HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting September 9, 2013
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 9, 2013
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 12:00 Noon, Monday, September 9,
2013, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson,
Jackson, Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll go ahead and call the meeting to order. Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: We can either do the legal meeting first and do the agenda items you
have listed. There’s like two other items on there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s get everybody locked in here. We’ll go ahead and do the agenda
items that are listed on there first.
1.Motion to receive/approve a report from the Law Department and DBE Director
regarding a finished product concerning Augusta, Georgia’s DBE Program for
federally assisted contracts in order to comply with the Department of
Transportation’s program and update of the DBE rules 49 CFR Part 23. (Referred
from Commission in meeting September 3, 2013 and Administrative Services
Committee August 26, 2013)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure. I have passed out a packet of information. Actually there’s two
documents that were distributed. One is a clean copy and one is a redline copy that is a
reflection of our proposal to have some amendments to the current program that was submitted
in March of 2012. Ms. Gentry has also been provided with this copy and she does have a
different approach that she’d like to use with respect to making some changes. I do have a letter
from the FTA dated July 24 where they had shown a number of different things that they had as
issues they’d like for us to correct with the program. Our approach was to just include those and
I think her approach was to try to do a little more broad based amending that included more than
just the ones they wanted corrected. And there’s notations in the redlined version you have that
show the difference between those.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, and I’ve got a couple of questions. Is the motion to receive or is it a
motion to approve?
Mr. MacKenzie: You could approve it today but I mean you just got the document and if
you need time to review it, the deadline to submit it back to FTA is not until September 24 so it
could be approved at next week’s meeting and still meet the compliance requirement to be
finished in 60 days.
1
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I think in the letter that’s dated July 24 they asked that we make
changes where there is a check mark and that we submit the whole plan. Now what we received
this morning, is that what took place?
Mr. MacKenzie: What you have in front of you is a document that is a new program that
includes some amendments specifically designed to address the specific deficiencies that were
referenced in the July 24, 2013 letter.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, so what you presented to me is a document that’s going to address,
it’s the whole program but with the issues that was addressed with the FTA.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and I guess my last question, I think one of the things that the
Commission did was task the Law Department and the Procurement to get together to come up
with this document and that’s what happened?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, it is.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Can we get a motion here? Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. General Counsel.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: I will make a motion that we receive this as information which would allow
us ample time to review the content and have additional discussion with the DBE Director and
also the Law Department and hopefully we’ll come up with a product that will be satisfactory
and won’t have to wait another year to find out and lastly, I’ve had this problem for the entire
time I’ve been on this Commission is that the DBE officer is certified. We have a certified EEO
Director and a certified HR Director. Now these people are paid big bucks, a heck of a lots more
than I’m getting, to know what the law is and what I would like to see from this day forward if
the DBE or EEO or HR says something, let’s hold their feet to the fire as opposed to the Legal
Department coming up with their definition of what is supposed to be law when the Legal
Department does not have the expertise in those particular areas. Not taking anything away from
your lawyers but that’s not something you do on a daily basis.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion to receive as information. Do we have a second?
Mr. G. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been properly seconded. Mr. MacKenzie, then Mr. Guilfoyle.
2
Mr. MacKenzie: To clarify as well, could we have that motion include and to place this
on next week’s Commission agenda item too since it has a deadline to be approved?
Mr. Mayor: Would the maker of the motion amend the motion to include that?
Mr. Lockett: Most certainly.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, this is for legal. Andrew, you had said early on in your opening
statement that you had only redlined what the federal government asked us to correct, is that
correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: The redlined document explains the changes that were made from the
2012 draft that was approved by the Commission as well as in the comments the things that were
not included from proposals from the DBE office relating to what they would like to improve
and that gets back to the approach from DBE has been to do more comprehensive changes than
were listed in the July 24 letter.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. If we only respond to what Federal asked us to do, chances are
this approving is greater, would that be –
Mr. MacKenzie: Those are my thoughts.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. We have a motion that’s been made and properly
seconded. Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: And I’d like to ask Ms. Gentry the same question that Commissioner
Guilfoyle asked the Law Department because I think we’ve got too much, we’ve got too much
riding on this document and we’ve got a September 24 deadline.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry.
