Posted here
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tonight's School Board Community Meeting
I would like to share my impressions from tonight's School Board Community meeting. First, I think it is wonderful that the School Board is taking the opportunity to listen to the Community. The question posed during the meeting was "Is your child engaged in learning?" From there, we broke into three groups with a School Board member represented at each group's table.
My group discussed what engagement means. Some of us felt that engagement is not necessarily the best barometer for learning and being challenged; often children may be engaged because it is fun or easy. Others felt strongly that children should "own their learning" and that their education should be customized as per the specific student's interests. We seemed to all agree that students do much better when class sizes are smaller. I believe this should be one of the top priorities of the District - - small class sizes for all grades (small class sizes will allow for more customized teaching and one-on-one instruction). Teachers, of course, make all the difference too. But, when a teacher is teaching a class of 23 students with a range of aptitudes and interests in learning, customization becomes overwhelming.
With this, I fail to see how heterogeneous classes effectively engage all learners, especially in the higher level grades. I believe that a tiered system is more effective at targeting the needs and abilities of individual students. Unfortunately, the meeting ended before we could delve into this issue.
I look forward to future debate on whether or not heterogeneous classes are most effective for engaging learners. Additionally, I would like to see debated some of the curriculum issues I have posed in earlier posts. I am optimistic that this is a first step in what I wish to see happen in our District, that is, open debate about academic priorities.
School Board March Elections
Below is an excerpt from a letter to the school board regarding the revised purchasing policy. It speaks to the level of divide that has manifested itself over the past few years. With an historic election behind us, there is one more that takes place in March. It is here that this community will make its voice heard where previously there was none.
Ultimately, the School Board’s responsibility is not just to the parents, students, and employees of the District, but rather to all the members of the community, including those who pay taxes to support public education. A vote for this policy is a vote to abdicate that responsibility and place power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable administrators—too much power. A vote for this policy is a vote to weaken accountability and hide the spending of the public’s money from view. A vote for this policy is a vote against the very principles you ought to uphold. And a vote for this policy will surely be remembered come Election Day in March.
Ultimately, the School Board’s responsibility is not just to the parents, students, and employees of the District, but rather to all the members of the community, including those who pay taxes to support public education. A vote for this policy is a vote to abdicate that responsibility and place power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable administrators—too much power. A vote for this policy is a vote to weaken accountability and hide the spending of the public’s money from view. A vote for this policy is a vote against the very principles you ought to uphold. And a vote for this policy will surely be remembered come Election Day in March.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Good Fiscal Policy Means Good Procurement Practices
First off...kudos to Jenna Roberts for taking the time and energy to educate the Community on the current and proposed ORCSD's procurement policies.
When every dollar counts, our District needs to implement even more rigorous fiscal policy. Part of strong fiscal policy is responsible procurement. Can you imagine not getting THREE quotes for work on your own home? Can you imagine signing a check for $20,000 to a contractor or vendor without getting competitive bids? This is what is being proposed for our District going forward.
Per the information I have, the new ORCSD procurement policy permits the District to procure WITHOUT competitive bids, for any amount UNDER $25,000. The current procurement policy is to secure competitive bids for bids over $5,000. Why is the District proposing even looser policy in these tough economic times?
This is my money. This is your money. This is unacceptable. Fiscal responsibility...now, please!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Response to Revised Bidding Policy
For School Board Members and Public Record
November 4, 2008
Dear Members of the School Board:
I am very disappointed to see that the policy committee did not recommend reviewing the extensive comments I submitted regarding the bidding policy before sending it to the full Board for review. Unfortunately I have no child care and cannot attend the meeting to outline my concerns. Please read my comments and consider these before discussing the bidding policy.
While I appreciate all the work the policy committee and business manager have put in to the revised bidding policy to date, the policy is not complete and outside reviewers should be utilized. As I said in my previous correspondence to the policy committee (see below), the revised policy is a good first step in flushing out more of the procedures that are lacking in the current policy but I feel that the overall policies have been dramatically weakened and that the revised policies and procedures need more thorough clarification as well as input from experts in the field (e.g. town officials, procurement officers from UNH, members of the community with expertise in procurement, etc).
I respectfully request that the Board motion to have an outside team of experts review and make further recommendations to strengthen the policy and tighten the overall language. I have over 10 years working on RFP's with State and non-profit organizations and from my professional background I urge you to get more input before discussing the revised policy--it is simply not ready. This revision not only weakens existing policies but much of the language is vague and many important policy and procedure elements are missing.
In addition to details needing clarification, there are 4 key areas in which the revised policy is weaker or inadequate.
1. Deleted from the new policy--a minimum of 3 bids must be received for all bids over $5,000
While obtaining 3 bids was deemed "arbitrary" by some members of the committee, it is in fact, an industry standard and a best practice. If 3 bids is unattainable then language can been added to the policy allowing the business manager to present the information to the Board and seek permission to proceed without 3 bids. This is a good check and balance. Please maintain the original policy.
2. Deleted from the new policy--anything over $5,000 be put out to bid.
The new policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. Again, this is an industry standard and a best practice. Please maintain the original policy.
3. There are many instances I have outlined below where the language is far too vague or inconsistent and as a result would infringe on any accountable. Words/pharases such as "may" or "in general" should not be part of a policy.
Also, some terms are not used properly--"formal bidding", RFQ and RFP are, in some cases, used inconsistently or incorrectly. A "definition of terms" section was supposed to be added to this document.
4. Since this has become a policies and procedures manual, there are key areas that must be addressed that are currently not part of this document:
1. Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
2. Contract Award Policy and Procedures
3. Policy Oversight
4. Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
5. Definition of Terms (this was discussed by the policy committee but has not been added to the manual being presented)
I feel strongly that if the Board is looking for support from the public on these new policies then more input is needed from the community and experts on these policies.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter!
Regards,
Jenna Roberts
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To: School Board Policy Committee
Cc: Members of the public present at the meeting
From: Jenna Roberts
Date: October 13, 2008
Re: Comments on the draft Bidding and Purchasing Requirements
Thank you for giving the members of the public an opportunity to participate in the policy committee meeting last week. I did not have the time to fully review the draft policy for Bidding and Purchasing Requirements before attending the meeting so I am not sure my comments at the meeting were very helpful.
Now that I have had time to digest what the committee has discussed and had the opportunity to review the draft policy in detail this weekend, I feel that I have more insight to offer the group. I am also willing to meet with any member of the administration or the committee to help flush out more of the policy/procedures.
I believe that these requirements have the potential to be used as a template for other schools across the State. Based on my research, the written procurement policies of many NH schools are inadequate. We have an opportunity to produce a model policy and procedures manual for other Districts statewide.
I agree with other members of the group that this is a great step forward and I am happy to offer my experience to tighten the language and add more content to the policy. Below, I have provided some feedback/suggestions on the draft policy and offer some thoughts on content for the actual purchasing/awarding portions. I hope you find my comments helpful because my intention is to assist in this process by providing suggestions beneficial to our administrators but with the needs of the public in mind, too.
Following my feedback is a copy of the policies used by the Town of Durham which have many features we are incorporating into the District policies. The chart they use is a great snapshot of the procurement policies. This chart might be helpful to incorporate into our document, too.
Thank you for all your work on this.
Comments on the current draft policy dated 8/27/08 :
After reviewing the entire draft it is clear to me from the language used that this is a policy and procedures manual. I think that is a great because it is difficult to review policy if the procedures for implementation are not obvious to those reviewing the policies. Implementation for a policy such as this one exists hand in hand with the policy itself. This policy was upgraded from 2 paragraphs to 5 pages. This is a much more comprehensive guide through there in need for more clarity and content in certain areas I will expand upon below.
Part B: The employees who are authorized to make purchases are not defined. Item #1 & #2 on page 2 notes who is authorized to make purchases under $25,000 but it is not clearly defined who can authorize over $25,000 or what the oversight process will be followed to ensure accountability.
Part B.2 This current policy in place mandates anything over $5,000 be put out to bid. This draft policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. I think the original policy should be maintained. Most policies I have reviewed have anything over $5,000 similar to our original guidelines. Please consider returning to the original standard.
Part B.3 Please consider taking out this entire item #3. Item 5 specifies the exceptions to the bidding requirements. All items should be bid at all times unless items meet the exceptions outlined in the form of a Request for Quote (RFQ) or Request for Proposal (RFP). There should be no allowance for not bidding unless they meet item #5 exceptions.
Part B.4 The group agreed that the term “formal bidding” would be changed to RFQ which will tighten up the language. The language needs to be tightened further by changing “may seek” to “will be required unless an exception is made through items #5”. Again, this makes it more concrete that all purchases will be bid unless it clearly meets an exception. The current language provides a loop hole as also seen in item #3.
Part B.4 There is some confusion with the language here. A RFP does “identify the need the District intends to meet” but the rest of the sentence is not accurate. As we discussed at the committee meeting, there should be a glossary of terms. The rest of the sentence seems to mix RFP and a Request for Information (RFI). If the District does not know exactly what it wants then a RFI would be used. I think that if RFQ, RFP and RFI are defined then the last part of the sentence should be deleted because it is confusing: “permit the vendor to propose the manner in which the work will be performed and the materials used”.
In general a RFP is written with a scope of service and while the vendor may respond to specific questions requested in the RFP which refer to performance and materials the overall task for a RFP is known and should be adequately explained in the RFP. Generally RFP’s are used for more complex services (e.g. architects, networking, general contractors, advisory services, etc.) which require the vendor to explain what they do and how they would do it to meet the requirements of the District.
Part B.5.a Cooperative purchases should only be used if it is determined that these provide the best service at the best price. I think that instead of making this an exception it could be added as an item whereby other bids will be reviewed and compared to cooperative purchases, as well. Again, we are looking for the best value and we cannot be sure that a cooperative purchase is necessarily the best value unless there is a comparison. I think a RFQ should be utilized to compare against the cooperative purchase price and then the lowest bid that effectively meets the Districts requirements should be used. Presumably this will be the cooperative bid but in my experience, this is not always the case.
Part B.5.a I think that if any exceptions are being made, the Board should approve the exception. Item (a) does not require Board approval but item (b) does require the approval. If item (a) remains an exception then I think there should be Board approval to ensure that other quotes were reviewed before awarding a cooperative purchase contract.
Part B.7 While it is often a practices of agencies to bring in vendors for interviews, there must still be a RFP. This item states there may be an interview OR a RFP. There should be both. The RFP will inform the service providers what the District is seeking and the RFP serves as an application to apply for the job. In addition to the submission the District can also evaluate the vendors based on an interview or presentation. This is a common practice that I highly recommend but it must have a RFP for the service first. Please change the “or” to “in addition to”.
Part B.8 The Board may wish to consider another mechanism in the policy to be informed of emergency situations. In some cases the next business meeting may be 2 to 4 weeks away. The Board may wish to have an e-mail as soon as possible or within 24 hours of the emergency. The public can be made aware through the website or at the next public meeting .
Part C I recommend specifying 14 days for RFQ’s to be posted and 30 days for RFP’s to be posted. By the nature of RFP’s they are far more complex and require more time to craft. I think 14 days is adequate for RFQ’s since they are more straightforward and do not take much time to submit a response.
Part C Instead of incurring the cost of paper and postage, I recommend notices be sent to vendors by e-mail listserve or fax. It is easier, more cost effective and there is a paper trail to prove that vendors were notified. An electronic file can be maintained if there is any question about who was notified about the RFQ/RFP.
Part C To tighten the language, I think it should state that the notices “will” be sent to vendors instead of “may”. This is confusing and does not say why it would or would not be sent to vendors. This language should be clear and consistent.
Part C As discussed in the committee meeting, language should be added to this section to state that the notices will be posted on the District website.
Part D Please explain what a “bid alternative” is in this context. Also, I think it is fine for the District to reject some of all bids but there should be clear guidelines in this policy outlining some of the reasons a bid will not be accepted, in addition to a paper trial in the file in case it is questioned.
Part D.5 The phrase “in general” should be deleted. These reasons a higher price vendor was selected should be adequately documented in the procurement file.
Part D.5 I suggest adding language that states the District will award contracts to local vendors with the lowest price who also meet all the minimum requirements.
Part D.5 I would recommend a sentence at the end that allows the District to select a higher priced vendor only after the reasons have been explained to the Board at a meeting and voted by the Board.
Part E I see this section as questionable. I do not see why section D should not apply to both RFQ’s as well as RFP’s. Section D provides much more oversight and more transparency.
Part E.3 Why would these bids be hidden from the public? These are the same public documents as those in Part D.
Part E.4 This item is too vague. The language should be tightened up similar to D.5 addressed above. Again, I think that the procedures should be exactly the same and both RFQ’s and RFP’s should be held to the same rigorous standards to assure the best quality at the best price.
Part F This item should include a formal process for vendors to make appointments for feedback or dispute an award. In addition, for those vendors who choose not to schedule an appointment, a form should be provided to give feedback or complaints to the District. A form could be created and posted in the website for vendors to utilize.
Part F This section should identify the process for award notices to vendors. I recommend that award notices be posted on the District website which is common practice for many schools and government agencies.
Other items to be incorporated into this document before finalization and presentation to the Board:
(Again, I would be happy to work with Blaine or any other committee member to flush out these policies)
Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
What is the policy for reviewing the RFQ’s/RFP’s
Establish a evaluation protocol—who will evaluate RFP’s, general guidelines for scoring, documentation procedures
Establish documentation requirements for procurement processes outlined above so that it is clear that all protocols outlined in this comprehensive document have been followed
Conflict of interest guidelines
Contract Award Policy and Procedures
Who has authority to award a contract and what is the process
Where will the award notice be posted—suggest using the District website
Local vendors will be given priority assuming there is no compromise on quality or price
Lowest vendor will be selected so long as minimum guidelines are met and there is no compromise on quality
Contracts can be issued to higher priced contracts so long as the reasoning is justified to the Board and agreed by members of the Board through a vote
Policy Oversight
Provide some oversight standards from the Board
System set up to verify that procurement standards are being followed—audit committee or other internal audit committee
Presentations to the Board when there are any exceptions
Presentation to the Board when awards exceed $xxxx (Town of Durham designates all awards over $35,000 go to the Council for approval. Given the number of contracts in the District perhaps this should be higher--$50,000 or $100,000). Durham policy attached.
Board guidelines if policies are not adequately followed—recourse or penalties
Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
The primary file for all contracts should be maintained and easily accessed at the business office—contract managers should maintain a copy of files but not the original file. These files should be easily accessible to District staff or members of the public.
Files should contain all relevant bidding and contract award documentation, including, but not limited to:
Documentation demonstrating how RFP was advertised, including electronic file containing e-mails sent to listserve.
Copy of RFP.
All bidder applications and attachments or other materials submitted.
Documentation of the method of evaluation, scoring tools used, individuals involved in the application review and any other evaluation documentation.
Award notice and method of posting including copies of e-mails sent to listserve.
Complete contract package with vendor including, signed contract, scope of service, deliverables, project workplans, budget, budget amendments, etc.
Any contract oversight/performance documentation.
All billing documentation submitted by the contractor over the course of the contract to date.
Any other documentation related to performance or any other aspect of these contracts.
Overview of 3 Bid Requirement:
I think that having a policy to obtain a minimum of 3 bids is a good practice. Many businesses use this standard and 3 is not an arbitrary number but the minimum needed to make the best comparison of prices. If adequate advertising has been used then 3 bids should not be difficult to obtain.
An exception could be made in the policy that if 3 bids were not received then the Superintendent can request an exception from the Board. Making every attempt to ensure 3 bids is a good way of demonstrating due diligence and a commitment to obtaining full value from our vendors.
November 4, 2008
Dear Members of the School Board:
I am very disappointed to see that the policy committee did not recommend reviewing the extensive comments I submitted regarding the bidding policy before sending it to the full Board for review. Unfortunately I have no child care and cannot attend the meeting to outline my concerns. Please read my comments and consider these before discussing the bidding policy.
While I appreciate all the work the policy committee and business manager have put in to the revised bidding policy to date, the policy is not complete and outside reviewers should be utilized. As I said in my previous correspondence to the policy committee (see below), the revised policy is a good first step in flushing out more of the procedures that are lacking in the current policy but I feel that the overall policies have been dramatically weakened and that the revised policies and procedures need more thorough clarification as well as input from experts in the field (e.g. town officials, procurement officers from UNH, members of the community with expertise in procurement, etc).
I respectfully request that the Board motion to have an outside team of experts review and make further recommendations to strengthen the policy and tighten the overall language. I have over 10 years working on RFP's with State and non-profit organizations and from my professional background I urge you to get more input before discussing the revised policy--it is simply not ready. This revision not only weakens existing policies but much of the language is vague and many important policy and procedure elements are missing.
In addition to details needing clarification, there are 4 key areas in which the revised policy is weaker or inadequate.
1. Deleted from the new policy--a minimum of 3 bids must be received for all bids over $5,000
While obtaining 3 bids was deemed "arbitrary" by some members of the committee, it is in fact, an industry standard and a best practice. If 3 bids is unattainable then language can been added to the policy allowing the business manager to present the information to the Board and seek permission to proceed without 3 bids. This is a good check and balance. Please maintain the original policy.
2. Deleted from the new policy--anything over $5,000 be put out to bid.
The new policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. Again, this is an industry standard and a best practice. Please maintain the original policy.
3. There are many instances I have outlined below where the language is far too vague or inconsistent and as a result would infringe on any accountable. Words/pharases such as "may" or "in general" should not be part of a policy.
Also, some terms are not used properly--"formal bidding", RFQ and RFP are, in some cases, used inconsistently or incorrectly. A "definition of terms" section was supposed to be added to this document.
4. Since this has become a policies and procedures manual, there are key areas that must be addressed that are currently not part of this document:
1. Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
2. Contract Award Policy and Procedures
3. Policy Oversight
4. Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
5. Definition of Terms (this was discussed by the policy committee but has not been added to the manual being presented)
I feel strongly that if the Board is looking for support from the public on these new policies then more input is needed from the community and experts on these policies.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter!
Regards,
Jenna Roberts
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To: School Board Policy Committee
Cc: Members of the public present at the meeting
From: Jenna Roberts
Date: October 13, 2008
Re: Comments on the draft Bidding and Purchasing Requirements
Thank you for giving the members of the public an opportunity to participate in the policy committee meeting last week. I did not have the time to fully review the draft policy for Bidding and Purchasing Requirements before attending the meeting so I am not sure my comments at the meeting were very helpful.
Now that I have had time to digest what the committee has discussed and had the opportunity to review the draft policy in detail this weekend, I feel that I have more insight to offer the group. I am also willing to meet with any member of the administration or the committee to help flush out more of the policy/procedures.
I believe that these requirements have the potential to be used as a template for other schools across the State. Based on my research, the written procurement policies of many NH schools are inadequate. We have an opportunity to produce a model policy and procedures manual for other Districts statewide.
I agree with other members of the group that this is a great step forward and I am happy to offer my experience to tighten the language and add more content to the policy. Below, I have provided some feedback/suggestions on the draft policy and offer some thoughts on content for the actual purchasing/awarding portions. I hope you find my comments helpful because my intention is to assist in this process by providing suggestions beneficial to our administrators but with the needs of the public in mind, too.
Following my feedback is a copy of the policies used by the Town of Durham which have many features we are incorporating into the District policies. The chart they use is a great snapshot of the procurement policies. This chart might be helpful to incorporate into our document, too.
Thank you for all your work on this.
Comments on the current draft policy dated 8/27/08 :
After reviewing the entire draft it is clear to me from the language used that this is a policy and procedures manual. I think that is a great because it is difficult to review policy if the procedures for implementation are not obvious to those reviewing the policies. Implementation for a policy such as this one exists hand in hand with the policy itself. This policy was upgraded from 2 paragraphs to 5 pages. This is a much more comprehensive guide through there in need for more clarity and content in certain areas I will expand upon below.
Part B: The employees who are authorized to make purchases are not defined. Item #1 & #2 on page 2 notes who is authorized to make purchases under $25,000 but it is not clearly defined who can authorize over $25,000 or what the oversight process will be followed to ensure accountability.
Part B.2 This current policy in place mandates anything over $5,000 be put out to bid. This draft policy changes this to only items over $25,000 require bidding. I think the original policy should be maintained. Most policies I have reviewed have anything over $5,000 similar to our original guidelines. Please consider returning to the original standard.
Part B.3 Please consider taking out this entire item #3. Item 5 specifies the exceptions to the bidding requirements. All items should be bid at all times unless items meet the exceptions outlined in the form of a Request for Quote (RFQ) or Request for Proposal (RFP). There should be no allowance for not bidding unless they meet item #5 exceptions.
Part B.4 The group agreed that the term “formal bidding” would be changed to RFQ which will tighten up the language. The language needs to be tightened further by changing “may seek” to “will be required unless an exception is made through items #5”. Again, this makes it more concrete that all purchases will be bid unless it clearly meets an exception. The current language provides a loop hole as also seen in item #3.
Part B.4 There is some confusion with the language here. A RFP does “identify the need the District intends to meet” but the rest of the sentence is not accurate. As we discussed at the committee meeting, there should be a glossary of terms. The rest of the sentence seems to mix RFP and a Request for Information (RFI). If the District does not know exactly what it wants then a RFI would be used. I think that if RFQ, RFP and RFI are defined then the last part of the sentence should be deleted because it is confusing: “permit the vendor to propose the manner in which the work will be performed and the materials used”.
In general a RFP is written with a scope of service and while the vendor may respond to specific questions requested in the RFP which refer to performance and materials the overall task for a RFP is known and should be adequately explained in the RFP. Generally RFP’s are used for more complex services (e.g. architects, networking, general contractors, advisory services, etc.) which require the vendor to explain what they do and how they would do it to meet the requirements of the District.
Part B.5.a Cooperative purchases should only be used if it is determined that these provide the best service at the best price. I think that instead of making this an exception it could be added as an item whereby other bids will be reviewed and compared to cooperative purchases, as well. Again, we are looking for the best value and we cannot be sure that a cooperative purchase is necessarily the best value unless there is a comparison. I think a RFQ should be utilized to compare against the cooperative purchase price and then the lowest bid that effectively meets the Districts requirements should be used. Presumably this will be the cooperative bid but in my experience, this is not always the case.
Part B.5.a I think that if any exceptions are being made, the Board should approve the exception. Item (a) does not require Board approval but item (b) does require the approval. If item (a) remains an exception then I think there should be Board approval to ensure that other quotes were reviewed before awarding a cooperative purchase contract.
Part B.7 While it is often a practices of agencies to bring in vendors for interviews, there must still be a RFP. This item states there may be an interview OR a RFP. There should be both. The RFP will inform the service providers what the District is seeking and the RFP serves as an application to apply for the job. In addition to the submission the District can also evaluate the vendors based on an interview or presentation. This is a common practice that I highly recommend but it must have a RFP for the service first. Please change the “or” to “in addition to”.
Part B.8 The Board may wish to consider another mechanism in the policy to be informed of emergency situations. In some cases the next business meeting may be 2 to 4 weeks away. The Board may wish to have an e-mail as soon as possible or within 24 hours of the emergency. The public can be made aware through the website or at the next public meeting .
Part C I recommend specifying 14 days for RFQ’s to be posted and 30 days for RFP’s to be posted. By the nature of RFP’s they are far more complex and require more time to craft. I think 14 days is adequate for RFQ’s since they are more straightforward and do not take much time to submit a response.
Part C Instead of incurring the cost of paper and postage, I recommend notices be sent to vendors by e-mail listserve or fax. It is easier, more cost effective and there is a paper trail to prove that vendors were notified. An electronic file can be maintained if there is any question about who was notified about the RFQ/RFP.
Part C To tighten the language, I think it should state that the notices “will” be sent to vendors instead of “may”. This is confusing and does not say why it would or would not be sent to vendors. This language should be clear and consistent.
Part C As discussed in the committee meeting, language should be added to this section to state that the notices will be posted on the District website.
Part D Please explain what a “bid alternative” is in this context. Also, I think it is fine for the District to reject some of all bids but there should be clear guidelines in this policy outlining some of the reasons a bid will not be accepted, in addition to a paper trial in the file in case it is questioned.
Part D.5 The phrase “in general” should be deleted. These reasons a higher price vendor was selected should be adequately documented in the procurement file.
Part D.5 I suggest adding language that states the District will award contracts to local vendors with the lowest price who also meet all the minimum requirements.
Part D.5 I would recommend a sentence at the end that allows the District to select a higher priced vendor only after the reasons have been explained to the Board at a meeting and voted by the Board.
Part E I see this section as questionable. I do not see why section D should not apply to both RFQ’s as well as RFP’s. Section D provides much more oversight and more transparency.
Part E.3 Why would these bids be hidden from the public? These are the same public documents as those in Part D.
Part E.4 This item is too vague. The language should be tightened up similar to D.5 addressed above. Again, I think that the procedures should be exactly the same and both RFQ’s and RFP’s should be held to the same rigorous standards to assure the best quality at the best price.
Part F This item should include a formal process for vendors to make appointments for feedback or dispute an award. In addition, for those vendors who choose not to schedule an appointment, a form should be provided to give feedback or complaints to the District. A form could be created and posted in the website for vendors to utilize.
Part F This section should identify the process for award notices to vendors. I recommend that award notices be posted on the District website which is common practice for many schools and government agencies.
