On September 8, 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education will unanimously approve another payment to the company founded and run by the wife of Board of Education member Scott Joftus.
The payment will be made on the CONSENT AGENDA meaning the item will not have a discussion by the Board of Education. The matter is considered to be trivial and not worthy of a presentation, justification or discussion.
IF this procurement had been duly advertised the memorandum would cite the BID NUMBER as is seen for all other contracts. There is no bid number. In the space for listing the number of bids received the notation is N/A for not applicable.
With this payment to the KID Museum, the Board of Education will have diverted $5,675,962 dollars of Operating Budget funds to this private company since 2018. That's money that could have been spent on public school teacher salaries, support staff, classrooms etc... Instead, those public school funds have gone to a private company without oversight or accountability to the public.
The company founded by and run by Board of Education Scott Joftus' wife is MOCO KIDSCO, Inc. That company does business as Kid Museum in Bethesda. 
The memorandum from Superintendent Monifa McKnight does not disclose that this procurement involves a company founded by, and run by the wife of a sitting Board of Education member.
The memorandum does not state the name used by the company, instead the memorandum uses the corporate name for the company. The corporate name is not familiar to most County residents.
The memorandum says the procurement has been duly advertised. It has not been advertised.
The memorandum says the procurement was awarded to the low bidder. It was not awarded to the low bidder because there weren't any other bidders.
Sounds like something that should be forwarded to the State Education Inspector General
ReplyDeleteLots of assumptions made by the author without a lot of detail. Careful, you’re entering libel/slander territory.
ReplyDeleteName one assumption. One.
Delete"The corporate name is not familiar to most County residents" for one. You took a standard business practice and twisted to fit the narrative.
DeleteYou're also intimating that the person who has a board that has the financial responsibility for the non-profit is complicit in alleged fraud.
Additionally, you assume these funds could go to teacher salaries. However, this may not be the case, given how the funds may have beenlabeled in the budget. These resources are also going to further STEM education opportunities for students outside the classroom, which is in fact part of the greater curricula.
This reeks of someone seeing something they think is fishy and going off halfcocked. I'm not saying you shouldn't look into it more, but this screed is doing nothing but making you look like you have an agenda besides good governance.
https://procurement.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/home/Award_Record/544
DeleteNothing was twisted. The memorandum speaks for itself. If it doesn't give you or Board members (including new student Board of Education member) enough information, that's on the Superintendent.
DeleteWhat about this agenda item says fraud to you?
Maybe you didn't read the very, very brief memo but it actually says the word TRAINING. Training? For what? By whom? Teachers training teachers? And that couldn't be done by existing MCPS staff? You've made a big leap about what you think this money will pay for and in fact there is no evidence of any details for what this money will pay for. There are no deliverables, no details and no contract.
And why exactly does the Memorandum say this was put out for bids and the bid sheet says otherwise? Care to explain?
The procurement link above is to an RFP for a purchase in 2021. This is 2022. That does show what the MCPS bid process looks like, but that isn't a bid for this $2.37M purchase this week.
DeleteIs it not true that Scott Joftus has recused himself from this issue? Are other BOEs in MD contributing to this museum? We’re donations made to the Kids museum prior to Joftus’ service on the BOE?
ReplyDeleteObviously, no one has recused themselves from this vote as the item was placed on the Board of Education's CONSENT AGENDA for an unanimous vote of the Board for the entire group of items.
DeleteGood question about other Boards of Education.
Good question about "donations" to the entity. Where would you find that information?
The other point here is that Dr. Joftus was appointed by the other BOE members to be on the board. If Dr. Joftus won an election to the BOE with voters knowing his wife was getting grants directly from MCPS that would be legitimate. But his appointment with his wife's organization getting MCPS money reeks of insider trading.
DeleteThe thing is, recusal means absolutely zero in this situation. As a sitting Board member, any and all things affiliated with Joftus, his immediate family, or business associations should have been immediately DQ from the start. Conflict of interest or simply the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest, should have been the lone and sole guiding entity in this matter. Instead, we have a conflict of interest by a BOE member, using a no-bid method that is a severe ethical departure from acceptable practice, for a public department already squaddled with a decades long history of corruption and cronyism. One can't HELP but suspect mutual back scratching and dare we suggest the passing of quid of the realm because of this under the table dollar jockeying.