Ms. Gentry: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. What was the
question again, Mr. Guilfoyle?
Mr. Guilfoyle: In regards to what was redlined, what the legal counsel had prepared for
us, he only focused on the areas which was sent back to us, I guess, from DOT that needed to be
changed or looked at and that’s what he focused on is what they had a problem with, I imagine
nothing above or beyond that.
Ms. Gentry: And my response to that is the department nor me as the DBE liaison is in
support of it and let me explain to you the rationale. The report for the 2012 consists of a
template that FTA put together in 2010. Several laws, several clauses have been inserted into
3
that document. Now when FTA reviewed the document and provided it, the finding to us, and
please understand, this is the third time the Law Department has submitted a DBE program and I
do have documentation for you, but in submitting this program in 2012 it did not include a lot of
the clauses and information. As of 2012 a new template came out. My rationale was to not go
back to the old document and just insert those three areas, but to mirror the template that was
submitted to us. FTA has presented several concerns as relates to us. I mean we’ve gone back
on three separate occasions. At one point the Law Department wanted to merge the Procurement,
EEO and DBE and it came back denied. The second time they wanted to encompass FTA and
FAA and all federals and it came back denied. The third time, as some of you may remember in
2012, I ventured out after speaking to Commissioner Lockett to say I think it would benefit us if
we contacted FTA and identify whether or not our document is inclusive of everything.
Mr. Guilfoyle: That was the document where you said it was approved by the
Commission.
Ms. Gentry: That’s correct.
Mr. Guilfoyle: And it was not.
Ms. Gentry: And it was not and basically I have a letter here from Rebecca Rand that
indicated, she indicates here that this is not in the form of approval or conditional approval,
however please enter this document into team and follow the normal guidelines. Again, we had
made the changes, submitted it to the Law Department and once again, it has been changed.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So the whole problem in a nutshell, excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ever since, I guess, the past couple of months everything points at legal.
What is the Legal Department’s responsibility when it comes to our contract?
Ms. Gentry: As it relates to the contract, they are the overseer and make sure that we
adhere to the legal ramification for Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Is that what they’re doing?
Ms. Gentry: I am the DBE liaison and ultimately it points out in Section 22.6 that the
DBE liaison is ultimately responsible for creating and implementing and insuring compliance
with FTA guidelines and rules.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So the information that you sent last year based on speaking with Mr.
Lockett and where you had actually said it was approved by the Commission and it was not. Did
that get turned down?
4
Ms. Gentry: That is the one that you’re, the findings, is here today. That’s the one we’re
discussing where Mr. MacKenzie indicated that there was findings and he has also indicated and
–
Mr. Guilfoyle: It only focused on what they had a problem with and that’s what he
redlined and changed.
Ms. Gentry: No. He actually went through the document in its entirety and changed it
compared to what I put together. I put together the DBE program in compliance to FTA. I
utilized their sample template and which they recommended. Started fresh. I didn’t insert
anything. I utilized their template and made sure that we adhered to every clause that was in that
template. What Mr. MacKenzie provided me on Friday afternoon is a template where he simply
went in and inserted the six areas. What my concern is as the DBE liaison I’m not in support of
this document simply because it has language from 2010, 2011 as well as 2012. What I am
recommending is taking FTA’s guidelines and establishing it utilizing the template that is there.
All we’re doing is inserting Augusta Richmond County and the DBE liaison.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So if we follow your procedure your way and if it comes back, it’s no
longer Legal’s fault. Would that be correct to say?
Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, what I am saying is I can’t guarantee this but, however, I
have seen three other (inaudible) who have submitted the same DBE program utilizing the same
template. I also have a copy of their approval letter indicating that they have been approved. I
utilized them as my resource. I utilized the template as a resource and I’m confident that if we
submit the DBE program according to the template, we should not have any problems. I cannot
guarantee that; however, based on the email that I received from, and based on the conversations
I had with FTA, every time we submit the document we want to include Augusta Richmond
County Charter, we want to include the minority EEO. We want to also include Procurement
and what I’ve shared with Legal this morning is that this is an FTA document as it relates to
DBE program. There is also an EEO document out there. This document is inclusive only to
FTA so when we start to insert language as it relates to the Charter or ordinance and we’ve been
told on several occasions and again, I do have the letters here. We’ve been told on several
occasions that they are not interested in Augusta Richmond County’s ordinance or Charter. That
needs to be maintained from our level. They’re only interested in making sure that we adhere to
FTA’s 49 Part 26 and that is what the document that I presented to you is that document. This
altered, changed document is not one that I support. I’m here to do as the Commission would
like me to do.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, then Commissioner Fennoy, then Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to clarify something. About a year ago
when I (inaudible) Ms. Gentry in reference to this FTA document, the template that we use, it
was not approved by the Commission. The FTA that went to Atlanta was the one that was done
by the Law Department because the one that we had was not. And, Ms. Gentry, I understand that
this thing is in existence at the airport, is that correct?
5
Ms. Gentry: I have it right here, sir. The airport completed the same document. It has
been approved by FTA. It was approved over a year ago.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, and would that contain basically the same thing that you’re talking
about that ours should contain now?
Ms. Gentry: This is same template. You can go to our template, the FTA’s template, and
the information is the same.
Mr. Lockett: And who has the ultimate responsibility to insure that this is correct when it
goes to FTA?
Ms. Gentry: The DBE liaison.
Mr. Lockett: And that would be you? Okay, and the question was asked what happened
if it goes in and it’s kicked back. Well, at least she has two other opportunities. Thank you,
ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Fennoy, you –
Mr. Fennoy: Yeah. Again I need to know whether we have one document or two
documents. Now from what I understand Andrew said, he has a document that addresses the
issues that FTA talked about but what you’re saying is you have another document that addresses
those issues plus other things, is that what I’m hearing?
Ms. Gentry: The document that I presented to you, not this one, back in committee
meeting was a template of FTA’s requirement and guidelines is inclusive of all the errors, the
findings that we had, it’s inclusive of everything so you’re absolutely correct. This committee,
Administrative Services charged the Law Department with reviewing the document that I
submitted to the Commission to identify any legal errors of concern. That is not what they did.
They’re taking the document and ultimately inserted information and totally changed it
altogether. I think it’s just, this Commission has to decide do we want to submit a document to
FTA that is a replica of their template and inclusive of all of the findings or do we want to
submit a document that, I’m sorry, as the DBE liaison, I can’t support.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and in the letter dated July 24 it says, “Please submit a revised DBE
program by attaching it in your receipt file, profile and team.” It says, “Do not submit only the
corrected requested. Submit the entire corrected program as a PDF document and delete any
prior submission attachments that the corrected DBE program might have.”
Ms. Gentry: That’s exactly what my document will do. Delete the old one and you will
have a new document. Along with that attachment he also provided us a sample of the DBE
program which is a template –
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
6
Ms. Gentry: -- and he suggested that I utilize that template which I did.
Mr. Fennoy: And my last question is that with the exception of what FTA checked off on
the old document, then all the other information would be correct and acceptable to FTA?
Ms. Gentry: Are you speaking of the document that I did, that I drafted or the document
that the Law Department drafted?
Mr. Fennoy: I’m speaking in reference to the document that the FTA is referred to in the
letter dated July 24.
Ms. Gentry: I think you hit on a great point when you indicated that they required us to
remove the old one and to insert a new one and I apologize, but my stance from that is to take
that old document which this Commission approved back on March 12, complete with the new
template, complete it, insert it and send it on for approval. I feel confident that we will be able to
get that approval. Now the document that Mr. Andrew is speaking of, I’m sorry, that to me was
not approved in its entirety. They only identified certain clauses that they looked and saw that
was not there so sending us that checklist and I think that’s made the confusion, sending us that
checklist indicates these are the major clauses that have been submitted and required since 2012
to include 2012 to 2013. That checklist does not mean the document that we submitted was
correct in its entirety. It did not indicate that. I did not take that from the letter and when I spoke
with FTA, that’s not what they said. What they indicated is that we sent you a template and if
you utilize the template, you will be much more successful in getting your program approved.
Mr. Fennoy: And I’m trying to figure this out because we have a lot at stake here.
Ms. Gentry: Absolutely.
