Council Members Question Oxnard Phone Contract

Two Oxnard City Council members say they have had second thoughts about a $1.3-million contract the council approved last week to replace the city’s phone system without seeking other bids, and may ask the council to reconsider its decision.

Councilman Michael Plisky and Councilwoman Dorothy Maron said Monday that questions raised by disgruntled competitors in the wake of the council’s decision may force them to reopen the hearing on the telecommunications contract.

But Oxnard’s communication director defended the contract Monday, saying that the City Charter allows the council to revise existing contracts without competitive bids.

Last Tuesday, the council unanimously approved a five-year contract with General Telephone Co. of California to replace the city’s aging phone system with one that routes all calls through the firm’s central office.

But the council approved the selection of the company’s CentraNet system to service the city’s 700 phone lines without soliciting public bids, angering competitors who planned to bid for Oxnard’s phone service.

James Kerr, who represents Fujitsu Business Communications Systems in Ventura County, criticized the lack of a bidding process at last week’s meeting. Other companies could deliver comparable service for as much as $5,000 less a month than the $21,000 monthly payments that GTE would receive under the terms of the contract, Kerr told the council.

Zoe Bushor, an Orange County consultant hired by the city of Ventura to evaluate bids for that city’s new phone system, also said the CentraNet system was more expensive than its competitors’.

Kerr questioned whether the council may have violated the City Charter, which requires competitive bidding for purchases of new equipment worth more than $10,000.

He has asked the Ventura County district attorney to determine whether the Oxnard City Council violated any laws when it approved the contract.

On Monday, Maron and Plisky each said they may ask Mayor Nao Takasugi to delay signing the contract with GTE. The contract will be ready to sign later this week, said David Sumney, the city’s communications director.

Maron cited doubts about the cost of the CentraNet system at last week’s meeting, and on Monday repeated those concerns.

“I was very unhappy about the cost,” Maron said, explaining that she remains unsure whether $250,000 in equipment costs are included in the price that city staff quoted. “I’m not so sure it’s a fact,” Maron said.

Plisky said he has some concern about questions raised by Kerr and others whether the contract may have violated the city’s purchasing policies as spelled out by the City Charter.

At issue is whether the contract with GTE is considered to be a new agreement, or an extension of the city’s previous contract with GTE, which expired in 1989.

Sumney on Monday defended the council’s decision, saying that the new contract simply revises the city’s current agreement with the company.

“There have been no improprieties in how the contract revision has been handled,” Sumney said. “The purchasing manager, the finance director and the city manager have all looked over our shoulder during the process.”

Sumney defended the service provided by GTE since 1982, when the company provided the city with its current, on-site switching system.

“(GTE) has a good track record,” Sumney said. “If it’s not broken, why fix it?”