In our March 8, 2016, post entitled A $315,000 SNAFU at McEuen?, OpenCdA observed that Coeur d’Alene’s city government sometimes buries items in the Council meeting’s Consent Calendar. The rationale for this practice stated on the Council agenda is a buried item is “considered routine by the City Council.” No need to inform the public by discussing the meat of such a buried item.
In our March 8 post, we expressed some concern this procedural interment might occur with an item, a contract change order, approved by the City’s General Services Committee at its March 3 meeting. We were right.
The online agenda for the March 15, 2016, City Council meeting lists this item G.6.b. on the Consent Calendar: Approval of Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Ednetics, Inc. for the IP Camera Surveillance System — Recommended by General Services Committee.
OpenCdA thinks this change order ought to have closer scrutiny before the casket is closed and buried by the City Council in the privacy of the Consent Calendar.
Our concern is prompted by one sentence in the General Services Committee staff report attributed to Brandon Russell, Database Administrator. We assume Russell is a City employee. The sentence causing our concern was
During installation of the cameras, it became apprent that the required coverage would not be possible without adding additional cameras. [emphasis ours]
The key word is ‘required.’
Who defined the required video coverage parameters? Logically, it would have been a City employee who is directly responsible for safety and security over McEuen. Who was that person?
But video coverage is only one component of an adequate program for public and employee safety and security. Video coverage by itself is never adequate.
Who was that person at Coeur d’Alene City Hall who was responsible for working with Team McEuen during every step of the project to ensure the safety and security of McEuen Park and Parking Garage was adequately assessed, designed, and delivered? Who determined that person’s knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience were adequate for the task?
Often, an employee with a position description and title such as director of safety and security is responsible for working with architects, engineers, contractors, and others from project conception to completion and sign-off. That employee is responsible for every detail relating to safety and security. Who was that employee at Coeur d’Alene City Hall for the McEuen Project? Just as important, who was responsible for properly supervising that employee?
OpenCdA suspects there was no such strict accountability for safety and security included in the McEuen project. If there had been, we would not have seen this proposed change order, nor would we have seen the statement, “During installation of the cameras, it became apprent that the required coverage would not be possible without adding additional cameras.
Some much for transparency. The whole group doesn’t care what they spend, easy come – theres more where that came from Citizens property taxes.
Comment by Sharon Culbreth — March 11, 2016 @ 2:54 pm
Sharon,
Even though it’s less expensive to design in security and safety than retrofit it, we have to consider the possibility that the City and Team McEuen intentionally omitted the safety and security so that the public would not associate the additional costs with the cost of the project. Remember, it was important that the cost of the project appear to be below a specifically promised amount.
But what really concerns me is that the one-sentence statement I quoted is an admission that a proper physical security survey was not done and documented. It raises the question, “What else was not done properly in the entire project?”
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2016 @ 3:00 pm
How much time do you have?
Comment by Dan Gookin — March 11, 2016 @ 3:39 pm
Dan,
ba-dum-ching
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2016 @ 3:48 pm
Did lcdc have any involvement in this project other than financing?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 11, 2016 @ 5:26 pm
Susie,
Aside from exhorting the City to site the parking garage where it would deliver the greatest financial benefits to its cronies, LCDC’s hands were presumably lily-white. Others may know better, however.
Comment by Bill — March 11, 2016 @ 6:59 pm
What was the council’s decision?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 16, 2016 @ 8:21 am
Susie,
I don’t know. The City’s website is still showing the March 1 Council meeting, and the latest minutes on the website are from the February 16 meeting.
Comment by Bill — March 16, 2016 @ 2:07 pm
Susie,
The video of Tuesday night’s meeting was put up later this afternoon. The consent calendar was approved as written without discussion.
Comment by Bill — March 16, 2016 @ 7:11 pm
No discussion – how disappointing. I hope that there will not be any change orders.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 16, 2016 @ 7:45 pm
Susie,
My bigger concern is that this video system error was so avoidable that I have to wonder what other dereliction occurred – and by whom. Are there bigger incompetencies with latent worse consequences that won’t show up for weeks, months, or years? Worse, I wonder how much more it is going to cost the people of Coeur d’Alene to cover for someone’s incompetence.
Comment by Bill — March 16, 2016 @ 7:56 pm