Minutes for September 15, 2015 Meeting

Minutes for September 15, 2015 meeting

2

Present:

2

Mary Page Bailey, (Counsel)

Paul Beane, (DelARF)

Ava Briggs, (DVI)

Ty Case, (Member)

Jayson Crouch, (Member)

Thomas Cook, (DelARF Ex-Officio)

Debbie Harrington, (Chair)

Dan Madrid, (DVI Ex-Officio)

Michele Mirabella, (Member)

Lloyd Schmitz, (Public)

Kristy Trudel, (DelARF)

Dean Stotler, (GSS Member)

Chuck Wagner, (Member)

2

2

Absent:

Dobbins Doyle, (Vice Chair)

Valerie Watson, (Member)

2

Mrs. Harrington called the Subcommittee meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

I.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Review of August 18, 2015 meeting minutes. There were no comments or questions for the minutes. Mr. Crouch motioned to accept minutes as approved, Mr. Wagner seconded the motion, all approved minutes as written, none opposed, motion carried minutes for the August 18, 2015 are accepted.

II.  OLD BUSINESS

a.  Review of draft By-Laws – Chairperson moved this agenda item under Subcommittee report for later in this meeting.

b.  DelARF draft letter for background checks – 2 meetings ago it was discussed inviting Department of Services for Youth, Children, and Their Families Secretary Jennifer Ranji to the meeting to talk about the process of background checks. DelARF had been asked to explain concerns with background checks and how often it occurs before inviting a representative to the meeting to explain the process of background check. Mr. Cook responded that subcontract providers are prequalifying contractors with their own background checks before getting a State Background Investigation (SBI) check. In addition, when a SBI background check is completed, an explanation or clarity on the rational of why some people are denied after the SBI check is given should be provided, especially if there are written guidelines or procedures that the Capital Police follow. It was inferred that denials are based on the judgement call of the building manager and Capital Police Officer for certain buildings. Ms. Trudel stated she had asked if she could get in writing why a specific person was denied, and she was told no by Officer O'Bara of Capitol Police. Officer O’Bara who is the Detective for the Capital Police in charge of background checks and building entries, has stated Capitol Police utilize the same guidelines as Woodbridge School for conducting background checks.

Mr. Cook went on to state that another item to look at are people with disabilities being held to a higher standard than other contractor or state employees regarding background checks. In order to establish numerical data, a survey would need to be conducted on the subcontractors on how many are given background checks and are not considered if something is on the background. It was suggested to check with Detective O’Bara to see if there is a record kept for those that are denied; and if not; this data would also need to be collected by the subcontractors. Mr. Cook also stated that it might be a procedure or process that should be worked on so that there is not a stricter standard for those with impairments than any other state employee. This could also be presented to the Joint Sunset Committee (JSC) for review. Ms. Trudel stated there is an Excel spreadsheet that is kept by the Detective of all the people who are processed for background checks. Mr. Cook asked the Commission if a letter written by the Chairperson to request to review how many people are denied from MidAtlantic and DelARF, as well as, why a subcontractor would deny employment based upon a person’s background check when the background check comes back favorable. Ms. Mirabella pointed out the cost and timeliness of SBI background checks from a service provider’s viewpoint. Mr. Stotler stated the difference of cheap check of name and birth versus the full SBI check that really verifies a person identity and the other verifies any unlawful activity of that person. Ms. Mirabella agreed that it is more extensive, but reiterated the fact remains that it is for a janitorial position that a person is denied because of a prior offense that happened many years ago, not to mention it slows the person down to work waiting on a SBI response on a background check. The difference in cost is $28.00 versus $61.00 for a SBI check. Mr. Stotler stated extensive background checks are conducted for certain state positions as well such as school districts, law enforcement, and medical facilities. There are job classes and accessibility to certain information that require some state positions, as well as janitorial positions, to require background checks, whereas some positions do not require one, even though both types of positions may reside in the same building. This is an issue that constituted Executive Order 42, but with which the Commission sees as a recognizable barrier and would like to draft a change to, but needs guidance as to what level of change would be appropriate. Mr. Wager mentioned he knew of an agency that does international background checks within 48 hours that cost $22.00 and stated he would gather further information on the agency. Mr. Stotler mentioned this is not the first time that has been suggested for a cheaper cost in background checks, but the issue has been what level of validation that is acceptable. For example, a correctional officer and a person in mailroom are given the same type check, but the duties are clearly different. The issue is what happens to the results and that’s where the discrepancy lies. If a person got in a bar fight at 21 years of age should that prevent them from working janitorial services many years later? Or, if an individual were charged with embezzlement at the age of 25, should that prevent the person from working in finance? Although it is easier universally to apply the standard across the board, background checks should be based upon a job-by-job discretion practice. It was then discussed that the Commission should ask if there is a written description of the criteria of the offenses that result in an individual being denied employment. Mr. Cook stated it is reasonable to ask the Detective for this numerical data from the beginning of the year, as well as what criteria they use to disqualify a person. There is also the question of a two-tier system. DelARF could provide what the two-tier system should be. This could then be a recommendation to Secretary Ranji. Ms. Harrington stated she first would like assistance from DelARF and Mr. Madrid with writing a letter to Detective O’Bara asking for data on those that are denied and what the criteria is for denial. Once this information is received, it will be presented with recommendations.

