Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public questions legality of city's use of Rubicon mapping system; council asks administration for responses
Summary
Multiple speakers asked why the city paid for Rubicon mapping for three months before council approval and raised cybersecurity and continuity concerns; council members said they would follow up with administration and the solicitors' office.
Residents and a council member pressed the Scranton City Council for clarity about the city's contract and use of the Rubicon mapping system, asking whether the city's legal and procurement procedures were followed and raising cybersecurity and continuity concerns.
During public comment, Tom Coyne and Bailey Simrill urged the council to explain how Rubicon was implemented and funded. Coyne asked whether the city had a continuity policy or hard-copy backups if the stand-alone mapping system were disabled, saying, “Do we not have a policy for continuation of business... What if that stand alone system gets ransomware?” Simrill asked specifically for a legal opinion or explanation about the city continuing to use and pay for Rubicon for a three-month period "before council approved it."
Council response and next steps: Council members said they would seek answers from administration and the solicitor. Mr. Shuster said the city administration reported the county had not yet mailed a required letter regarding tax-exempt properties (a separate HUP test item that was raised earlier) and that the council would "reach out to the commissioners tomorrow"; Bailey Simrill said she would "not let up on it" regarding Rubicon. Council requested the law department review the procurement timeline and provide a formal explanation once the regular solicitor or counsel returns.
Why it matters: Residents and at least one council member framed Rubicon as a core operational system for Department of Public Works routing and tracking; questions about pre-approval payments and backup procedures touch on procurement transparency, continuity of city services, and cybersecurity preparedness.
What the transcript shows: The concerns were voiced during public comment and the council's fifth-order motions; no formal motion or vote concerning Rubicon or contract reversal occurred at the meeting. Council members and staff committed to follow up with legal and administrative offices for clarifying information.
Ending: Council members asked administration and the solicitor to provide the written explanation and any legal opinion regarding Rubicon's authorization and to report back to council; no timeline was specified on the record.