Mr. Fennoy: And one of my concerns as far as the letter is concerned is that if I take a
test and there are 20 questions on the test and I miss three of the questions so the teacher says
these are the three questions that you missed, change your answer so why would I change the
answer to the other 17 questions in addition to changing answers to the three and from what
you’re saying, this is what happened in the document that you presented because they’re talking
about specific areas that need to be addressed and from what I’m hearing you saying that you
have addressed those areas but you have addressed other areas also.
Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, let me give you an example. If you took a test and there
were 20 questions, you’re only going to get credit for the 17 that you got credit for. I don’t
know, I’ve not been in school for a long time but it seems like to me that teacher would not give
you the same 20 questions, only the three questions, she would give you that test that consists of
20 if you want to get a better grade. Am I correct? If you want to get a better grade, she’s not
going to just give you the test with three questions. She’s going to give you a test with 20
questions and say go after it again. That is what I’m trying to do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Williams, you want to try to bring some clarity here?
7
Mr. Williams: I hope so, Mr. Mayor. It’s not that difficult. Ms. Gentry is tasked with the
position and the authority to do it. What I’m hearing is you talked with the FTA and they said
use this guideline that we sent to you and what I’m hearing you say that you have gotten that
guideline and you are going to send that back like they have suggested so we can get our
program moving forward versus trying to add something else to it or change it up and they’ll say,
“Well, look, we didn’t ask you for this and we’re going to send everything back.” It’s simple to
me now. We can talk about testing and all of the other stuff but it’s simple to me that if that’s
what FTA wants and we’re trying to get the funds or grants from them, we need to give them
what they want. Now, let’s don’t get bogged down with the DBE position with the courts and all
that other stuff because they said, and I think I heard you say, they’ve got nothing to do with that.
Ya’ll fight that out among yourselves down there but if you want this up here, do what we ask
you to do and you’ll be all right. So regardless of who put the program together or who outlined
it, whether the attorney or you did, I heard my colleague say that if you’re at fault then what, but
a lot of people done done some stuff that have been at fault and we ain’t did nothing, ain’t said
nothing about that so we ain’t going to start to do that now.
Ms. Gentry: Three times.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. I understand that. But you was asking what would
happen if you send it in and we took what you said and we’ve got to go with what you said. It
sounds like the FTA have gave you the instructions, showed you what you need to do and just
insert your name. Just like an application, just put your name in where it says fill in and you
ain’t got to write nothing down. Just put your name in and send it in. That’s keeping it simple,
that’s smart. So I appreciate you. I hope we can get past this and get this going, Mr. Mayor, but
if it’s not right, they’re going to send it back. They’re going to tell us.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: I’m sorry I got here late and I missed the first part of this. Mr.
MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: Please try to help me understand this. They sent us a document back
saying that there were five, six, seven items that needed to be dealt with. Am I correct about
that?
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct.
Mr. D. Smith: How many items?
Mr. MacKenzie: Would it help if I put this document up here? There is only a few of
them and you can actually look at them. Would that help?
Mr. D. Smith: Please.
8
Mr. MacKenzie: The letter says Augusta will need to submit a corrected version program
within 60 day or by September 24. That address is the items identified in the attached checklist
sample program. They include a checklist that has a number of items checked. You see on this
page there are no check marks related to any of these sections. There is a check in the main
section up here for administrative requirements, no checks in any of these boxes and if you flip
over to the next page and then it starts citing the ones that they wanted to make some corrections
to. One of those is prompt payment, it’s got DBE directory and then it has some bolded
instructions directing following each one of the submissions that they checked. One says please
update the link to GDOT’s directory for example on Section 26-.31. So there’s one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, it looks like eight items that were checked and some of those are just
adding citations and then it’s like nine if you include the last one on the last page. So I think this
is really a fundamental question of what to do with respect to the instructions that were given.
