Friday, April 10, 2020

Sharon Friedrichsen, Director, Contracts and Budgets, and Chip Rerig, City Administrator, Mislead City Council and Public with Fallacious Narrative on Home Mail Delivery Service

With regard to the City’s Home Mail Delivery Service, the May 1, 2018 CITY COUNCIL Staff Report SUBMITTED BY Sharon Friedrichsen, Director of Budget and Contracts and APPROVED BY Chip Rerig, City Administrator stated:

During FY 2000-2001, the Council decided to contract with a courier service to provide home mail delivery to residents “who are physically unable or who for some other reason cannot obtain their mail on a regular basis from the post office located in Carmel-by-the-Sea”.

The Council implemented the home mail delivery service in 2001 in response to public demand for mail delivery for those were physically unable to retrieve mail at the Carmel-by-the-Sea post office.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
May 1, 2018
ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Friedrichsen, Director of Budget and Contracts
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Consider Continuing, Modifying, or Eliminating Home Mail Delivery Service Provided by the City.

Nearly two years later, the March 3, 2020 CITY COUNCIL Staff Report SUBMITTED BY Sharon Friedrichsen, Director of Budget and Contracts and APPROVED BY Chip Rerig, City Administrator stated:
:
The rationale for imposing disability as a criteria is that it correlates to the program’s intent of assisting “residents that are physically unable to visit the post office”. In order to impose this criteria, the City would require the submission of a disability exemption waiver form.

As stated within Resolution 2003-91, the purpose of the City contracting for home mail delivery service was to provide “as an essential community service for those residents that are physically unable to visit the post office or who, for some other reason, cannot obtain mail on a regular basis”. Council may wish to consider what constitutes “other reasons” for not being able to obtain mail on a regular basis, determine whether such reasons justify the use of public funds for the service and impose associated criteria.”

NOTE: Resolution 2003-91 not included as an ATTACHMENT
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
March 3, 2020
ORDERS OF BUSINESS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Friedrichsen - Director, Contracts and Budgets
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Receive a report on options related to the home mail delivery services program and provide direction to staff
:
One month later, the April 7, 2020 CITY COUNCIL Staff Report SUBMITTED BY Sharon Friedrichsen, Director of Budget and Contracts and APPROVED BY Chip Rerig, City Administrator stated:

As stated within Resolution 2003-091, the City contracts for courier service to provide home mail delivery services “as an essential community service for those residents that are physically unable to visit the post office or who, for some other reason, cannot obtain mail on a regular basis.”

The rationale for establishing disability as a criteria is that it correlates to the program’s intent of assisting “residents that are physically unable to visit the post office”.

WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea contracts for courier service for home mail delivery with the intended purpose of providing “an essential community service for those residents that are physically unable to visit the post office or who, for some other reason, cannot obtain mail on a regular basis” as referenced in Resolution 2003-91;

NOTE: Resolution 2003-91 not included as an ATTACHMENT
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
April 7, 2020
CONSENT AGENDA
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Sharon Friedrichsen - Director, Contracts and Budgets
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution 2020-027 affirming modification to the home mail delivery program to include the use of eligibility criteria and provide direction to staff.

Contradicting the City’s narrative that the “intended purpose” of contracting with a courier service for home mail delivery was “for those residents that are physically unable to visit the post office or who, for some other reason, cannot obtain mail on a regular basis as referenced in Resolution 2003-91,” the July 1, 2003 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CHECK LIST, including Guillen staff report dated 6/24/03 and Resolution No. 2003-91, which states in RESOLUTION NO. 2003-91:

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that continuing full mail delivery is an essential community service for those residents who desire this service.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA CHECK LIST
MEETING DATE: 1 JULY 2003
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Guillen staff report dated 6/24/03
2. Resolution No. 2003-91

Moreover, the CITY COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting 1 July 2003 state:
COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE RETURNED TO HIS ORIGINAL MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-91 AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ELY.

