Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Labor Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solicitor advises against broad Project Labor Agreement; board to consider responsible-contractor policy
Summary
Solicitor Freund told the Scranton School District board that a district-wide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) would be legally risky and potentially anti-competitive; he recommended adopting a responsible-contractor policy modeled on the City of Scranton ordinance and asked the board to place a draft policy on the April agenda for a first reading.
Solicitor Freund told the Scranton School District Board on March 3 that a district-wide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) proposed by labor groups would be legally vulnerable and could reduce competition, and he recommended the board instead adopt a responsible-contractor policy that mirrors the City of Scranton ordinance.
"PLAs are appropriate where you have an extraordinary circumstance," the solicitor said, adding that PLAs "have a counter‑competitive aspect of procurement" and that a PLA that applied to all projects could be difficult to defend. Freund said a policy that incorporates responsible-contractor requirements into project specifications and contracts could achieve the board's quality and labor standards goals while better withstanding legal challenge.
Dr. Keating and staff told the board that most of the district's contracting dollars already go to union shops. A district speaker said that of approximately $80,000,000 in contracts awarded, about $56,000,000 went to union contractors and about $24,000,000 went to nonunion contractors.
Board members asked about next steps. Solicitor Freund said he had drafted a policy that incorporates the city's ordinance language and can be amended by the board. Director Casey asked President Holmes to put the draft policy on the April agenda as a first reading; President Holmes and the solicitor said they would do so. Several board members said they had no objection to placing the draft for first reading and asked that copies be circulated to give the public time to review and comment.
No ordinance or PLA was adopted at the March meeting. The board directed administration and the solicitor to prepare the draft policy for a first reading on the April agenda and to circulate the draft to board members and the public for comment before any vote.