Other items to be incorporated into this document before finalization and presentation to the Board:
(Again, I would be happy to work with Blaine or any other committee member to flush out these policies)
Bidding Evaluation Policies and Guidelines
What is the policy for reviewing the RFQ’s/RFP’s
Establish a evaluation protocol—who will evaluate RFP’s, general guidelines for scoring, documentation procedures
Establish documentation requirements for procurement processes outlined above so that it is clear that all protocols outlined in this comprehensive document have been followed
Conflict of interest guidelines
Contract Award Policy and Procedures
Who has authority to award a contract and what is the process
Where will the award notice be posted—suggest using the District website
Local vendors will be given priority assuming there is no compromise on quality or price
Lowest vendor will be selected so long as minimum guidelines are met and there is no compromise on quality
Contracts can be issued to higher priced contracts so long as the reasoning is justified to the Board and agreed by members of the Board through a vote
Policy Oversight
Provide some oversight standards from the Board
System set up to verify that procurement standards are being followed—audit committee or other internal audit committee
Presentations to the Board when there are any exceptions
Presentation to the Board when awards exceed $xxxx (Town of Durham designates all awards over $35,000 go to the Council for approval. Given the number of contracts in the District perhaps this should be higher--$50,000 or $100,000). Durham policy attached.
Board guidelines if policies are not adequately followed—recourse or penalties
Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
The primary file for all contracts should be maintained and easily accessed at the business office—contract managers should maintain a copy of files but not the original file. These files should be easily accessible to District staff or members of the public.
Files should contain all relevant bidding and contract award documentation, including, but not limited to:
Documentation demonstrating how RFP was advertised, including electronic file containing e-mails sent to listserve.
Copy of RFP.
All bidder applications and attachments or other materials submitted.
Documentation of the method of evaluation, scoring tools used, individuals involved in the application review and any other evaluation documentation.
Award notice and method of posting including copies of e-mails sent to listserve.
Complete contract package with vendor including, signed contract, scope of service, deliverables, project workplans, budget, budget amendments, etc.
Any contract oversight/performance documentation.
All billing documentation submitted by the contractor over the course of the contract to date.
Any other documentation related to performance or any other aspect of these contracts.
Overview of 3 Bid Requirement:
I think that having a policy to obtain a minimum of 3 bids is a good practice. Many businesses use this standard and 3 is not an arbitrary number but the minimum needed to make the best comparison of prices. If adequate advertising has been used then 3 bids should not be difficult to obtain.
An exception could be made in the policy that if 3 bids were not received then the Superintendent can request an exception from the Board. Making every attempt to ensure 3 bids is a good way of demonstrating due diligence and a commitment to obtaining full value from our vendors.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
ORCSD School Board Meetings On Demand...
As time permits, we will be publishing school board meetings online shortly after they become available to the public.
Here is the first meeting:
SB meeting - 10-01-08
Here is the first meeting:
SB meeting - 10-01-08
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Procurement Audit Report
To: Interested Citizens
From: Jenna Roberts
Date:
Re: Procurement Audit Report
I am the author of the audit report (attached at the end of this memo) and am writing to clear up some confusion.
First, I am a professional auditor. I have worked for the State of
When I performed the audit I conducted it in the same way I would in my job. I leave assumptions at the door. The findings are based on fact of what was presented in the files. Following the review—which was very short given the limited number of files—I did exhaustive research on national best practices for procurement and purchasing.
Second, I have a deep commitment to the children in this community. I am the mom of a busy 5 year old who currently attends the fantastic
Third, I conducted this audit after making multiple attempts to address the procurement discrepancies directly with the administration and the School Board. I made a proposal to the School Board that additional bidding documentation should be reviewed to assess current procurement practices used by the District.
When I received no response, I decided to review these practices myself through the Right to Know Law. The point of our report was to outline any problems with the current systems and then, more importantly, offer concrete solutions to the problems. This process was to identify problems in the systems. Presently, there are widespread systemic issues with the way in which the district conducts their procurement practices as well as a lack of oversight to ensure existing policies are being followed throughout the process. These problems exist on multiple levels and not on any one person.
I spent many hours looking at solutions that would ultimately be effective, save time for our administrators and give the Board some oversight over larger contracts. In addition, I have recommended that the policy NOT be changed that currently requires the District to obtain a minimum of 3 bids and advertise the bids publicly. What does need to change is how the District will provide oversight the ensure compliance with this policy. The policy is a best practice and should be enforced, which it currently is not based on the review.
I proposed solutions that would be a win-win-win. These recommendations would benefit the administration, Board and the public. My hope with this report is to shine a light on solutions allowing us to fix the problems at hand and move forward.
Lastly, I have spent much of my time this summer writing a fair and comprehensive report. Personal remarks made by some members of the board in an attempt to discredit the hard work I put into this report are irresponsible and harmful to our community and only serve to add fuel to the fire. These negative comments only serve to alienate the community they have been elected to serve.
I will continue to push our leaders to raise the bar and work toward more accountability and transparency in our District. In these uncertain economic times it is vital that we trust how our funds are being allocated and to whom. I will continue to work toward a positive outcome and I hope our leaders will do the same. There are problems to be fixed—some are easy and some are more complex—but if we work together and push for positive change, we have much to gain as a community.
If you would like more detail on the report or would like to view the many resources I provided to the District, I am happy to provide it to you. Please feel free to e-mail me using the link below.
________________________________________________________________________
Audit of ORCSD Contracts and Bidding Documentation
Executive Summary
Pursuant to a request under the state’s Right-to-Know law (
District personnel did not fully comply with the request, limiting the team’s ability to draw conclusions and make recommendations. For this review the District provided the team with 12 files worth approximately $1,185,000. In 2007-2008 there were over 160 vendors receiving over $5,000 and the total value of District contracts was over $10M. However, many problems were uncovered with the limited paperwork that was provided.
The team uncovered a consistent trend of widespread failure to adhere to District policies regarding proper advertising of bids and obtaining the required minimum numbers of bids, as well as an inconsistent bid review and evaluation process. Lastly, files regarding the contracting process are inadequately maintained and preserved. With the current lack of accountability and fiscal control, the potential for fraud and waste of District resources is significant.
We recommend that District personnel take steps to address the issues we found; specific recommendations are included in the body of the report. Most importantly the District should enlist a firm to conduct a full forensic audit of all files to determine the full extent of mismanagement and ensure that there is no fraud related to this mismanagement.
We also recommend that going forward the School Board play an active role in approving and overseeing larger contracts, and create policies which hold District personnel accountable for following District procedures in all contracts and in all instances.
