$40K contract with former city councilman Shields proposed |

$40K contract with former city councilman Shields proposed

Former Pittsburgh Councilman Doug Shields

Pittsburgh City Councilwoman Darlene Harris on Monday introduced legislation to grant a former council ally a $40,000 contract in exchange for consulting services he began providing to her office months ago.

Harris said she discovered after hiring Doug Shields, 61, of Squirrel Hill in June that a city ordinance required her to advertise for proposals from other consultants. Shields, who served on council for eight years before losing a district judge race in 2011 and leaving office later that year, said he hasn’t been paid since July.

The advertisement appeared on the city website in September. Shields was the only respondent, Harris said.

“The city moves very slowly,” Shields said, adding that he is owed about $10,000 for his work. “I haven’t calculated it yet, but it would be for the months of August, September and October.”

Council is scheduled to discuss the contract next week.

Harris of Spring Hill said she hired Shields to provide constituent services, research legislation and draft policy proposals because she had a vacancy in her office staff and he had more experience in city government than anyone else she could find. She denied that it was politically motived. Harris and Shields are Democrats.

If the contract is approved, Shields would be paid $20 an hour and as much as $40,000 a year. He must provide his own insurance and is not eligible for benefits, according to the contract. He can continue to collect his city pension of $25,200 a year.

Bob Bauder is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at 412-765-2312 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.