Another Questionable Special Meeting And Potential Violation
Shauna WIlliams sent the following email in connection to the purpose of tonight’s BOE Meeting – Interviewing Architects- to the Board of Education.
Laws are in place to ensure the public is fully aware of District decisions that impact students and to protect the dollars taxpayers invest to educate them.
It was not so long ago that the District was found in violation of educational adequacy and bidding laws (2021 Finding and 2010 Finding). The 2021 finding occurred within the context of a mass reconfiguration of our schools and teaching staff that were highly evidenced to be connected to the declines in academic proficiencies we are seeing today.
Shauna’s email to the BOE:
Good Afternoon,
In regard to the Special BOE meeting for Dec 7th to interview architects, I have some concerns about the process that is being followed.
First, the meeting notice states that action may be taken.
The interviews are taking place during a lame duck session. If one looks at the attached Commissioner decision (Nowack v. Board of Education Borough of Manville), these types of appointments where there is no vacancy and which are made before a successor board is seated, are not to take place. This is also consistent with current NJSBA guidance.
From page 47 of the Commissioner’s decision:
It may not, however, prior to its organization meeting, appoint administrators or other employees to positions in which no known vacancies exist. In the herein controverted matter, the Board at its March 17 sine die meeting was statutorily empowered to negotiate agreements with its continuing employees pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. However, it had no statutory authority to bind its successor Board by issuing individual contracts to those same individual employees for the ensuing school year prior to the seating of its successor Board. To do so would be to usurp the rightful prerogatives of its successor as conferred by N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 et seq. The Board’s action herein in appointing bus drivers, and appointing and awarding salary adjustments and increments to administrators a matter of minutes before the successor board’s organization meeting was improper and without valid reason. The Commissioner so holds.
Given this decision, and based on NJSBA guidance, best practice would be to wait until the new board is sworn in before interviewing and awarding contracts.
And if you do not decide to appoint a firm, then the question arises as to why you are conducting interviews without the newly seated board members who would ultimately have to approve any contract award.
Second, I could not find any Board resolution authorizing the use of competitive contracting services for architectural services. Certainly, if such an RFP was issued it could not have been authorized by your Finance and Facilities or any other committee, since committees cannot authorize anything.
Yet N.J.S.A we have:
18A:18A-4.3 Competitive contracting initiated by board of education resolution; process administration.
47. a. In order to initiate competitive contracting, the board of education shall pass a resolution authorizing the use of competitive contracting each time specialized goods or services enumerated in section 45 of P.L.1999, c.440 (C.18A:18A-4.1) are desired to be contracted. If the desired goods or services have previously been contracted for using the competitive contracting process then the original resolution of the board of education shall suffice.
Given that the Board not long ago (2021) were found in violation of bidding laws, I believe it is imperative that you pay close attention to the laws and regulations.
Third, I noticed the following from N.J.S.A 18A:18A-4.5:
d. The purchasing agent or counsel or school business administrator shall evaluate all proposals only in accordance with the methodology described in the request for proposals. After proposals have been evaluated, the purchasing agent or counsel or school business administrator shall prepare a report evaluating and recommending the award of a contract or contracts. The report shall list the names of all potential vendors who submitted a proposal and shall summarize the proposals of each vendor. The report shall rank vendors in order of evaluation, shall recommend the selection of a vendor or vendors, as appropriate, for a contract, shall be clear in the reasons why the vendor or vendors have been selected among others considered, and shall detail the terms, conditions, scope of services, fees, and other matters to be incorporated into a contract. The report shall be made available to the public at least 48 hours prior to the awarding of the contract, or when made available to the board of education, whichever is sooner. The board of education shall have the right to reject all proposals for any of the reasons set forth in N.J.S.18A:18A-22.
I am requesting a copy of this report if it exists.
-Shauna Williams
This is not the first time the BOE has used a special meeting this year for questionable reasons.
One thought on “Is the BOE Majority Setting the District Up for Another Violation at Tonight’s Special Meeting?”