THE MOTION CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ely, Rose, McCloud
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hazdovac
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Livingston
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
1 July 2003
X. Resolutions
A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION No. 2003-91 AUTHORIZING MODIFICATION OF
THE RESIDENTIAL HOME MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE PROGRAM FROM THREE TO SIX DAYS EACH WEEK AND INCREASING ANNUAL PROGRAM FUNDING FROM $24,000 TO $40,000.
Pages 10-11

To corroborate CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2003-91 stating, in part, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that continuing full mail delivery is an essential community service for those residents who desire this service, specifically with respect to the intent of the RESOLUTION, the following excerpts from The Carmel Pine Cone regarding home mail delivery:

City council learns the price of private home delivery
By TAMARA GRIPPI
CARMEL PINE CONE 2001-01-05
2A The Carmel Pine Cone January 5, 2001
Several council members expressed hope at recent meetings that a private courier service will be the compromise to settle the year-long mail debate begun by home-delivery activist Joe Steinfeld.

Carmel officials are trying to strike a balance between preserving Carmel’s tradition of no mailboxes while satisfying those who either require or request home delivery.”

Guillen will present his report at the council’s Jan. 9 meeting, which begins at 3:30 p.m.


Council ready to pick up the post
By TAMARA GRIPPI
CARMEL PINE CONE 2001-01-12
2A The Carmel Pine Cone January 12, 2001

THE CARMEL City Council approved, in theory, a compromise that will provide home delivery to anyone who wants it, while still defending the city against an onslaught of mail boxes and street addresses.

Voting 4-1, with councilwoman Barbara Livingston dissenting, the council authorized city administrator Rich Guillen to negotiate a contract with The Carmel mailbox to provide door-to-door delivery.

Guillen advised the council to enter into the contract for one year and then revisit the decision in 2002.  The city administrator also recommended that the council implement the service on July 1 – the start of the next fiscal year.


Carmel’s elderly taking advantage of home delivery
By TAMARA GRIPPI
CARMEL PINE CONE 2002-06-07
5A The Carmel Pine Cone June 7, 2002

CARMEL’S GREAT mail delivery debate, which dominated the talk at nearly every city council meeting with activist Joe Steinfeld stoking the fires, is now hardly mentioned.

Nearly a year ago, the Carmel City Council began paying a private courier to provide home delivery to residents requesting it, so the rest of the town could continue the Carmel tradition of making a daily trek to the post office.

Peninsula Messenger Service, the courier hired by the city to handle the door-to-door delivery, is currently taking mail to 140 residents, which reflects a bit of an increase since the service began last July.

Ron Campbell, owner of Peninsula Messenger Service, said most of his clients are elderly.  “Some are handicapped people, though certainly not the majority,” Campbell said. “But 85 to 90 percent are elderly at the very least.”


City-sponsored home mail delivery clients hold steady
By MARY BROWNFIELD
Published: March 25, 2005
CARMEL PINE CONE 2005-03-05
3A The Carmel Pine Cone March 25, 2005

The city implemented home mail delivery to settle the debate between those who favor street addresses, mailboxes and traditional mail delivery and others who hold the daily trek to the Carmel Post Office as a sacred tradition.

“Anyone who lives within the city limits, who has a post office box and who would like to have their mail come to their home can request it,” city administrative assistant Stephanie Pearce said. To limit the service to disabled or homebound residents would be unlawful.


Most of the residents who have signed up are seniors or disabled, according to Campbell, though
some able-bodied citizens take advantage of the convenience, too.

SOURCE: INTERNET ARCHIVE
Harrison Memorial Library
bit.ly/carmelpinecone


ADDENDUM:
Pursuant to a Public Records Act request submitted to the City on February 27, 2020, Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk, responded on March 16, 2020 with RESOLUTION NO. 2003-91, SIGNED by SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR and ATTESTED by Karen Crouch, City Clerk, stating, in part, as follows:

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that continuing full mail delivery are an essential community service for those residents who are physically unable to visit the post office or who for some other reason cannot obtain their mail on a regular basis.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING MODIFICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOME MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE PROGRAM FROM THREE TO SIX DAYS EACH WEEK AND INCREASING ANNUAL PROGRAM FUNDING FROM $24,000 TO $40,000

The aforementioned “WHEREAS…” is not supported by the 2003 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CHECK LIST including Guillen staff report dated 6/24/03 and Resolution No. 2003-91 and the CITY COUNCIL Minutes of Meeting 1 July 2003.  Nor is it supported by the contemporaneous reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone.

No comments: