28 days and counting, that is when Brega Transport is scheduled to take over the TOR and TZExpress contract on November 3rd.
The County extended the contract one month, after Brega Transport said they could not meet the October 1st startup date.
Below is a transcript of the September Legislatures meeting approving the one month extension. What is scary is that they are asking each other what is going on. They know or ought to know that there is pending litigation that may put a stop to the bid process. But forgetting that, Brega Transport said they will not be ready by October 1st, due to Union negotiations. But who did some in the Legislature blame, Mr. Vanderhoef’s office, why not. The Putnam County Court case should be decided by Monday.... maybe. Something else just brought to my attention, someone in another transit system told me of a similar situation with a union contract where a County had to make up the difference in the drivers pay scale from what the new operator was willing to pay and what the drivers were currently getting paid by the prior contract holder, and reading the agreement that Rockland County has with its Unions, it seems true, one paragraph states, (not quoting) any employee placed in a worse position with respect to compensation shall be paid monthly the difference between what the new operator is paying him(her) and what they were getting paid, up to a maximum of 6 years. That would be an interesting situation because now Rockland County would have to make up the difference, about $1.25 million a year. That would also mean Brega Transports bid actually might have been the same or more than the other two bidders. You can't make this stuff up, if anyone wants to read it I have the agreement between the unions and the County, believe or not it was written in 1975 and the 2011 edition is the same for the most part.
Find out what's happening in New Citywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
September 17, 2013 1344
Debate:
Find out what's happening in New Citywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Mr. Schoenberger
Some of you may remember that at the beginning of the year the County Executive proposed a
resolution to extend the contracts that we are voting on tonight, all three of these, for six months
with an option to renew for two additional three month periods, which would have put them
through the end of the year. This Legislature at that time voted not to go along with that and gave
the County Executive a three month extension, then he came back for another three month
extension, then he came back for another three month extension. It has been approximately a
year since September 14, 2012 that this Legislature passed a resolution awarding the contract to
the then low bidder. As we sit here tonight, no contract has been effectuated, one year later.
My motion to Waive the Rules and my moving of this resolution to extend it for one month is to
give a clear message to the County Executive that this has been dragging on way-way too long
and that the contract that was authorized by this Legislature, which he vetoed and we overrode,
should be put into effect. I also note, and for the record my recollection is, that to continue with
these three contractors instead of awarding it to the low bidder costs about $37,000 more per
month to operate the bus system.
This has been going on for three years and it has to come to an end. I am opposed to allowing
this to drag on through the end of the year. When the County Executive is gone and the new
County Executive who comes into office on January, it won't be me it will be somebody else, will
then have to walk in and have to pick up this problem, which has been lingering for three years.
By extending for one month only we should be giving a clear message to the administration that
this matter should be resolved by this administration, who created this problem from the very
beginning, before they leave office and not to leave it on the shoulders of our next County
Executive.
Mrs. Low-Hogan
What exactly is happening? Is this in the courts? What is happening? What is going to happen
in a month? I am not sure who can answer these questions, but I really don't know what the
answers are. Does anybody know the answers?
Chairwoman Cornell
I don't know the answer to the question as to why we are at this point right now, because I had
received a copy of a letter from the Transportation Commissioner maybe a month ago saying that
they were on target to be prepared and ready to go. Now this has come asking for the extension.
I don't know exactly what the reason is, but we can certainly find out.
Mr. Day
As I recollect, the last time we authorized this it was represented to us that it was going to be the
last extension. I concur 100% with the one-month extension. I find this frustrating. The people
who use the system are being held hostage. This body made a judgment last time to take the
word of the administration and move forward to protect the folks who use this system/buses.
Basically, we did the right thing. It is quite maddening to see this again in front of us knowing full
well that in the balance of our decision comes the fact that we need to have a comprehensive
transportation system. It is wrong. It is a sad commentary that we cannot take the word of the
administration on this matter. I support this, so we make sure that the bus system is running. I
think this entire matter is in the hands of the administration and they are not playing square with
us and it is a sad commentary to see that. I will support the one-month extension. I don't know
how I will feel in a month, because at some point this has got to stop, but I will support it this
evening.
