Back UP - #4 Lessons Learned Last Summer-debrief — original pdf
Backup
Nominations - Scope of Works: APD Investigation I Dispatch Equity & Optimization Efficiency Study Bourenane, Patricia <Patricia.Bourenane@austintexas.gov> Tue 1/28/2020 2:28 PM To: Scruggs, Ed - BC <bc-Ed.Scruggs@austintexas.gov>; Webber, Rebecca - BC <bc-Rebecca.Webber@austintexas.gov> Cc: Muscadin, Farah <Farah.Muscadin@austintexas.gov>; Jackson, Janet <Janet.Jackson@ausps.org>; DVincent, Erin <Erin.DVincent@austintexas.gov> Good a ernoon, I hope this email finds you well. My name is Patricia Bourenane and I’m Assistant City Manager Rey Arellano’s new assistant. I look forward to mee ng you. The City Manager’s Office, along with the Office of Police Oversight and the Equity Office is in the process of developing a scope of work responsive to elements outlined Resolu on No. 20191205-066, for the City to hire a contractor to perform a comprehensive, mul -pronged inves ga on and evalua on of the Aus n Police Department (APD), to the extent of which forms of systemic racism and discrimina on are present in the protocols, prac ces, and behaviors of the police officers of the Aus n Police Department (APD). The resolu on directs the team developing the scope for work for the solicita on to gain input from the Public Safety Commission. Similar to how the Public Safety Commission nominated two PSC members to review and provide input on the scope of work for the sexual assault contract, we are seeking two nomina ons for the APD project. In addi on, the City Manager’s Office is working to develop a scope of work for the dispatch equity and op miza on efficiency study. During the FY 2019-2020 budget adop on, the City Council approved $250,000 in one- me funding to hire a contractor to conduct a comprehensive review of the equity and efficiency of Fire and EMS services and review dispatch mes, ISO ra ngs, sta on loca ons, and the meline for bringing on new sta ons. We are also reques ng two nomina ons from your board for this project to review the dra scope of work. Would you please share these requests with your board members to solicit interest? Please note the board will need to take formal ac on to nominate the members willing to serve in these roles. Please let me know if you have ques ons. Thank you and greatly appreciate you. Patricia Bourenane Assistant to Assistant City Manager Rey Arellano Austin City Hall – 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin, TX 78701 Office (512) 974 6339 patricia.bourenane@austintexas.gov / Re: procurement process for the Comprehensive Evaluation of Sexual Assault Investigations April 12, 2019 Public Safety Commission Commission for Women 301 W. Second St. Austin, Texas 78701 Via email to joe.silva@austintexas.gov Joe Silva City Manager’s Office 301 W. Second St. Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Joe: We are writing in our capacity as the spokespersons for the Commission for Women and the Public Safety Commission regarding the procurement process for the “Comprehensive Evaluation of Sexual Assault Investigations”. Thank you for facilitating the Commissions’ participation in this process. Feedback on process forthcoming: We intend to write to you separately (by April 26, 2019) with proposed changes to the overall process outlined in your April 8 letter to Rebecca Webber and Flannery Bope. To assist us in drafting that feedback, will you please clarify your statement that the commissioners who will review the proposed contract “must not have any communication with an entity or individual that may submit a proposal” (emphasis added)? Our understanding is that participating commissioners must follow the restrictions in Ordinance no. 20180614-056 and the City’s Anti-Lobbying and Procurement Rules. We interpret your April 8 prohibition on “any communication” as simply a helpful caution to commissioners that we should know and follow the restrictions in the applicable Ordinance and Rules. Feedback on proposed Solicitation no. RFQs 4400 EAD4002: The solicitation should be modified to address access and analysis of relevant data that is in the custody of the Travis County District Attorney. As stated in (1) your presentations to our commissions in March and April 2019, (2) the April 1, 2019 Response to Questions from the Public Safety Commission and the 1 Commission for Women,1 and (3) District Attorney Margaret Moore’s January 29, 2019 letter to Mayor Steve Adler and Councilmember Alison Alter,2 the District Attorney fully supports this process. We understand that negotiations with the District Attorney over access to data in her custody may delay the release of the solicitation by 4-6 weeks. We believe the delay is warranted in order to gain access to data that is critically important to the success of this evaluation. 1.0 Purpose The Purpose should focus more on the ultimate goal of the evaluation which is to reform and improve how sexual assault reports are processed. While current practices are an integral part of this project, the Purpose should focus less on the “how”. proposed edits: The purpose of this contract is to improve system responses for survivors of sexual assaults such that justice is best ensured by recommending necessary improvements and reforms undertake a comprehensive evaluation ofto how sexual assaults that are reported to the Austin Police Department are investigated and processed, including why a significant number of reported cases do not proceed to prosecution within the criminal justice system and produce a final report that will include recommendations relevant to the entire life cycle of sexual assault cases in order to improve system responses for survivors of sexual assaults such that justice is best ensured.. 3.0 Contractor Qualifications At paragraph 3.3, “conflict of interest” should be defined. The definition should include entities that are currently under contract to research/evaluate relevant APD policies regarding sexual assault investigations because that analysis should be examined as part of this contract. For example, the Institute on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault at UT and the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at Penn Law are currently engaged in evaluations of APD’s policies and therefore may be conflicted out from conducting this evaluation. We suggest an additional paragraph 3.4 stating that qualified contractors will have specialized experience in reviewing governmental agencies for bias based on gender, race, disability, and LGBTQ status. In other words, we want to ensure that the entity chosen for this contract has a proven track record of conducting the kind of review described at paragraph 4.3.3. 