ROCKLAND — On May 1, Rockland Mayor Louise MacLellan-Ruf addressed a letter to fellow councilors William Clayton, Valli Geiger and Larry Pritchett, alleging a possible breach to the city’s charter by Councilor Larry Pritchett.  A special meeting of the Rockland City Council has been called for Wednesday, May 4, at 7 p.m., to talk about it.

In the letter, the mayor outlined her contact with the City Manager James Chaousis and city Attorney Kevin Beal.

The mayor said in her letter: “I had received questions from the community about consultants procured for work.”

She was referring to technical advice sought by the Energy Committee and the Planning Board in the creation of new rules governing grid-scale power generation facilities in Rockland. 

MacLellan-Ruf said in her request for ethical review that she emailed Chaousis requesting the fees paid to date to said consultants and to see their contracts.

She said: “As you know one of my goals for this year is to clarify roles and responsibilities. We have had inconsistent leadership over the past many years which may have led to some confusion.... I did speak with Larry about this last week. As noted this is for Council to weigh in on as to its merit. I have received many memos and emails regarding this topic. None support the actions that are noted.”

Chaousis responded to MacLellan-Ruf with the following email:

April 14, 2016

“I explained to Councilor Pritchett on March 29, 2016 that I hadn’t received contracts, terms and conditions, and procurement information for consultants.   The process for acquiring service and products for the city are in the Charter and Rockland City Code Chapter 2.  Since the city hasn’t received any concrete product or paid any bills, I don’t see that the city has any conflict with those laws, but we will.”

“Although the Moratorium Ordinance gives direction to the Energy Committee and Planning Board, it does not alleviate the procurement process, contract administration, or payment processes.”

“Councilor Pritchett is correct when he states that I authorized the Planning Board’s use of the City Attorney for drafting and legal review.  I did authorize this work but no further expenses on this project.”

MacLellan-Ruf wrote to her colleagues on the council:

“It is important to note that 17 days had passed and the City Manager still had not received any contracts from Councilor Pritchett. Yet, the work had been performed. I asked the City Manager when he had asked Councilor Pritchett for the contracts. The City Manager reports he been asking Councilor Pritchett about these contracts dating back to February 2016.

“It is clear the City Manager advised Councilor Pritchett that his conduct was in disagreement with the Charter. Yet Councilor Pritchett continued to violate the Charter by not bringing the City Manager into the process of retaining the engineers. Councilor Prtichett did supply me with numerous memos and documentation. None of which indicates or supports authorization from the City, City Manager or City Council to enter into contractual agreements.

“Under the moratorium ordinance, the Energy Committee was “directed to provide options for technical experts from which the Planning Board can select to advise the Board as needed in this process.”  Under Order 2016-04, “the City Manageris hereby authorized to expend up to $20,000 from the City’s Undesignated Fund Balance Account to cover the cost of professional services for the development of Site Plan standards related to the moratorium on grid-scale power generation facilities.” 

“I reached out to the City Attorney about the potential legal ramifications for the city. Below is City Attorney Beal's emailed response: 

“Any agreement –whether oral or written - by a body or individual other than the City Manager to retain the engineers is, arguably, ultra vires (outside their authority) and unenforceable against the City.  On the other hand, the unpaid consultants could bring a claim of quantum meruit – a claim in equity for securing payment for services rendered without a contract where the client accepted the services and arguably understood the services would have to be paid for.”

“Councilor Pritchett and I discussed my ethics concern. He reported he had turned in a “draft contract” to the City Manager. The City Manager reports receiving contracts from Councilor Pritchett April 25, 2016. Twenty eight days after the request from the City Manager. The undated draft is written on city stationary and appears to be a document created by the City Manager. Upon further discussion with the City Manager it is revealed the draft is written by Councilor Pritchett. As of today, May 2, 2016 the contracts are not signed.

