[my_adsense_shortcode_1]
Instead of getting approval from the city manager, ARR currently uses a different process than other city departments and has to go through the Zero Waste Advisory Commission, then City Council to get approval for procedural changes that govern how they do day-to-day business.
“It sounds to me like it’s going to be taking the power away from this commission,” said Commissioner Cathy Gattuso.
The Zero Waste Advisory Commission voted 7-1 to reject the changes as presented, with Melissa Rothrock voting in opposition. During their discussion, commissioners expressed discomfort with the rushed timeline and lack of information about the change.
“I do not have enough information in front of me, and I am a little frustrated that I’m being asked to make a decision in a short timeline on something that, from my perspective, seems substantial – without adequate knowledge,” said Commissioner Amanda Masino. “I don’t understand the urgency of it having to happen at the next Council meting. I don’t understand entirely the impetus for it.”
“I’m the first director that has wanted to take it on,” said Austin Resource Recovery Director Richard McHale.
McHale explained that the current process is time-consuming, opaque and has long been a point of contention with ARR staff. He said that when the so-called Haulers’ Ordinance was passed in 2012, former Council Member Kathie Tovo questioned its validity but was dismissed by the department director at the time. Recently, his desire to change the hours that trash, recycling and compost are picked up without going through City Council brought the issue to the fore again, and McHale decided it was time to make the change.
In addition to the cumbersome nature of the current rules, McHale argued that changing the process would allow for more community input because of mandatory public posting of rule changes with 31-day public comment periods.
“The current process only deals with internal and external stakeholders,” he said. “Basically, your hauling community, your folks that know what’s going on, are those stakeholders. The current process that other departments use allows the entire community to have input – to not only ask questions, but to give comments on the proposed rules.”
Chair Gerard Acuna noted the public could, of course, comment at their commission meetings and that right “would never ever go away.” He spoke passionately about the merit of the current system and the good it has done over the past decade.
“A lot of the programs that we have today, again, would not have probably been implemented if it was not for the work of this commission or the insistence of this commission. … (You) have composting, you have multifamily recycling, you have single-stream recycling at curbside. None of that was here,” Acuna said.
Adam Gregory, who is vice president and officer at Texas Disposal Systems, also spoke against the change. He said that the Zero Waste Advisory Commission performs an important role in holding staff accountable, and that they were being asked to reduce that role.
Gregory also argued that, as a service provider itself, the department is in competition with private haulers such as himself and should have their regulation of the industry checked by the commission.
McHale disagreed with this categorization. He said that while his department might be considered a competitor, they served different classes and did not regulate the hauling community.
Gregory also maintained that the new process would not reduce administrative load on staff.
“It will do no such thing. In fact, it will do the opposite,” said Gregory, holding up 16 pages of administrative rules that other departments must follow. “ARR has a very streamlined process, in fact. It’s one sentence that’s right here. The difference is there’s accountability here.”
City Council discussed the proposed ordinance at its Tuesday work session.
“I’m hearing from stakeholders in the community that they were not informed of this and they were not talked to about this change,” said Council Member Mackenzie Kelly, who suggested they might postpone the item to allow for more public feedback.
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.
You’re a community leader
And we’re honored you look to us for serious, in-depth news. You know a strong community needs local and dedicated watchdog reporting. We’re here for you and that won’t change. Now will you take the powerful next step and support our nonprofit news organization?
This article First appeared in austinmonitor