Background
On
Acknowledgement of the request was received on
When the District did not respond by July 28th, an e-mail was send to the District on July 29th to inquire about the status of the files.
An e-mail was received on July 30th stating that not all of the files had been pulled but that the review could commence at any time.
Due to vacation conflicts the review was not scheduled until
Document Review Findings:
Overview:
Based on expenditure reports received, in fiscal year 2007-2008 there were over 160 vendors who received awards over $5,000. Of these only twelve vendor files were provided in response to the Right To Know Law
Given the limited number of contracts we reviewed, it is impossible to determine whether the issues we uncovered are widespread. Among the small sample we had access to, there was a clear pattern of mismanagement.
Specific Problems:
1. All 12 files reviewed were not in compliance with existing bidding policies.
Policy violations:
- The policy states that advertising is required for all contracts over $5,000
- FINDING Ã No advertising was conducted for any of the 12 contracts.
- The policy states that there must be a minimum of 3 bids for all contracts over $5,000
- FINDINGÃ Of the 12 files, 7 of the awards were granted with less than 3 bids, including some basic services such as: roofing, flooring, computer networking, septic.
2. Contract awards are poorly managed
- It was often unclear who in the District authorized the award.
- Based on the information we reviewed, the District is authorizing work without a scope of service or a formal contract.
- Only 1 vendor had a signed contract with the District—this contract was initiated by the vendor and not the District.
- No other awards had evidence of a contract or contract process.
- Adequate fiscal information was non-existent for all the files even though it was included in the request.
- No file had evidence of a bidding evaluation process.
- Inconsistencies between bid amounts and purchase orders had no notes or justification.
- Some final payments were less than the estimates. It is unclear where the cost savings differential is being captured.
3. File preservation and maintenance is inadequate
- The primary file for these vendors is not maintained in the SAU office.
- The business manager does not have copies in his possession nor is he aware of what is maintained in these files.
- The managers who oversee the work maintain all paperwork and keep the files in their offices.
- The files are poorly organized and the information that is kept in the files is inconsistent and incomplete.
- Some documentation was not adequately filed but left as a heap of paper that had to be sorted on site by the evaluators.
4.
- Five members of the public arrived to review all contractor files over $5,000 for the past 3 years. When we arrived there were only 12 files out of over 160 known files available for the review.
- Based on expenditure documentation received through a separate request it is known that in 2007-2008 there were over 160 vendors receiving over $5000 in funding from the District in 2007-2008.
- No billing documentation was supplied per the request.
Recommendations:
It is impossible to fully identify the scope of the problem given the lack of compliance with the request. To ensure that no fraudulent activity has taken place, the first step the Board should take is to retain a firm to perform a full forensic audit of all District accounts.
Though only 12 documents were provided for this review, some problems can be corrected immediately. The Board and District administration should review the following recommendations and implement corrective strategies as soon as possible.
Procurement Process & Oversight
Bidding Policy Amendment Process:
- No administrative staff of the District should be drafting policy that would pertain to them or their staff. This is a clear conflict of interest.
- A committee of non-District staff with procurement experience should be created to draft a new procurement policy and present it to the policy committee for review.
- Outside consultation by experts with procurement experience (e.g.
- If members of the public cannot volunteer then a firm with fiscal procurement expertise should be hired to make these recommendations. This firm should report to the Board and not District administration.
- Legal counsel should review the policies once they are written to ensure that they do not conflict with existing State or Federal laws.
- The two primary policies currently in place should not be altered—advertising should be required and a minimum of 3 bids must be required unless an exception is voted upon and approved by a majority of the Board.
The Board Must Create Accountability Standards and Oversight
- The Board must be more involved in the oversight of the bidding process for larger contracts.
- The Board must define clear accountability standards for District staff as well as action that will be taken if policies are not followed.
- Policies should be written with explicit remedies to address non-compliance of a bidding process (e.g. a contract will be re-bid immediately if it is clear that the basic policies were violated without prior permission from the Board).
- Once revised policies and accountability standards have been put in place, the Board should establish a trained citizen’s audit/oversight committee to create a layer of checks and balances and thus maintain public confidence.
- This committee will provide oversight through quarterly reviews of school operations, procedures and practices.
- This committee will also work with the policy committee to make recommended changes to policy as needed.
- The Superintendent should set up a system to regularly verify that all bids follow the current policies:
1. all bids over $5,000 must be properly advertised;
2. a minimum of 3 bids must be solicited for any bid over $5,000
- The Board should receive regular updates of awards over $5,000 during public meetings so that the Board and the public are aware of how the money is being managed.
- Any bid over $25,000 should be presented to the School Board for vote:
- The contract manager or business manager should present to the Board how the process was conducted, how policies were followed, the protocols used for selection, bid amounts received, and make a recommendation to the Board.
- The Board should not vote if there are inaccuracies, if policies were not followed or if members of the public present discrepancies.
- RFP should be re-bid if any of the above problems are presented
- Ethical standards and conflict of interest guidelines should be developed related to procurement practices for District and non-District personnel.
- Civil and administrative remedies should be developed for employees or non-employees who breach policies or ethical standards.
- A policy should be established to ensure compliance with
- The Board should establish policy which will outline the actions it will take if requests are not adequately met.
- Board protocols should be in place to immediately react to any lack of compliance with any bidding policies.
- The Board should establish a clear policy of how the public may file a formal grievance with the Board if there are issues with high ranking administrators related to bidding or any other issues.
- More communication is needed to reinforce to the community that the formal role of a School Board is to represent the public, not the school administration.
Institute Basic Bidding Practice Standards
- Define different types of bidding processes and when to use (samples below taken from
- Request for Information (RFI) —when you don't know exactly what you want or you don't know what is available in the market place. Often the information gathered would be used to write a RFP (e.g. a firm identifies cost saving measures that could be instituted for the District. The District would then write a RFP to get specifications and pricing from multiple vendors.)
- Request for Proposal (RFP)—when you have a general idea with some specifications and/or it's a large, complex project with potential for multiple solutions.
- Request for Bid (RFB)—when you know precisely what you need and have precise requirements and specifications—these are more straightforward and simple projects (e.g. plowing snow, purchasing equipment, fixing a roof, etc.)
- Boilerplates should be created to issue RFP’s or any requests for bids.
- The boilerplate should include: service requested, timeline, maximum award amount (if applicable), contract conditions, performance requirements, terms of service, etc.
- All RFP’s must have a formal evaluation process as part of the proposal. These are used for high value and complex or multi-year projects. A simple request for bids can be used for lower value, less-complex projects (e.g. repairs, simple maintenance, etc.)