“I respectfully request that the Council consider convening an Ethics Board. As this appears to be more than a procedural misunderstanding by a senior Councilor. The amount of time that has elapsed and the lack of a timely response suggests a direct disregard of the Charter. Council as a whole will ultimately decide if my concerns have merit.”

In return, Prichett has responded publicly to the mayor’s allegations. He has written:

“Selection Process Specified In Ordinance Amendment 2015-48
The ordinance amendment enacting the moratorium specified both the scope of work for any technical consultants utilized and what the selection process would be for those technical advisors. The moratorium is an ordinance amendment in which Council is stating "this is how the Council is authorizing this project to be done."

“Since it is an ordinance amendment directed at a specific circumstance, the provisions of 2015-48 would take precedence over other ordinance provisions. I have attached a copy of Ordinance Amendment 2015-48.

“The language of the Ordinance Amendment was amended (see second page) to remove the Manager from the selection process for technical support. That change was made at Valli's request in response to public comments.

“It is clear that part of the community feels that neither the Manager nor the Assistant Manager are "neutral" or even handed on this issue. Likewise part of the community feels that these two staff people have received unfair criticism on questions related to natural gas.

“From my perspective removing these two staff people from the ordinance development process resolves both of these issues (i.e., they can neither "tip the scales" in some direction nor be criticized if they were not involved).

“While actions within the General Fund Budget are broadly under the direction of the Manager, this was an initiative of Council. Council is largely free to specify how it desires the project to be done. Council votes on many action items every year specifying who has the authority to carry out the action item.

“Documentation Of Selection Process
In identifying and selecting technical resources to support the ordinance development process, the Energy Committee and the Planning Board acted within the authority, and as described, in Ordinance Amendment 2015-48.

“I have attached the memorandum summarizing the selection process and how the steps comply with directive from Council to the Energy Committee and the Planning Board. There is probably an additional 25 pages (rough guess) of info about individual firms and organizations considered.

“Flexible Process For Retaining Professional Services
From working with several Managers, it has always been my understanding that the City's process for retaining professional services is fairly flexible. For example, when the recent evaluation was needed of the Library, the City simply called a firm with a lot of historic building expertise that the City had used before.

“Given the public interest in this project, a simple scope of services was developed to capture what was in Ordinance Amendment 2015-48 (see attached draft for SMRT). This project is so specific in focus, and limited in time duration, it is not clear this is actually needed.

“A formal contract such as for a major project like Old County Road certainly is not needed. There are plenty of small projects on this scale in the City's files for which the documentation is a detailed invoice and a two or three page memorandum from the Department Head summarizing the work performed.

“Council Action?
Given the Planning Board phase of the project appears likely to be completed (i.e., based on Monday evening's Council work session it does not appear that Council is likely to refer any aspect of the Power Generation Ordinance back to the Planning Board for additional work).

“And, given that Ordinance Amendment 2015-48 authorized the Planning Board to select (based on recommendations from the Energy Committee) the technical resources the Board thought best for the task.

“And, given that the Planning Board has been clear that they were very satisfied with the services provided (and I would assume would likely provide a memo to Council to that effect). And given the moratorium was a Council initiated project.

“And given the moratorium language intentionally separated the ordinance process from the Manager's office. The simplest way to wrap up this part of the process is probably a Council order. I have attached a draft that I think addresses the relevant questions.

“Who is ‘authorized’ is probably at up to Council. The draft order specifies the Acting Finance Director (to stay consistent with the original Ordinance Amendment). If others think this make sense, I would be glad to move this forward.”

CITY OF ROCKLAND, MAINE

270 Pleasant Street

Rockland, Maine  04841 

CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

                                                                                      May 3, 2016

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ROCKLAND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT ROCKLAND CITY HALL, 270 PLEASANT STREET, ROCKLAND, MAINE ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2016 AT 7:00 P.M.  FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSE(S): 

[Please Note Starting Time and Date/  

DISCUSSION:  POSSIBLE ETHICS VIOLATION

YOUR PUNCTUAL ATTENDANCE IS REQUESTED

PER ORDER OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ROCKLAND