It’s my understanding from their email several times and it seems pretty clear to me that it
indicates that you need to make some corrections as identified and they have specifically
addressed the items that need to be corrected. So our approach and after meeting with Ms. Sams
as the Commission had added her to this process as well, it was our conclusion that the best
approach would be to do what this letter articulated doing which is making the few corrections
that were noted instead of going through here and writing a whole new program. For example,
making substantive corrections to all these other items we didn’t think was appropriate since it
took them 16 months to review this one. Our thoughts were to let’s fix the stuff at least as a first
step that they identified in the communication and not go back and rewrite all the other sections
which they had not created any negative findings for. So that’s the draft that you have in front of
you. But what Ms. Gentry would like to do is to rewrite the whole thing and start over and that’s
(inaudible) for ya’ll to make. We have given you a draft that does what the letter says to do. If
you’d like to go in and write a whole new version, there may be nothing wrong with doing that
but that’s not what they asked us to do in my opinion.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie. Ms. Gentry, can I ask you a question now?
Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: If they identified these items as being in non-compliance and want us to
fix them, then why would we throw the baby out with the bath water and start fresh?
Ms. Gentry: That’s a great question. Hold on, let me get my – Every year DBE program
45 CFR Part 26 has a sample program in which they update based on the clauses. I have a thing
here, an approval back in 2008-2009 where I put the DBE program together and submitted it
which was approved. Based on this there are changes every year. Instead of going through and
just looking at and inserting the areas identified by the findings, my recommendation was to use
the new template because the 2012/2011 is old. The documentation that was submitted by Law
Department was 2011 template, DBE program template. This what you have and what was
submitted to me along with that letter is the latest 2012, I want to say, 2012 template, it doesn’t
have a date on it, but this is what was submitted to me. And then looking at the two there are
some areas that is omitted in the 2012 document that was submitted that’s in here. It’s not part
of your findings. It’s not part of the findings; however, Mr. MacKenzie indicated why go
through and redo it. I’ve already did it, submitted it to you all, and it was my understanding he
9
was to take that document and just to make sure that it included the clauses that you questioned
and which I sent out to everyone and to make sure that we had a program that is based on the
template.
Mr. D. Smith: But obviously if we’ve got a letter that is less than 60 days old from the U.
S. Department of Transportation saying these are the things we want you to focus on, then I just
don’t understand why we would reinvent the wheel because they told us clearly you got 60 days
to do this and these are the things we want you to fix so if they didn’t identify them as being
problems, why are we going to start all over with a 60-day window that we’re operating in?
Ms. Gentry: They also suggested, provided us with a sample and suggested that we
utilize that sample.
Mr. D. Smith: Where is that? We don’t have any documentation saying, is there a letter
that matches this that says that this is something we want you to do because that clearly tells us
what to do.
Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, when I sent it out to you, I sent you the letter, the findings
and the sample. I sent all of it to you so that you could see that the sample that was used in 2011
is not the same sample that, in 2010, excuse me, is not the same sample that we have here so
instead of going (inaudible) and doing a comparison of the two, it was much more economically
and feasible to just go in and plug in Augusta Richmond County, plug in DBE liaison and plug in
all relevant information and that is what I presented you. So we’re not changing anything. Not
saying if we submit what you have before you today whether it will get passed or not, I’m not for
sure. All I’m saying as your DBE liaison, who is ultimately, have received training, certification
and who is ultimately responsible. If you notice that letter is addressed to me. At the end of the
day DBE liaisons should be able to put together a program that is conducive to CFR 49 and what
I’m saying to you today is the document you have before you is just not one that I support.
Thank you.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you had one more question and then, Mr. Mason.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mason was next.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Ms. Gentry, thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all it appears to be we’re
spending a lot of time which I consider much ado about nothing. At the end of the day this draft
that you’ve presented, does it have the corrections that was identified on the letter, those findings
that Mr. MacKenzie referenced?
Ms. Gentry: What he did with the draft that you have in front of you is took from my
document where I’ve answered the findings and included the correct information and just
10
inserted it. So to me you’re just inserting information and you’ve got old, you’ve got new,
you’ve got mixed.
Mr. Mason: This template that was sent to you is a newer template, is that what you’re
saying?
Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir. It’s newer than the one that we used for the 2011/2012 DBE
program. That’s correct.
Mr. Mason: Okay. So there’s changes not only the fact that it’s newer, but there are
some changes in some of the information. Did you make those changes on your drafted
document?
