded, explaining why competitive bidding would be impractical. That never occurred.

Vic Scomillio, who represents the Executive, argued just as effectively that the no-bid contract is not only legal, but is just one of many similar contracts awarded throughout the years by previous administrations. He disputed that media firm Sahl Communications provides "professional services", which he called a "term of art" used in the Administrative Code to refer to services that require specialized skill or an "extended course of specialized study." He acknowledged that the Executive Order issued in conjunction with this contract failed to explain why bidding would be impractical, but assured Council that the Order had been "updated".

No member of Council had seen the updated Order, so Scomillio provided his own copy to Lauer, stating that a memo had gone out to Council. "Why they weren't received, I'm not sure," said Scomillio.

"They went out at 4:48 pm", said Controller Steve Barron from his seat in the audience, which is after the 4:30 pm closing time in Northampton County.

After making a cursory review, Lauer concluded the language may be inadequate. "I don't believe the Executive orders that you've given me state a reason, although they do by implication." He also noted the order must be issued before the contract is awarded.

McClure scoffed at the argument that Sahl Communications is not providing "professional services."

"In order to award this $84,000 one year contract to Sahl Communications for public relations, which the Administration wants to argue isn't a professional service, you have to also explain why Sahl Communications is the only one who can offer this nonprofessional service as a sole provider. And I would suggest to you it can't be done in the context of twisting yourself into that particular pretzel."

McClure argued that whether Council sues is immaterial because a citizen could file suit as well.

Mat Benol moved to table the matter until the next meeting, which passed along party lines. Because the motion to table is only until the next meeting, Council will visit the Executive's authority to award no-bid contracts again in two weeks.

After the meeting, a disgusted Ken Kraft stated, "The Republican Party voted tonight to allow the County Executive to spend $84,000 on a public relations firm that's not professional." But one of those Republicans, Glenn Geissinger, had a different take. "[W]e voted to table a resolution that called into question the legal rights of the Executive under the Administrative Code to execute a certain classification of contract."

(Blogger's Note: Updated 11:10 am.)

No-Bid Consultant Contracts Appears to Be Illegal

According to Valley 610, Northampton County Council member Ken Kraft has challenged the legality of two consultant contracts recently awarded by Executive John Brown. He points to two, but there's actually three of them: an $84,000 public relations consultancy with Kim Plyler; a $24,000 personnel consultant (Integrity Personnel) and a $20,000 capital projects review from Donna Taggart. Pursuant to a Right-to-Know request, I obtained and posted copies of all three contracts.

Before I get into the Administrative Code, let me give you some background on these consultants.

Integrity Personnel's owner, Kevin Flemming, is a friend, business associate and perhaps even a client of Attorney Scott "I love the NIZ" Allinson. Funny thing. I heard that Allinson represents Deana Zosky, too. This is something I can't confirm.

Attorney-client privilege, you know.

Donna Taggart seems to have connections everywhere. She did a lot of work, still may, for the Greater Easton Development Partnership. Dick McAteer has his fingers in that piece of pie. We know his connection to Brown and the Lehigh Valley Partnership.

Taggart also threatened me with libel many years ago, over something that another blogger had written.

Kim Plyler was actually a communications specialist with the ill-fated Callahan for Congress run. How did she get connected to Brown? Real political irony there. She and Donna Taggart share the same office on East Third Street.

Though I'm letting Kraft use my law degree, I'm mostly interested in what lawyers familiar with municipal law think about these contracts. I've spoken to three of them, and it appears that my law degree is in good hands. Kraft is right.

1. Brown lacks authority to spend money for these contracts. - Without a budget amendment, Brown has no authority to spend money for contracts that were never funded by Council. He does not have the power, under the Home Rule Charter, to transfer money appropriated for other purposes. They control the purse strings.

2. Brown skipped the procurement office. - The Administrative Code, in order to prevent awarding political favors, centralizes contract awards through the procurement office (Sec. 13.04). With some enumerated exceptions that have no application here, these contracts must be awarded through the procurement office, not the Executive.

3. Professional service contracts require competitive negotiation. -  The Administrative Code requires competitive bidding, even for professional services contracts (Sec.13.09). According to one legal expert, this means there must be public notice (advertising); a Request for Proposals (RFPs); opening of the proposals by the Procurement Officer; and an award to the person whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the County, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals. "The procedure must be followed to avoid the awarding of contracts at the whim of the Executive, which appears to be what happened here."

4. Brown awarded no-bid contracts without explaining why competitive bidding is impractical. -The consultant contracts that Brown executed appear to be professional services contracts that should have gone the competitive bidding route. But let's assume they're not. The Administrative Code does allow no-bid contracts in some circumstances, but the Executive must issue an Executive Order before he executes the contract, stating why he was unable to use competitive negotiation. He also must clear it with Council. (Sec. 13.07(b)).  There is no evidence that happened.

Solicitor Vic Scomillio seems to think that this provision of the Administrative Code only applies to the acquisition of County property, as he explained to a Council Committee not long ago. He seems to be thinking real estate. But if he reads the Code a little more closely, he'll see that "services" like a consultant contract are included in the term "County property.:"  For example, Section 13.04 (a), which centralizes these contracts in the procurement office, provides they apply to "services, printing and purchasing of other County property." (Emphasis is mine).

5. The Administrative Code has Teeth. - Section 13.21 provides that if Brown intentionally or knowing violates the purchasing provisions of the Administration Code, he can be personally surcharged for any damages caused to the County. In other words, he can be forced to pay the cost of those contracts himself. In addition, he would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

I believe these contracts are illegal. I have no doubt that Brown, when executing these political favors, had no idea that he was breaking the law. But now that he has been put on notice, he needs to suspend these contracts.