Comptroller Darlene Green has been asked to sign the $250,000 controversial consulting contract with Veolia Water North America out of “ministerial duty” by City Counselor Patricia Hageman, who is appointed by the mayor.
The contract has been highly criticized by Board Alderman President Lewis Reed and the St. Louis Dump Veolia Coalition, which includes residents and social-justice organizations.
At the Board of Aldermen meeting on Friday morning, people stood outside in protest, saying that Veolia Water, a French firm and the largest private water services provider in the world, has left a smudge on other cities and also operates under questionable environmental standards.
“In certain cities, they have been called out for pumping raw sewage back into the water system,” Reed said. “They have been thrown out of cities all across the United States. With other competent, qualified vendors readily available, why not choose someone else?”
Several times earlier this year, Mayor Francis G. Slay encouraged members of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment – which includes Slay, Green and Reed – to approve the contract but failed to gain their support.
However, Hageman said the Board of Aldermen approved the Veolia contract through the city’s budget, which they passed in April.
In an Oct. 4 letter to Green, Hageman stated, “It is my opinion that all the requisite approvals have been obtained and that you, as comptroller, have a ministerial duty to sign the enclosed contract.”
She said the Board of E&A gave its recommended 2014 fiscal budget to the Board of Aldermen, which “contained, among other things, appropriations for the water department.” The board approved those recommendations.
According to Hageman, Public Utilities Director Curt Skouby testified before the Ways and Means committee and explained that the water department’s request for funds included the Veolia contract.
And as part of the budget process, she said departments can submit “BD8” forms to support these budget requests. Hageman argues that the water department submitted this form, requesting “a $250,000 appropriation for an outside contractor for operations assistance.”
However, Budget Director Paul Payne said he has no records of the form.
She added that the funds for Veolia’s contract were “made with sufficient candor, openness and specificity so as to constitute legal authorization.”
Protesters disagreed with Hageman’s sentiment of “openness” regarding the Veolia contract.
“This is a clear sign of Mayor Slay circumventing the democratic process,” said Colleen Kelly, of Dump Veolia. “This is something that Veolia has a history of, too. It may be legal, but it’s an unethical move.”
Reed rebutted Hageman’s legal opinion, saying the budget did not specify the Veolia contract.
“Before we sign a contract, it has to be either written in the budget – or it has to go before the Board of E&A,” he said. “And in this case, they are working on skipping the Board of E&A. It’s insane.”
Veolia Water’s controversy is not new to St. Louis. In September 2010, Veolia toured the city’s Water Division facilities – only three months after Rex Sinquefield’s Show-Me Institute released a May 2010 report urging the city to privatize its water utility.
Sinquefield is a huge contributor to Slay’s mayoral campaign. However, at the time the mayor said it was nothing more than a visit. Slay has said he has no plans to push for selling the city’s water services to a private company.
Then in November 2012, a committee selected Veolia out of several proposals for the $250,000 contract. Though the contract is just to consult for the city, opponents – including the Missouri Coalition for the Environment – said this contract is just a step towards an end goal of selling the city’s water services to Veolia.
“On its face, it’s not a good deal for the city,” Reed said. “Do we need to make upgrades? Absolutely. But we have to be careful at the same time we are not getting ourselves in a situation where we are upcharging the residents for the services the system can pay for within itself.”