Ms. Gentry: I used their template, their latest template which is inclusive of all of the
findings. It’s inclusive of all of the findings. It’s inclusive of all of the new changes. This
template included everything so by sending this we are confident that we’re sending the latest
document template to FTA. In addition to that, let me explain. I submitted the same DBE
program based on the template back in 2008. This was approved and it allowed us to go into FY
2009. 2010 is when the new program came out and a new template. So that is where the
concerns are at. From 2010 up until now this template really, our program should be over in
2014 based on this template because new guidelines, new clauses come out every year and your
program has to be inclusive of those things.
Mr. Mason: I just want to make sure that not necessarily this one I have sitting in front of
me but the one that you did address the issues or the findings of the letter –
Ms. Gentry: It did.
Mr. Mason: -- and it’s inclusive of the newest template.
Ms. Gentry: It is.
Mr. Mason: Just for the point of note in my 28 years of working for federal government,
I would highly recommend that this Commission consider utilizing the newest template that’s
available with the findings that have been done and it seems to me that’s a no-brainer and that
will get us to where we need to be. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Gentry, before you sit down, please. I’m confused just a little bit.
That ain’t hard to do so don’t brag about that so that’s not – From what I’m hearing is that the
attorney just gave us a scenario, a document and are you saying that that’s an old document that
he’s referenced to and what you’re referencing to is a newer version or the newest thing from the
FTA?
11
Ms. Gentry: That is correct. He took the old document which this Commission approved
back in March 2012 and which I stated I was not in support of at that time, he took that
document, identified the nine areas of findings, inserted that and that is what you have in front of
you. What I’m referencing is taking the new sample –
Mr. Williams: I’m with you, you’re going to confuse me again and I’m trying to stay on
track so if that’s the case, those old findings in the new version that came out was going away
but we didn’t need to go back and do anything with that because the new version that you have
or the later version that you have kind of –
Ms. Gentry: It includes all the findings that we were fined for.
Mr. Williams: So really ya’ll are saying the same thing. I mean he just went the old way
of doing it but you’re just really saying the same thing. They’re in there. It’s like that Ragu
sauce we talked about but we just have a short period of time and we get mixed up when they
talk about disparities anyway. We get numb up here and we can’t think too good but we need to
get this moving forward so am I hearing they both are the same and just one went one way and
one came a newer way?
Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, I’m not for sure how to answer that question. All I’m
saying to you is the version that you have right now in front of you consists of information from
2010, 2011. The version that I provided you based on this 2012 template is what I did. So yes
the information is inclusive in his document. Yes, it’s there. I’ve gone through and I’ve
reviewed it. It’s there. However, if federal guidelines and again, Commissioner Mason may can
help me elaborate, if they tell you to include a, b, c and to do it this way, it’s much more
beneficial to do it that way. The old document that they’ve reviewed, Commissioner Fennoy
read it. It said to delete the old one and to submit a new sample program. That is all I’m saying.
Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is for the attorney. Andrew, what is the
problem about just letting Ms. Gentry submit this form that she had come up with and the only
thing I could ask with the help of this body is to overlook it without doing any changes and push
it through? That way it gets, everything seems to be ya’ll can’t get along, can’t seem to work
things out and just let her present the new form.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure. I’d be happy to explain the fundamental difference between these
two. First of all, also note as you look at the redline version, you can see exactly the differences
between the version that she submitted and the version that we are proposing. The reason why
we did it the way we did is because that is what FTA says. Although it has a clause at the end
that says here’s how you change it in team, it just says erase whatever you have in team but the
substantive instructions from the letter say we reviewed your March 2012 version. You need to
correct that and here’s what you need to fix. And there are these nine things and we worked with
the 2012 version and we corrected that. What she did was to start with the model and add in the
12
clauses and it’s my understanding that’s not what they asked us to do. They said we reviewed
your 2012 submission. To fix it to make it comply with what we want, here is what you need to
do and they pointed out the nine finite things to do and I will also indicate we also looked at the
model and there is nothing that is in the model that is not in this version as well. There weren’t
any updates from the model. The model has not changed substantively and the 2012 version was
based on the model as well. The model is just that. It’s a model and used to be changed to fit the
specific requirements of each different government which is what we’ve done with this. It’s not
like there’s a ton of new stuff in this new model that’s not in here. It includes everything that
was in the model as well. So we had to go through doing the brand new version that she did,
working from the 2012 version which is what they said and modifying that to comply with the
requirements of what they said to add in these additional requirements so the draft that we have
includes everything that they requested and nothing extra. The draft that she included has a lot
of stuff as you’ll see in the comments substantive portions of areas that were not identified as
problematic by FTA. That’s the difference. She has added in a bunch of other things that they
didn’t have a problem with and it’s risky in my opinion to submit a brand new document that
adds all these other areas that they’ve already took 16 months to review and come back and said
we don’t have a problem with these areas. My thoughts were why would we then go back and
add in new substantive changes to areas that they didn’t identify as problematic. Now that’s not
to say that later on they might have reviewed it and see some other problems with it. So my
thoughts are let’s do what they asked us to do, which was to correct the 2012 version. If we need
to change it later we can do that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Fennoy, then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Fennoy: And I guess my question is what impact would this document have on our
community if it goes back to FTA and it’s not approved? I mean, what would be the financial
impact upon our community?