Mr. Meyers
I totally agree with the substance of what is being done. I think it is dubious from a procedural
standpoint to move to suspend the rules based on a part of a resolution that is before us. Without
making a big to-do over it I would just like Counsel to tell us what is being deleted from the
resolution that is in front of us so we know what we are voting on.
Mr. McKay, Legal Counsel
It is my understanding that the motion made by Legislator Schoenberger is to delete the
reference to the two options for term extension through December 31, 2013 and only go with the
initial language in here dealing with the extension for the period October 1, 2013 through November 2, 2013
Mr. Schoenberger
My motion was to Waive the Rules to consider resolutions that only have until November 2, 2013
so that is the only thing before us.
Chairwoman Cornel
What is puzzling people is whether that is enough to do or whether we actually need to remove
the words or substitute.
Mr. Schoenberger
In the years I have been on the Legislative body we have sometimes taken under new business
resolutions made on the floor that were never even presented to us in writing. This is presented
to us by the administration. This is their request or so-called wish list. All I have done is modified
their wish list. It didn't go out in the packet. It was put on the desk tonight. We don't have to
accept a resolution prepared by the administration. We can change it any way we want and any
time we want. If the will of the majority is to do opposite from what I said then someone could just
make a motion to change it.
Chairwoman Cornell
That is fine.
Mr. Meyers
There is no question about that. I just want to know the words of the resolution we are adopting.
If it is a verbal resolution that is fine. If it is the written one without certain words that is fine too as
long as the extension options are omitted, which is what I believe we are voting on.
Mr. Schoenberger
That was my motion and I completely agree with you. We should all be clear on exactly what we
are voting on before we are being asked to vote.
Mr. Moroney
I suggest you or somebody contact the Commissioner of Transportation and have him appear
before the Budget and Finance Committee or Legislature before this expires so that we get better
clarification as to where we are with this contract and what to do about it.
Chairwoman Cornell
It is an appropriate idea to have him come before the Planning & Public Works Committee
Mr. Grant
I think for the purposes of the resolution in the third Whereas we will put a comma after $302,346,
and delete everything through $842,904 and the same will apply to the Resolved and Caption.
Can we make it a standing discussion item/referral for all Planning & Public Works Committee
meetings through November 2nd? They have to come back every two weeks and tell us exactly
where they are, what they are doing and whether or not they plan to be on schedule and on time
for this transition to be completed. It should be done next week when we have Planning & Public
Works Committee, and the second week in October and then again the fourth week in October
until this transition takes place.
Chairwoman Cornell
I think that is an excellent suggestion.
Mr. Schoenberger
I just want to clarify Michael. On the first Resolved it says, " ... for the period October 1, 2013
through November 2, 2013 at the rate of $9,162 per day for a total term amount of $302,346."
Below that, where it talks about the two options, will be taken out, including the same with the
Whereas clause.
A LITTLE HISTORY ON WHY THERE MIGHT BE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE DRIVERS UNION. BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2012 BREGA TRANSPORT SAID TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT TITLE OR SECTION 13C OF THE FEDERAL LABOR LAW DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CONTRACT. IN SHORT 13C MEANS THE TRANSPORTATION WORKERS HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS THAT FOLLOW THE CONTRACT IF CARRIERS ARE CHANGED. BELOW IS THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THAT LEGISLATURES MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2012... I CANNOT FIND AN ANSWER TO THAT ISSUE RAISED IN ANY LEGISLATURES MEETING AFTER JUNE 26,2012... IF SOMEONE HAS THAT ANSWER LET ME KNOW.
PS: Thank you to the person printing this blog, it is a fairly accurate account on what is happening. Wish I could put in print what actually has been happening behind closed doors, but I like breathing everyday....
