Times Editorial Board Wrong on Call Center Complaints

The Contra Costa Times Editorial Board just proved once again this morning how simple minded they are as they are urging the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to pass on the State Exchange Call Center.

While the Times won’t just come out and say the call center is too expensive and have a real debate, they are hiding behind a “rushed” agreement which wasn’t so rushed and so called “financial risk” without giving facts or figures.

This is a perfect example of the Times trying to control the county government through a newspaper while they are actually encouraging job loss instead of job creation. Can we now classify the Editorial Board as “job killers”?

The suggestion of 200+ jobs coming to Contra Costa should be celebrated, not trashed. The fact the Supervisors and higher elected officials worked through negotiations should be encouraging. While I am not a fan of how the unions acted initially, the fact they came back down to reality should be applauded.

While the Times is complaining about costs, the starting pay is just $55,757 a year and could top out at $71,848 plus benefits. For the Bay Area what is the problem?

Let’s go through this poor excuse for an editorial shall we? Yes we shall!

Their editorial is in bold; my comments are in normal text.

The politically charged push to open California’s only county-run health insurance call center will reach a crescendo Friday afternoon with a legally questionable closed meeting of Contra Costa supervisors followed by a likely decision on the deal despite no public vetting of the financial risk.

Excuse me, but where has this Editorial Board been where there has been multiple meetings on the state exchange call center including multiple articles from its own reporters?  The truth is, the public has had more than enough time to weigh in on this issue.

At issue is one of three call centers planned for the state as part of President Barack Obama’s health care reform legislation. The centers will provide consumers comparison information about health care plans.

In California, the state is responsible for operating the centers, but under what we’re told was a Sacramento deal with labor unions, one of those centers is to be run by a county.

Yes, which is why it went out to the Bid Process where any county who wanted it could put in a bid for it. Contra Costa wanted it and there are many benefits to this center including 200+ jobs.

It makes no sense. The center is supposed to serve residents across California. That should be a state government function, especially when the state’s numbers apparently show that subcontracting will be more expensive.

Oops, the Times left out the states numbers.  This is such a blanket statement I would encourage anyone to challenge them on it and ask they prove it.

From the county’s perspective, it’s telling that it was one of only two that expressed interest. Since the state opted for Contra Costa, the two sides have been negotiating terms while key campaign contributors here have been trying to influence the outcome to benefit themselves.

This is very misleading, who cares who is trying to get the call center, any businessman/woman could have stated they wanted the call center in their building and applied. They are trying to vilify business owners for making a business decision.

Let’s look at it this way, let’s say the State contracted it out to a private business, wouldn’t it be the same thing? They would make the business decision to host a call center in a building and it’s not a fair statement by the Times. More than likely, whoever winds up with the building likely donated to a campaign anyway!

The whole deal seemed dead when county labor unions tried to hold out for more concessions for the anticipated 200 new workers. But a last-minute agreement this week resolved the dispute over pay and work conditions.

Can’t blame unions or workers for trying to get more concessions, anyone would try it. In the end, it all worked out but the Times is trying to vilify the unions when it was simply just negotiations. I am personally not a fan of how the unions acted, but who doesn’t want a better deal? We all want more money!

Meanwhile, county officials had said that the contract with the state would fully cover the county’s costs. We’re now learning that’s not necessarily so. It turns out no one had carefully crunched the numbers until this week.

Who is “no one” and what are the numbers? The Times Editorial Board left out key figures here. If no one crunched the numbers, why was there ever an RFP response from the county?  Again, I’d encourage anyone to challenge the Times on this statement.

As of Friday morning, just hours before the vote, there was still no publicly available financial analysis telling supervisors and Contra Costa taxpayers what risk they would be taking on.

This is misleading by the Times, all anyone has to do is look at the State issued RFP and review the County response. This was done months ago. The Times Editorial Board is complaining about something completely unnecessary.

At the same time, owners of two office buildings, one in Richmond, the other in Concord, have been trying to win the county lease to house the call center, a selection with about $2 million of leasing income at stake.

So far, the Richmond site would not only be cheaper for the county, it would best meet the specifications the state says are needed for security and patient confidentiality. But the Concord-based Garaventa family, best known for its garbage collection company, is clearly the more politically influential property owner, holding sway with at least three supervisors, Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill, Mary Piepho of Discovery Bay and board Chairman Federal Glover of Pittsburg.

Again, the Times has not provided figures as to how much cheaper Richmond would be compared to Concord. More to the point, the Times is forgetting that Richmond is on the County border and if the call center is placed there, a lot of these jobs may go to Alameda County residents. If it was placed in Concord (centrally located), more jobs would be created for Contra Costa County residents.

On Thursday, as county staff members were scrambling to financially analyze the cost and risk of the call center plan for a meeting expected Tuesday, Glover suddenly called a special board meeting for 4 p.m. Friday.

We’re told it was scheduled at least in part to accommodate Piepho’s vacation plans for next week. If only three of the five supervisors solidly back the Garaventa site, her presence could be critical.

If the Times would do their homework, Supervisor Piepho originally called “foul” on the Richmond site because staff selected it without consideration of far east county and public access to the rest of the county—this was even before Garavanta showed an interest. Personally, I think the rest of the county should be thankful she called foul on the Richmond site in the name of fairness.

More to the point, the Times is assuming it will be a dead-locked vote with Piepho being the deciding vote. I believe this will be a 4-1 vote with Gioia losing the Richmond site.  A centralized site in Concord makes the most sense for Contra Costa County and access to its residents.

The meeting is to begin with a closed session, officially so supervisors can meet with their property negotiators. Such a meeting would be a farce, violating the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the state’s open meeting law.

Completely false statement and this is totally legal. Shame on the Times for insinuating a violation will occur if this meeting goes forward.

The law allows a government board to meet in closed session “to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment.” The idea of that law is to shield the board from tipping its hand and keep competitors from knowing the details of its bid.

But, in this case, all the key details of the competing proposals have been publicly reported by the county. Indeed, the two property owners have had access to the opposing offers and have been given until noon Friday to refine theirs. There’s no need for secrecy.

What the Times is asking is a change in the bidding process which you can’t change the rules mid-game.  The editorial board is simply complaining just to complain. This statement really adds nothing to their argument which is a complaint over costs.

In other words, this has been an open competition so far, but, suddenly, when it comes time to make the controversial and critical property selection, the supervisors want to hide behind closed doors.

Again, the supervisors have this right to negotiate behind closed doors just like any other government entity—if they report out of closed session, this is no big deal. Again, just the Times complaining it’s not their “preferred” process.

It’s shameful.

Wrong, the Times misleading its readers is what is shameful!

Rather than vilifying this process which there was nothing wrong with, lets be thankful 200+ jobs are headed to Contra Costa County.

By Michael Burkholder