Jackson Free Press

In a contentious Dec. 21 meeting, City Council voted 4-0 to an amendment refusing to make payments for temp agencies supplying workers to the city of Jackson. On Tuesday, the council voted down a claims docket based on concerns over temporary workers, and some members demanded more details on those workers before they would approve the docket.

Chief Administration Officer Robert Walker told the council that he had given some information on temporary workers to Council President Ben Allen, but other requested information (such as names and disbursements for city employees on the city's payroll) remained in Mayor Frank Melton's office. Council members would have to speak to Melton in order to get all the information they wanted, Walker said.

Ward 6 Councilman Marshand Crisler was frustrated at the secrecy. "I'm still baffled why we've got to go directly to the mayor to get information that's public record," he said, pointing out that names and salaries were not confidential "personnel" matters.

Walker eventually proffered the information to council members before the end of the meeting, after being pressed by Allen, who said, "We're not going to change anybody's mind up here."

Even after the city turned over the information, Crisler called it piecemeal.

"Payroll never has a list of names on it when it comes to the council. It just comes to us and says 'payroll.' One sheet or two sheets, with the amount we spent. (Melton) could have hired anybody, and we wouldn't know it," Crisler said.

The list included about 20 different temp agencies, including agencies like Spectrum, Tempforce and LaborChex. Council members say they recognize some individuals who have held temporary status for years.

"It would seem that some of these employees would be willing to work for the city, and have all the benefits the city offers," said Ward 2 Councilman Leslie McLemore.

Ward 7 Councilwoman Margaret Barrett-Simon noted the number of temp agencies used by the city and asked whether City Council had ever approved annual contracts for them. She also asked whether temporary workers were subject to background checks and drug tests, as permanent city employees do.

"They go through some background checks, through their individual agencies," said Personnel Management Director Wendy Crumpton, who could not speak on the thoroughness of the temp agency background checks.

"So you're saying the temp agency may have those requirements for background checks, but we (the city) don't require them to, have them, right?" Crisler asked.

"Exactly," Crumpton said.

Crumpton also confirmed that the city does not drug-test temporary employees, who are only tested if the temp agency requires it.

This contrasts with what Melton told JFP Editor-in-Chief Donna Ladd in April, when he and Youth Services Director Charles Melvin assured her that all workers hired through temp agencies, including the young men he took on as city employees, were drug tested.

Only four council members attended the special meeting—just enough for a quorum, but that was enough to boot the agencies from the docket in a 4-0-vote amendment. Once the amendment was passed, council members approved the claims docket by a 3-0 vote. The vote means the city will withhold payment until the vote comes up again in Jan. 7. By that date, Councilmen Frank Bluntson, Charles Tillman and Kenneth Stokes could approve the docket—and its payment to temp agencies—with a new majority, if Allen votes with them. Stokes, who never votes in favor of the docket, voted in favor of it last Tuesday.

Walker tried to appeal to council members to include the temp agencies in the docket, saying the city would be "depriving small businesses" of income around the holidays, but Barrett-Simon said she would continue to have serious issues with the temp agencies.

"I'm very concerned about the legal aspects of what we're doing here, and the fact that we're contracting a number of personnel agencies that we don't even have contracts with, and the liability that we could be in for. Worse, I think using temp agencies is circumventing the hiring process and enrollment process that's in place," she said.

Previous Comments

ID

67350

Comment

Maybe this is where I can again present my question: Does anyone have any information on the City Council voting to meeting every other week rather than their usual q/weekly meeting? As I said in another section, if they are only meeting twice/mo then the salaries should reflect the decrease in time. Maybe as much as 1/2 of the yearly salary.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-12-29T14:48:24-06:00

ID

67351

Comment

I think they voted on this a month or so ago. Not like they have as much on the docket as they did under the other administration anyway. No grants, no organization, no meaningful travel, no budget, no plan.... No problem! Let's meet every two weeks! In the wise words of A.E. Newman: "What, Me Worry?"

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-12-29T15:31:48-06:00