c.  Review of the State Competitive Bidding Process – At the last meeting DelARF did a comparison of other states and how they manage the competitive bidding process. Maryland and Virginia were named as comparison states to view how their programs run. Maryland’s statue and regulations do not require a competitive bidding process or preference, and in Virginia, there apparently is not a lot of activity in competitive bidding. They do not have a State Use Law program and have been gradually working on people-first language and eventually would consider a program in the future. Ms. Harrington asked the Commission their thoughts on state-run competitive bidding and the preference. Ms. Mirabella does not agree with this process. She stated it will shrink the program and leave the bidding up to people who will not necessarily look out for those with disabilities, and would be a risk. She also questioned what the purpose of the Commission would be if it did take on this process. It appears there is not an interest from the state for asking for pay increases to service providers for the services that are provided or a champion program willing to hire people with disabilities. There is no opportunity or voice of those that work for those that have disabilities if it is moved to competitive bidding. Mr. Madrid thanked DelARF for researching this information and stated his interpretation of the best state is Connecticut, although it had very little growth. Mr. Stotler mentioned a partnership program where the considered vendor would hire at least 30% disabled. He feels the stagnation in our state has to do with the limitations of services available without major capital investments providers and what the state is buying. Focus is on low functioning task oriented jobs and these positions are limited within the state. Mr. Crouch agrees that is why it should be protected, because of the limited opportunities for the disabled. Mr. Stotler stated that individuals with disabilities are not the problem; it is making sure the service needs are met. Ms. Harrington appreciated the discussion, and she agreed with Ms. Mirabella with the loss of significance of the Commission. She is concerned competitive bidding will lose the special interest with people with disabilities. Not that there is not a focus on budget or other items discussed, but you have to have concern for those with disabilities. Mr. Stotler is not prepared to make a move on competitive bidding at this time. He stated the fair market evaluation and to stay competitive, remains the cleanest way for the Set-Aside procedure to operate. Mr. Crouch stated the 14c shelter certificate is in place to assist with the program along with the changes suggested to the Bylaws and Regulations that show how a CNA will assist in the process. There are pros and cons to the 14c. There are some people who are against the 14c, but without it there would be people that would be left out. However, by eliminating the 14c, it could help the vulnerable people that gain employment through the state in a fair way to the open market. (14c is the Fair Labor Trades Act that allows certificate holders to pay less than the minimum wage based on a series of requirements they have to meet) Mr. Cook stated the reason to eliminate it in the law is because of where the market is right now. The majority of what there is are in the service sector. Mr. Crouch responded it opens it up to help more people with other disabilities. Ms. Harrington stated the Commission will stay with the structure it currently has and once the administrative process with the JSC is over, this topic will be looked at again regarding how to expand the market.

d.  Annual Report – Mr. Beane gathered the information for the data reporting of this report. Information was gathered on total employees, wages, labor, and those that went on to competitive employment. He went over totals for temporary employment, janitorial services, and secured documents. The usage analysis is for FY15 with plans to compare further assessments as time goes on. Mr. Beane would like to send the draft, and is open to further discussion from the Commission. Two meetings are scheduled for input and final vote with the first meeting for input and discussion scheduled for Wednesday, 9/23/15 at 2:00 PM. He asked that submissions are sent to him as soon as possible for the draft. The next scheduled meeting to vote to send the report to printers will be on Monday, 9/28/2015 at 11:00 AM.