Mr. MacKenzie: Well, as indicated in the letter, it says this could affect funding if you
don’t have a version that is approved by FTA. However, no matter what is submitted to FTA I
believe this government has a good open line of communication with them and we would hope
that if there’s a problem with whatever is submitted, we would work with them to try to make
additional corrections if that was necessary so that there wouldn’t be any adverse consequences.
Ultimately FTA could disapprove the program and there could be some financial consequences
to that but I don’t anticipate that in the future.
Mr. Fennoy: And I guess the second part of my question is that so what we as
commissioners are looking at is two applications that are being submitted to FTA. One that you
all finalized and one that Ms. Gentry finalized?
Mr. MacKenzie: Right. We have attempted to try to work together to come to a
universal draft that we both agree on but that’s not been possible so what you have is she
submitted a version as I explained based on the template and we submitted a version based on
the 2012 version which is what FTA has instructed.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, then Commissioner Guilfoyle.
13
Mr. Lockett
: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all I think the DBE and the Law
Department, they just disagree on what has to be done and I usually go along with the subject
matter expert which in this case is Ms. Gentry. Some of us fail to comprehend and she said it
several times, that since the last thing was sent to FTA there have been changes and there also
has been a new template that we don’t have and what she’s doing and she’s just not only
responding to those areas that were deficient, she has written the entire new thing complying
. I’d like to make a motion that we
with the new template and to me, it seems to be very simple
accept the version that’s done by the DBE Director who is certified and has the expertise.
Mr. Mayor: That’s a substitute motion. We already have a motion that –
Mr. Lockett: Substitute motion, thank you.
Mr. Mason: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
If there’s no further discussion, Commissioners will now vote on the substitute motion using the
substitute sign of voting.
Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item.
2.Request the General Counsel to prepare and return to court to ask for the
injunction to be lifted. (Referred from Administrative Services Committee August
26, 2013) (Requested by Commissioner Johnson)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson, this was your agenda item.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I guess I need to consult with the attorney.
Can we discuss up here, Andrew, I know we have to be very careful on this conversation but
before I get into this –
Mr. MacKenzie: Yeah, sure, and I know this had come up previously in another meeting
and that’s how it got on this agenda. It does relate definitely to potential litigation because if we
were going to go back to the court it certainly would be to file a motion in court to lift the
injunction that relates to a previous litigation that was resolved through settlement so it would be
my recommendation that we discuss this in legal which we have on the, as the next agenda item.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I’ll, I guess –
Motion to receive as information and discuss in legal?
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Johnson: I’ll make the motion to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have a second?
14
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
LEGAL MEETING
A.Pending and potential litigation
B.Real estate
C.Personnel
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to go into a legal meeting to discuss
pending and potential litigation and real estate.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Johnson: So move.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We are in legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: I’ll call the meeting back to order. Mr. MacKenzie.
3.Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the closed meeting affidavit.
Mr. Lockett: So move.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign.
15
Mr. Johnson, Ms. Davis and Mr. G. Smith out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: With no further business to come before the body, we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Nancy W. Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
September 9, 2013.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
16