Shelton raises concerns about gang unit
Agreement between police, state group gets approved
A councilman said he had concerns with the tactics used by the state’s gang unit, but he still voted to support city agreements between the Yuma Police Department and the gang unit, as did the rest of the council.
During an Oct. 2 work session, when considering the consent agenda for the next day’s regular council meeting, Councilman Mike Shelton asked that agreements with the Arizona Department of Public Safety Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission be considered separately.
“I have some issues with it,” Shelton, a former city spokesman, said. “I can’t give specifics; from the time I used to work here, until more recently, I had an issue with GITTEM, the gang enforcement entity. It goes back to when I used to have conversations with PD and members of PD had issue with the kind of tactics they used. And that has not left me, and right at this moment, I would not be comfortable making an agreement with them”
Councilman Edward Thomas asked for more
information. “I’m trying to figure this out,” he said. “What kind of tactics? This is a gang unit.”
Shelton replied, “I wish my memories could pull back the kind of discussions we had. Let’s say what I heard is that they were rougher than perhaps they should have been. And maybe (they) infringed on some civil rights, the officers as they went about their business.”
Mayor Doug Nicholls then noted that the council can go into executive session. City Attorney Richard Files confirmed that the members could go behind closed doors for advice from counsel. Thomas motioned to go into executive session; Shelton seconded the motion.
After 11 minutes in executive session, the council members returned to the chambers, and Shelton explained his position. “I’m not convinced that GITTEM has improved since the time I was speaking of, and I would have no trouble supporting our agreement with them.”
During the Oct. 3 regular meeting, the council, including Shelton, voted 6-0 to approve the entire consent agenda, including the item questioned by Shelton.
The item covered two intergovernmental agreements, one in which the police department agrees to assign a sworn officer to liaison with the GIITEM task force and the other in which DPS agrees to provide access to a gang-tracking database and YPD agrees to enter documented gang information collected into the system.
The first agreement indicates that the assigned officer will attend some GIITEM training and participate in joint operations and local details with the unit. The officer remains with the Yuma Police Department but will be attached to GIITEM “with the purpose of enhancing law enforcement services concerning the criminal activities of street gangs.”
As per the second agreement, a memorandum of understanding, YPD agrees to continue an existing subscription to a gang-tracking database known as AZ GangNet. DPS creates and maintains the database to share criminal gang information between participating agencies and jurisdictions. As a participating agency with access to the gang database, YPD agrees to enter all persons who have been documented as criminal street gang members and/or associate members.
In other action, as part of the consent agenda, the council authorized the city administrator to execute a preconstruction contract for Construction Manager at Risk services on the Fire Station 4 remodel project in the amount of $14,946 and the Utilities System Division Relocation project in the amount of $47,668, both to CORE Construction of Phoenix.
A staff report notes that the city evaluated the various delivery methods available under state law for the projects and determined that CMAR was the best method. Staff prepared and issued a Request for Qualifications and received three Statements of Qualifications in response, all from commercial general contractors with offices, employees and ongoing work in the local Yuma area.
The selection committee, comprised of representatives from the engineering and fire departments and a civil/industrial contractor, individually reviewed, scored and ranked all three SOQs and recommended a short list that included all three submitting CMARs.
The contractors were invited to oral interviews where they were given the opportunity to present their capabilities and understanding of the project and respond to questions submitted to them by staff in advance of the presentations.
After the oral interviews, the selection committee members individually scored and ranked the three CMAR firms again, unanimously recommending selection of CORE Construction as the CMAR for the project.
Subsequently staff entered into contract negotiations with CORE Construction for preconstruction services, including design and constructability reviews, construction cost estimating, building modeling, material and system alternative evaluations, etc., and to lock in the overhead, profit and contract markup multipliers for the construction contract.
With the council’s approval, the city will award both pre-construction services contract to CORE Construction. When the projects’ design advances to a suitable point for a guaranteed maximum construction price to be negotiated, the contracts and prices will be brought to council for separate approval.