VERO BEACH — After several hours of presentations and discussion, electric customers now know that more than 100 changes were made by attorneys and consultants to the contract with the Orlando Utilities Commission between the time council members had access to the contract and the meeting where they voted to move forward with the agreement.
“What we’re discussing here today is a document that clearly shows what changes were made to the OUC contract,” said Mayor Kevin Sawnick.
City Clerk Tammy Vock then proceeded, at the request of Councilman Brian Heady, to place under oath anyone who wished to testify or speak about the contract situation. About a dozen people were sworn in. City Attorney Charles Vitunac went over the changes one by one, some as minor as capitalization errors or typos and some as major as the addition of definitions and whole sentences to the contract.
Boston consultant Sue Hersey explained that all the changes were made to “clarify” the contract and that the document was presented to the City Council on April 7, 2008 as a working document, though she did not specifically tell them that many changes were in the works.
At the end of the meeting, Vice Mayor Tom White and Councilman Sabin Abell seemed satisfied with the contract. Abell called the meeting a “waste of time” and White said the contract was signed, sealed and delivered.
“I just hope that the public understands that some of the things being said out there about the changes in the contract, that they’re non-material,” said White.
Sawnick agreed the document was a done deal, but was determined not to repeat the experience of having a city contract called into question. Councilman Ken Daige remained silent on the issue.
“It was approved and valid, but if anyone wants to bring it up again, they can and if anyone wants to challenge it and sue, that is their right,” Sawnick said. “I rely on the staff and if they say the contract is valid, it’s valid.
“Going forward we can do things differently, I would expect at least a memo to the council making us aware that there were changes, to prevent something like this from happening again.” Sawnick said. “If we learn from our mistakes, we can be a better council.”
Councilman Brian Heady did not leave the meeting satisfied or happy with what he heard. Heady said he’s disturbed that the neither the Mayor nor the council members were notified of the changes made between April 7th when they reviewed the document and April 15, 2008 when they voted on it, with no document whatsoever — blacked out or complete — in the backup for the meeting.
“Not only did they not see a corrected contract, nor did they have a copy presented to them,” Heady said. “I don’t blame the Mayor because the contract was placed in front of him by trusted advisors.”
Heady reiterated that each council member was supposedly in the room with the document for one hour, at least half of which time was taken up by a Powerpoint presentation, leaving not much time at all to pore over a complex 68-page legal document worth $2 billion.
“I sure would like to take the speed reading classes that they took to get through that document,” Heady said.
Former Councilman Charlie Wilson, who first pointed out in November that he found about 25 changes between versions of the contract, shared Heady’s consternation as he spoke, this time as a citizen and city ratepayer, from the podium.
“Is this normal?” Wilson asked. “Has the legal department changed contracts? Have they changed all the contracts since they’ve been here or did they just change this one?”
No response was given by the staff, but Wilson warned that the contract was subject to legal challenge and that anyone wishing to file a suit would have five years from the effective date of the contract.
Heady is even more troubled at the fact that the city did not preserve a copy of the version of the contract reviewed by council for the record. Even though the documents were confidential for another 18 months after being signed, Heady feels the document should have been kept at City Hall and preserved as part of the record of the actions of the city.
“I have been asking to see the actual document that was in the room with the council and reviewed by the council and as of today, February 2, I still have not received the document,” he said.
Heady said he and former City Councilwoman Debra Fromang excavated City Hall for the document and could not find it. He was told that the original was taken to Boston by Hersey and used as her working document from which to make changes. Vock was not given the document to be checked into public record, but she opened the archives up for Heady anyway so they could see if it was there.
“The document was definitely missing,” Heady said.
Heady still asserts that the contract is not valid, but it is unclear what the city will do, if anything, to rectify the situation as the majority of the council have gone on record that they feel the city has a valid contract. The meeting adjourned with no action being taken. Heady plans to bring the contract up at the next City Council meeting on Feb. 19.