- Any RFP which lists selection criteria should have a formal review committee whereby vendors are scored and paperwork is maintained to ensure transparency and equity.
- Reviewers should sign a conflict of interest clause as well as a confidentiality statement. These documents should be filed in the primary file and subject to public review.
- Civil and administrative remedies should be developed for employees or non-employees who breach policies or ethical standards.
- Policies should be written with explicit remedies to address non-compliance of a bidding process (e.g. a contract will be re-bid immediately if it is clear that the basic policies were violated without prior permission from the Board).
- A process should be developed to allow vendors to provide feedback about the bidding process, to allow bidders to obtain a formal meeting if their bid was not selected and to provide a protocol for the vendor to document a formal complaint is they believe the bid was not fair or equitable.
Advertising
- The District should provide easy access to all open bids on their website.
- The website should post all bid requests and RFP’s as soon as approval has been granted.
- A formal e-mail distribution listserve should be developed to e-mail RFP’s directly to interested parties for any bid over $5,000.
- Any bid over $5,000 should be advertised in at least 1 local paper.
- Large bids/RFP’s (over $25,000) should be posted at least 30 days before the bid is due.
- Recently awarded bids should be posted on the website and list the vendor selected and the amount of the award (see www.comm-pass.com for a sample from the State of
- Outreach should be conducted to inform local vendors that new systems will be put in place to announce bids—website, newspaper, listserve.
Policy for Contract Award Process
- Any bid over $25,000 should be presented to the School Board for vote:
- The contract manager or business manager should present to the Board how the process was conducted, how policies were followed, the protocols used for selection, bid amounts received, and make a recommendation to the Board.
- The Board should not vote if there are inaccuracies, if policies were not followed or if members of the public present discrepancies.
- RFP should be re-bid if any of the above problems are presented.
- No awards over $5,000 should be granted without a contract with the vendor which includes the vendor signature and signatures from 2 approved District staff.
- Contracts should include, at a minimum: the scope of service and dates of delivery/completion.
- No awards over $25,000 should be granted without a contract with the vendor which includes the vendor signature and signatures from 2 approved District staff and the Board Chair following a majority vote of the Board to award the contract.
- Contracts should include, at a minimum: the scope of service and dates of delivery/completion.
- The District should consider new negotiation models which could include “best and final offers” or master purchase agreements for multi-year projects to maximize savings.
- The lowest cost vendor should be selected so long as it does not compromise quality or other requirements of the scope of service.
- Additional justification should be presented to the Board for a vote if the District wishes to award any bid that does not represent the lowest cost.
- Local vendors should be given priority but not at the expense of quality or significant cost.
Procurement and Vendor Documentation Maintenance
- The primary file for all contracts should be maintained and easily accessed at the business office—contract managers should maintain a copy of files but not the original file. These files should be easily accessible to District staff or members of the public.
- Files should contain all relevant bidding and contract award documentation, including, but not limited to:
- Documentation demonstrating how RFP was advertised, including copies of e-mails sent to listserve.
- Copy of RFP.
- All bidders applications and attachments or other materials submitted.
- Documentation of the method of evaluation, scoring tools used, individuals involved in the application review and any other evaluation documentation.
- Award notice and method of posting including copies of e-mails sent to listserve.
- Complete contract package with vendor including, signed contract, scope of service, deliverables, project workplans, budget, budget amendments, etc.
- Any contract oversight/performace documentation.
- All billing documentation submitted by the contractor over the course of the contract to date.
- Any other documentation related to performance or any other aspect of these contracts.
Research & Professional Advice
- A committee of non-District staff with procurement experience should be created to draft a new procurement policy and present it to the policy committee for review.
- Outside consultation by experts with procurement experience (e.g.
- If members of the public cannot volunteer then a firm with fiscal procurement expertise should be hired to make these recommendations. This firm should report to the Board and not District administration.
- Consultation with the New Hampshire School Board Association (NHSBA) and the National Association of School Boards to gather information regarding best practices in procurement.
- NHSBA provides a policy review service for school boards.
- Review practices of other states to ensure that ORCSD raises the bar and achieves a higher standard of procurement practices (other NH school board policies were reviewed for this report and were determined to be similar or less adequate than the current policies used by ORCSD).
- Review practices of other towns and agencies (
- Possible consultation with a new vendor to conduct research on national best practices and make recommendations on procurement policies and oversight of those policies by the Superintendent as well as the School Board.
- More extensive training for School Board members to be more effective and aware of their roles and responsibilities
Attachments (submitted under separate cover):
Augusta County Public Schools Purchasing Manual
Articles: “Managing Your Money” Naomi Dillon; “Money” by Charles Trainor; “Developing Board
Leadership”
Resources Reviewed:
*
Procurement Manual for
Procurement Procedures Manual Miami-Dade: http://procurement.dadeschools.net/pro_manual/default.htm
NH School Board Association: http://www.nhsba.org
National School Board Association: http://www.nsba.org/
Audit Conducted:
Report Completed:
Report written by: Jenna Roberts
Auditors: Jenna Roberts,
Jerry Gottsacker,
This review was conducted by citizens living in the
Based on this preliminary review we believe that the current School Board is not fulfilling these responsibilities. It is also the belief of this team that better management of District funds would result from increased involvement, oversight and discipline from the School Board.
This report will be distributed to the ORCSD School Board, ORCSD Superintendent and Business Manager, Town Officials in
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
FEEDBACK ON 10/8 SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING
Well, the first thing and to put a sad end to all discussions on this board is that:
FULL DAY KINDERGARTEN IS OFF THE TABLE FOR NEXT YEAR.
It was decided that the district implement no NEW or EXPANDED initiatives for next year.
The default budget came it at 5% higher and there was discussion to have a 3% budget cap or even lower. In the upcoming meetings in the following weeks, the final budget will come to light.
Stay tuned...
FULL DAY KINDERGARTEN IS OFF THE TABLE FOR NEXT YEAR.
It was decided that the district implement no NEW or EXPANDED initiatives for next year.
The default budget came it at 5% higher and there was discussion to have a 3% budget cap or even lower. In the upcoming meetings in the following weeks, the final budget will come to light.
Stay tuned...
THIS WEEK'S MEETINGS (Oct 5-11)
Tonight @ 730pm - Special School Board Budget Meeting
Tomorrow (Thurs) @ 730pm - Policy Committee Meeting regarding Bidding/Purchasing Policy
Please see orcsd.org for more details and agendas.
