Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - June 16, 1978 <br />Page 9 <br />sideways with letters written to the Trades and not to us........_.. <br />...... r. Ellison agreed to come to our meeting this morning and the�Housing <br />Bureau p ople are here and they have some contracts on our agenda which were <br />advertis d for award without putting in the wage thing so I thought I should <br />bring th t to your attention. I think Mr. Ellison talked to Mr. Dew about <br />this matter at the Area Office. <br />The Chair recognized Mr. Carl Ellison. <br />Carl Ellison: I talked to Mr. Dew this morning to ascertain - in fact the point <br />blank question was "in light of events of recent days" whether it was his view <br />that there was a change in the opinion of the Area Office regarding their <br />view of this matter. His answer back to me was that as far as he was con- <br />cerned, the view of the Area Office has not changed. A more specific question <br />asked was whether the Area Director or Steve Havens, who is the acting Deputy <br />Director - have they given Mr. Dew information which might make him change his <br />view and he indicated they had not and he said he would again check with Mr. <br />Havens tc be sure but that as far as he was concerned, the business of whether <br />we have the option as a matter of local policy to require payment of prevailing <br />wages, was a statutory problem and it his view that unless Congress amends <br />the CD statute as it refers to scattered site rehab of eight units.or less, it <br />is their opinion it would stay the same. What that does, in essence, is to <br />create ar impasse." It would be a lot easier if HUD would settle this matter <br />one way or the other, but in light of Mr. Dew's letter directed specifically <br />to us, it would seem somewhat difficult to ignore that until we get a letter <br />that cou termands this directive, directed to us. It is my view then that <br />until so ebody officially countermands that, preferably by letter - aside from <br />that I guess I am concerned now about the desirability to proceed with the <br />project. because our primary function is to serve the people and I don't think <br />we can a ford to delay the award of contracts indefinitely. Later on I will <br />ask their permission to proceed - perhaps you might want to recommend some <br />action WE might take to try to get HUD to ....it is my own personal judgment <br />that nob dy really wants to tackle this, that is why they seem to give crossed <br />signals. <br />Now, I would be very glad to answer any questions regarding my conversation with <br />Mr. Dew. <br />Mr. Robi son: I have a question: are you familiar with this lady that Bob <br />Georgine received the letter from? <br />Mr. Ellislon: Yes. <br />Mr. Robi son: Is she speaking her own belief or has she talked to someone a <br />little bit higher up than she is? <br />Mr. Ellison: I presume since she is the Assistant <br />stating the view of Secretary Harris, the problem <br />views..w at we need is something to the City which <br />Mr. Dew's letter. <br />Secretary she surely must be <br />is not in translating her <br />specifically countermands <br />