Friday, September 5, 2008

The Market Building

As you probably know, this past Tuesday City Council got into a lively discussion regarding the DRI/Coalition proposal to overhaul the Market Building. This was the only proposal received in response to an RFP issued seeking a public/private partnership for the future operation of the building. See the RFP here http://www.roanokeva.gov/DeptApps/PurchasingBids.nsf/4932692bdcc8a5d885256fc00069a3f5/cecc8411a230eac0852573fc006400f7?OpenDocument.

There were a number of good aspects of the proposal, but one significant problem: it did not conform to the guidelines as set out in the RFP. Some folks within the Coalition dispute this, but a unanimous vote by a board of city officials all agreed on this point, as did a number of area business folks who were a part of the coalition. But this is beside the point. The point is that Council decided that the city should issue another, broader RFP that allows for flexibility and hopefully creativity in responses. And DRI/the Coalition will be able to re-submit their proposal, with improvements based on our discussions. To me, this is a good thing.

Additionally, there are legal requirements when a response to an RFP does not conform to guidelines. Though many of us would have liked to have discussed/negotiated/worked on the one proposal we received, the law requires that we issue another RFP that affords others the opportunity to submit broader proposals. I wish this point had been shared in media accounts more clearly.

But the main point of all this is that members of City Council were not allowed to read the proposal before we had to make a decision on whether to accept or reject it. This is a big problem.

In a City Manager form of government, the city manager should be the person responsible for working on the details of everyday business within the city. But when there are proposals, particularly ones of this importance, Council members should absolutely have the ability to ask for and receive a copy to read. Unless it violates a law, harms the civil rights of an individual or otherwise directly hurts the city's ability to negotiate with an entity, we as members of Roanoke City Council have a responsibility to know, question and understand what it is we are voting on and how we are spending taxpayer money.

It is true that I asked for a copy of the proposal the week before we were first briefed on the DRI/Coalition plan. And it is equally true that I was told it was against administration policy to receive one. Instead of arguing, I called a local business person and asked if they could get me a copy which was done and in my hands within the hour.

The administration works hard and we should all, whether we agree with or do not agree with decisions made, respect their efforts and know that they are doing what they believe to be in the best interests of the city. But as members of City Council, we are answerable to the citizens. We are the ones who must explain why we decided to spend taxpayer money in certain ways. We should always keep this in mind.

I will work to make sure that in the future members of City Council have access to any information deemed fit or necessary to make the important decisions that affect our everyday lives as residents of Roanoke.

1 comment:

Chris Berry said...

Thanks for the clarification. I don't think the RT did a very good job spelling out the facts. I agree with you that it's time to challenge the administration policy. There is no point in having an elected council if you don't have access to the information required to cast an informed vote.