Tomorrow (Thurs) @ 730pm - Policy Committee Meeting regarding Bidding/Purchasing Policy
Please see orcsd.org for more details and agendas.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Learnings from Tonight's Full Day Kindergarten Forum at Moharimet
Tonight I attended the Moharimet meeting to discuss the proposed Full Day Kindergarten. Approximately forty-five of us sat in a large circle and individuals offered their comments and posed questions in an orderly and considerate manner. Here's what I learned:
* The District fully acknowledges that Full Day Kindergarten is not an academic initiative (per Superintendent Colter and Principal Harrington)
* The District feels that children entering first grade are well prepared and that Full Day Kindergarten is not being studied due to any ill-preparedness among entering first graders (per Superintendent Colter and Principal Harrington)
* The Full Day Kindergarten study found that there are benefits associated with Full Day Kindergarten such as "more time to do more during the day," "being able to slow down" and "lowering daycare costs" (per Principal Harrington)
* The District does not know how many children are in daycare and are forced to make a transition between school and daycare, but promises to look into getting this information (per Superintendent Colter)
* The District has not yet decided to move forward with Full Day Kindergarten and tonight's discussion is part of the process in making a decision (per Superintendent Colter)
* There were seven (7) families, of the sixty-seven (67) in the Moharimet School district area, who chose not to enroll their children at Moharimet because of complications related to kindergarten / day care coordination / transitions (per Principal Harrington)
* The initial start up cost for the proposed program is estimated $50,000 to set up classrooms for three (3) classrooms (per Blaine Cox)
* The Full Day Kindergarten program's estimated cost for four (4) new teachers and four (4) new paraprofessionals, fully loaded with benefits including healthcare and operational costs such as electricity, fuel, etc., is estimated to be $340,000 per year; this figure already takes into account savings related to eliminating the afternoon bus run which is $140,000
(per Blaine Cox)
NOTE: Many at the meeting felt that this figure seems to be quite low for the number of full time staff additions. I agree. There will be additional training costs to ramp up and compensate teachers.
* Modular classrooms will cost approximately $15,000 per year (per Blaine Cox)
* There are several possible options including extended day kindergarten, partial half day / full day that will be costed and presented to the ORCSD School Board (per Superintendent Colter)
* The District will provide requisite training and compensate teachers for attending training in the summer months prior to the start of a Full Day Kindergarten program (per Superintendent Colter)
* Superintendent Colter stated that this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from parents and went beyond Full Day Kindergarten, but also included thoughts about other District priorities.
So, what are the next steps...here's the timeline (per Superintendent Colter's comments at the Oct.1st School Board meeting):
Oct 15th - Share public comments with the Board; provide a preliminary budget with no change in staffing, but if change in staffing then it will be in other grades.
Nov. 5 - -Determine whether or not to include Full Day Kindergarten in the 2009/2010 budget. Board can also request more information at this point.
Nov. 19 - Board vote on Full Day Kindergarten
Other considerations...
* The School Board is preparing a District Survey. Should not the Board poll parents and tax payers on District priorities? I proposed this at the end of tonight's meeting and hope to see this take place. How would you like $340,000 spent? I can think of many other areas of importance that are founded on academic principles (e.g. early foreign language, tiered classes in high school, more AP curricula, music / band in high school, etc.).
* Paraprofessionals need dedicated space to help children with special needs, rather than working with children in hall ways and nooks.
* Should not the District focus on academic / educational priorities? Parental daycare concerns should not be part of the District's concerns.
* The District fully acknowledges that Full Day Kindergarten is not an academic initiative (per Superintendent Colter and Principal Harrington)
* The District feels that children entering first grade are well prepared and that Full Day Kindergarten is not being studied due to any ill-preparedness among entering first graders (per Superintendent Colter and Principal Harrington)
* The Full Day Kindergarten study found that there are benefits associated with Full Day Kindergarten such as "more time to do more during the day," "being able to slow down" and "lowering daycare costs" (per Principal Harrington)
* The District does not know how many children are in daycare and are forced to make a transition between school and daycare, but promises to look into getting this information (per Superintendent Colter)
* The District has not yet decided to move forward with Full Day Kindergarten and tonight's discussion is part of the process in making a decision (per Superintendent Colter)
* There were seven (7) families, of the sixty-seven (67) in the Moharimet School district area, who chose not to enroll their children at Moharimet because of complications related to kindergarten / day care coordination / transitions (per Principal Harrington)
* The initial start up cost for the proposed program is estimated $50,000 to set up classrooms for three (3) classrooms (per Blaine Cox)
* The Full Day Kindergarten program's estimated cost for four (4) new teachers and four (4) new paraprofessionals, fully loaded with benefits including healthcare and operational costs such as electricity, fuel, etc., is estimated to be $340,000 per year; this figure already takes into account savings related to eliminating the afternoon bus run which is $140,000
(per Blaine Cox)
NOTE: Many at the meeting felt that this figure seems to be quite low for the number of full time staff additions. I agree. There will be additional training costs to ramp up and compensate teachers.
* Modular classrooms will cost approximately $15,000 per year (per Blaine Cox)
* There are several possible options including extended day kindergarten, partial half day / full day that will be costed and presented to the ORCSD School Board (per Superintendent Colter)
* The District will provide requisite training and compensate teachers for attending training in the summer months prior to the start of a Full Day Kindergarten program (per Superintendent Colter)
* Superintendent Colter stated that this meeting was a great opportunity to hear from parents and went beyond Full Day Kindergarten, but also included thoughts about other District priorities.
So, what are the next steps...here's the timeline (per Superintendent Colter's comments at the Oct.1st School Board meeting):
Oct 15th - Share public comments with the Board; provide a preliminary budget with no change in staffing, but if change in staffing then it will be in other grades.
Nov. 5 - -Determine whether or not to include Full Day Kindergarten in the 2009/2010 budget. Board can also request more information at this point.
Nov. 19 - Board vote on Full Day Kindergarten
Other considerations...
* The School Board is preparing a District Survey. Should not the Board poll parents and tax payers on District priorities? I proposed this at the end of tonight's meeting and hope to see this take place. How would you like $340,000 spent? I can think of many other areas of importance that are founded on academic principles (e.g. early foreign language, tiered classes in high school, more AP curricula, music / band in high school, etc.).
* Paraprofessionals need dedicated space to help children with special needs, rather than working with children in hall ways and nooks.
* Should not the District focus on academic / educational priorities? Parental daycare concerns should not be part of the District's concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)