DeleteThank you but HECK NO. I want a refund of my tax dollars. Because MCPS once again shows how it's feudal system remains in use for a buddy system of the worst kind.
MCPS still hasn't left the dark ages of backwards Tammany Hall behavior, despite the numerous scandals that go back multiple decades. I wouldn't trust these skullduggerous goons with scooping up dog mess correctly, let alone the correct education of children..
I'm out. Sign me....
Annoyed and perturbed.... RFM3
You can recuse yourself from a consent item, but that wouldn't fit the narrative of the piece. I'm in favor of oversight, and this should be explained, but that's not what you're doing here.
ReplyDeleteReally? How does one recuse themselves from the Consent Agenda? Do tell. As there is absolutely nothing to flag this item for Board members, why would they even know what it covered? It's a Consent Agenda item, routine and without controversy.
DeleteYou are in favor of oversight? But you don't want to know when a Memorandum says a procurement was put out for bids when it wasn't? What kind of oversight do you advocate for?
Who ever that anonymous person is, why are you defending wrong doing? Are you part of the problem? Why not send it to the appropriate authorities and have them investigate so we know what is going on behind the scene. Your reply is as if you are the one cited here or a family member of such person. Please stop that
DeleteJust to be perfectly clear, Cara Lesser is Scott Joftus' wife. Cara retained her unmarried name.
ReplyDeleteYou should identify yourself.
DeleteEven if I identify myself, Cara Lesser will still be Scott Joftus' wife.
DeleteSuch blatant nepotism. Stop it now and have a competitive process. Will not vote for those involved in the next BOE election.
ReplyDeleteThe other part of this that is worth noting is that the KID Museum holds up its end of the contract. They are working hard with middle schools across the county to ensure STEM education advances
ReplyDeleteSo it may not be kosher how it’s going down but the money does seem to be going to where it’s supposed to and being used appropriately
What contract? There is no public document. If you have a copy, post it here. Why are they only working with middle schools? Where does this resolution say it only applies to middle schools? What data is there that anything has "advanced?"
DeleteRumors don't negate the fact that as stated in the above Bid Sheet this procurement was not put out for competitive bids and this company was not the lowest bidder.
You want to explain why minority, disabled or veteran companies were not able to bid on this procurement?
How does this make violating procurement law okay? Maybe another provider could do a better job at lower cost, but we'll never know since no one else was given the opportunity to bid.
DeleteIt's not a violation of procurement law.
Deletehttp://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/21.01.03.01 A.20 states "Public institutions of higher education for cultural, entertainment, and intercollegiate athletic contracts;" are exempt from COMAR 21.
You realize MCPS is not a public institution of higher education? It's not a college or university. It's K-12 education.
DeleteFurther investigation for possible fraud or improper handling/awarding of a contract. There is no liable involved in that.
DeleteGiven the importance of the STEM program these are all good points. The objectives and goals should be well defined and it is the outcomes that would be of greatest importance to adequately access the situation with this program.
DeleteIs there a performance review required as a part of the renewal process. I would assume this was written into the original statement of work at the time the project and subsequent contract was first presented for consideration by the BOE. As this is public money the data justifying ongoing support by this or any other contractor should be available for review. In addition as this started in 2018, when was the last review?
https://moderatelymoco.com/scott-joftus-mcps-boe-candidate-responds-to-questions-regarding-kid-museum-organization-founded-by-wife/
ReplyDeleteThe fact that his wife has a longstanding relationship with MCPS does not ease my concern, of course he disclosed the relationship as it wouldn't matter bc it seems the ethics committee and the BOE and most of these people run in the same circles. We have seen many questionable relationships/agreements get overlooked in the past including not having any issues with Hans pushing the jab for his wifes company; so of course they are going to overlook this. Probably all goes back in the same slush fund. Maybe they need to be looked into ethically. Oh and let's not overlook the fact that Scott got the gig by current members of the board without any explanation as why he was more qualified than other candidates; including ones that may feel the current and past BOE have the wrong priorities.
ReplyDelete