III. NEW BUSINESS

a.  Review of JSC recommendation for September Progress Report – A progress report is due at the end of September for JSC. Ms. Harrington will review and write the progress report to include the Draft Bylaws and Regulations. This will be sent out by her to the Commission and a vote will be made at the Monday, September 28, 2015 meeting for submission to JSC.

b.  Price adjustment request for JP Court 3/17 – At the request of Easter Seals, DelARF has identified a new CRP; Connections; to provide cleaning services. The specifications are the same as in the master agreement. DelARF asked the Commission to consider a price increase for the sites services to maintain operating costs recovered by the Provider. Cost justification was compared to current sites awarded to Mid-Atlantic in terms of usage, hours of operation, and current cleaning requirements for Court 7/16 in Smyrna; a 24 hours/7 days/week site. The proposed increase price per month is $1,006.50; the current price is $846.05. This is a one vote proposal for an increase of a currently established Set-Aside that has a new subcontractor, because the provider remains the same. Mr. Stotler moved to change the price to for JP Court 3/17 with a new subcontractor, Connections, providing the service. Mr. Crouch seconded the Motion. All were in favor with one abstention; Ms. Mirabella; and Motion was approved.

c.  Price adjustment request for Delaware Public Archives – Ms. Mirabella recused herself from this discussion ahead of time as it directly relates to Chimes. At the request of State, DelARF and subcontractor, Chimes, evaluated the cost for the services provided at Delaware Public Archives (DPA) to determine if cost for the services provided at DPA could be increased to cover the costs for current services. After a thorough examination of specifications, and discussion with the client, a price was negotiated and approved by all parties pending approval of the Commission. Information on file at GSS reported in the Master Agreement indicated the facility had 28,420sq.ft. Of cleanable space, but after examination Facilities Management provided updated square footage of 78,500sq.ft. a significant difference from when the site was originally set-aside along with additional seasonal services that had been added. Mr. Stotler motioned to approve the price increase for DPA to accommodate extra footage. Mr. Case seconded the vote, and the Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stotler motioned to accept increase in prices for additional seasonal services as a per diem for DPA sites with the contingency that Facilities Management is the ones who request the additional services. Mr. Crouch seconded the motion, all in favor, none opposed. Motion carried.

d.  Set-aside request for porter services for the new location of the Brandywine Community School – The Commission congratulated DelARF for obtaining a site in the school district. DelARF presented to the Commission a request for first vote to add Brandywine Community School at 500 Darby Road, Wilmington, DE 19703 for janitorial services. Pricing is based on hourly porter services at an hourly cost of $16.64 per hour. Specifications are a little different due to floor care and wiping down desks and boards. Connections is the subcontractor. Hours of operation 2:00p.m. – 6:00p.m., 4 days a week. Additional fees may apply for requested floor care and carpet cleaning, daily price $66.56, Monthly Price $1,442.13. Mr. Stotler questioned summer months and periods of school closing for in-service days and holidays. If the school is used beyond school hours for community events how will that be addressed, because if it is a flat monthly rate 3 months out of the year the school is closed and still paying for services to clean an empty building. It was suggested that clarifying language to read the flat rate and a per diem rate applies when the school is closed if services are needed allowing the school to decide if they want to be billed to clean the school when it is closed. Mr. Crouch made a Motion for the first vote to approve to add Brandywine Community School for janitorial services. Pricing is based on hourly porter services at an hourly cost of $16.64 and a per diem rate applies when the school is closed if services are needed. Mr. Stotler seconded, all in favor, none opposed, motion approved for the first vote.