1 Memo from J. Silva to Public Safety Commission and Women’s Commission (April 1, 2019), available at http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=317176: 2 Letter from M. Moore to S. Adler, A. Alter (Jan. 29, 2019), ), available at http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=317176: 2 4.0 Contractors Responsibilities Paragraph 4.1 requires examination of at least 200 sexual assault cases or 50% of sexual assault cases (whichever is greater) for each of seven years. Paragraph 4.3.1 requires interviews with sexual assault survivors. The solicitation should explicitly state that a survivor’s choice not to speak to the evaluators would not preclude that particular case from inclusion in the 200/50%. Along those same lines, the entities that apply for this contract should be required to state in their proposals the number of files that they will review in order to select the 200/50%. For instance, will the contractor review all case files in a particular year in order to select the best 200/50% for this project? Or will a contractor only review 250 files or only review 75% of the files in any given year in order to select the files for this project? Getting this information upfront could avoid cost overruns down the road. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you throughout this process. Sincerely, Rebecca Webber, Public Safety Commission Rebecca Bernhardt, Public Safety Commission Rebecca Gonzales, Public Safety Commission Amanda Lewis, Commission for Women 3 Re: procurement process for the Comprehensive Evaluation of Sexual Assault Investigations April 26, 2019 Public Safety Commission Commission for Women 301 W. Second St. Austin, Texas 78701 Via email to joe.silva@austintexas.gov Joe Silva City Manager’s Office 301 W. Second St. Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Joe: We are writing in our capacity as the spokespersons for the Commission for Women and the Public Safety Commission regarding the procurement process for the “Comprehensive Evaluation of Sexual Assault Investigations”. Thank you for continuing to facilitate the Commissions’ participation in this process. We write in response to your April 8, 2019 correspondence regarding the role of the Public Safety Commission and Commission for Women in the procurement process. You proposed that the Public Safety Commission and Commission for Women would each designate a single commissioner to participate in development of the contract with the finalist. We respectfully propose that the Public Safety Commission and Commission for Women will each designate two commissioners and a third alternate commissioner to participate in selection of the finalist and development of the contract with the finalist. Our proposal is in keeping with the intent of the January 31, 2019 Council resolution requiring the comprehensive evaluation. Part of the purpose for this evaluation—and for our participation in the procurement process—is to rebuild community trust and to improve transparency. While the City’s anti-lobbying and procurement rules do not allow for full transparency and full public input into the procurement process here, our participation serves as a kind of proxy for the public-at-large. By way of example, the resolution calls for maintenance of public trust and engagement with the public and stakeholders: . . . 1 The resolution also calls for transparency regarding the results of evaluation: Finally, the resolution directs that the recommendations arising out of the comprehensive evaluation should include ways to improve collaboration with the community and transparency: . . . . . . We believe that our proposal—which will allow for participation by the Public Safety Commission and Commission for Women in the entire procurement process—reflects Council’s goals for this comprehensive evaluation. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rebecca Webber, Public Safety Commission Rebecca Bernhardt, Public Safety Commission Rebecca Gonzales, Public Safety Commission Amanda Lewis, Commission for Women Dyana Limon-Mercado, Commission for Women 2 May 31, 2019 Public Safety Commission Commission for Women 301 W. Second St. Austin, Texas 78701 Via email to joe.silva@austintexas.gov Joe Silva City Manager’s Office 301 W. Second St. Austin, Texas 78701 Re: procurement process for the Comprehensive Evaluation of Sexual Assault Investigations Dear Mr. Silva: We are writing in our capacity as the spokespersons for the Commission for Women and the Public Safety Commission regarding the procurement process for the sexual assault investigations evaluation. As you know, we requested the opportunity to provide feedback and suggested edits to the Evaluation Matrix that will be used by the Evaluation Committee to vet the five applicants. You wrote us on May 24, 2019 that “there is no latitude” to incorporate our suggestions and edits into the Evaluation Matrix itself. You did not provide the proposed Evaluation Matrix to us. Instead, you offered us the opportunity to give “more details and specific examples” regarding each of the RFQ criteria in a separate document that would be “provided to the members of the evaluation committee for their use as they review and evaluate the proposals”. We have decided not to accept your offer to provide more details in a separate document. We do not understand what weight will be given to our separate document. We cannot reconcile the fact that there is “no latitude” for us to help define and illustrate the evaluation criteria with your implication that our feedback will be taken into consideration during the evaluation. In other words, it is not clear to us whether our historical knowledge and expertise regarding the relevant issues is welcome or not. Instead of providing the separate document, we hereby request the opportunity to meet with the Evaluation Committee to explain the events and frame the issues that led up to the January 31, 2019 Council resolution ordering that this process to take place. More importantly, we hereby express our high level of concern that none of the nine “Subject Matter Experts” listed in Exhibit A to the January 31, 2019 Council resolution (“Known Subject Matter Experts Who May Meet Resolution Criteria”) responded to the RFQ. We respectfully request that the Purchasing Office immediately contract with an outside Technical Advisor that is one of the nine “Subject Matter Experts” from the Council Resolution to help oversee this process. In addition, we respectfully suggest that if all selection criteria are not met by current applicants, that the RFQ be reopened for four to six weeks with the guidance of a Technical Advisor. Thank you again for your consideration and courtesies throughout this process. Sincerely, Amanda Lewis, Commission for Women Rebecca Webber, Public Safety Commission Rebecca Bernhardt, Public Safety Commission Dyana Limon-Mercado, Commission for Women Sarah Tober, Commission for Women Julia Cuba Lewis, Commission for Women