We don't know.
So we decided to ask the Maryland State Board of Education.
Did the September 11, 2012, vote of the Montgomery County Board of Education to enter into 4 different transactions for a total of $14,541,477 without Requests for Proposals (RFPs), bids, or even contracts comply with Maryland procurement law?
We filed the following appeal on September 11, 2012.
__________________________________________________
September 11, 2012
Maryland State Board of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Re: Appeal of Montgomery County Board
of Education Decision
Dear Members of the State Board of
Education:
This letter appeals the September 11,
2012, decision of the Montgomery County Board of Education (Local Board) to
approve Consent Agenda Item 4.4.1 of that date. (See Attachment A: Consent
Agenda Item 4.4.1) This appeal is
filed pursuant to Maryland law and regulations.
This appeal is made by Janis Zink Sartucci, Agnes Jones Trower, and
Louis Wilen (Appellants) to the Maryland State Board of Education (State Board). The appellants are Maryland state and
Montgomery County residents.
The Maryland State Board of Education
(State Board) can substitute its judgment for that of the Local Board because
the Local Board’s action in approving Resolution 4.4.1 on September 11, 2012,
was arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal. The Local Board’s vote was contrary
to sound educational policy and violated Maryland State law and Local Board
Policy. A reasonable mind could not have reasonably reached the decision
reached by the Local Board.
On September 11, 2012, the Local Board
approved resolution 4.4.1 to spend $14.5 million dollars on four separate
transactions without issuing Request for Proposals, without taking bids, and
without obtaining contracts.
The Local Board action was for two
purchases; $8,949,719 for 2,000 Promethean brand Interactive White
Boards, and $5,591,758 for Cisco
wireless networking; and, for financing with Dell Financial Services, LLC and
Banc of America. In all, this Local
Board action initiated four separate transactions without any Requests for
Proposals, bids or contracts. Local
Board failed to follow any of the requirements of Maryland procurement laws and
regulations with regard to these four transactions. Local Board Resolution 4.4.1 of September 11,
2012 is in direct violation of Maryland State Procurement law.
Maryland State Procurement
Maryland State Procurement law (Title 21)
Polices and Purposes are contained in
21.01.01.03 of the Code of Maryland.
Local Board’s action violated the principal policies and purposes of
these regulations by not following Maryland State procurement law. The Policies and Purposes of Maryland
procurement law are:
.03 Policies
and Purposes.
The principal
policies and purposes of these regulations are to:
A. Provide for
increased public confidence in the procedures followed in public procurement;
B. Ensure the
fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the procurement
system of this State;
C. Simplify,
clarify, and modernize the regulations governing procurement by this State;
D. Permit the
continued development of procurement regulations, policies, and practices;
E. Provide
increased economy in State procurement activities and to maximize to the
fullest extent the purchasing power of the State;
F. Provide
safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and
integrity;
G. Foster
effective broad-based competition through support of the free enterprise
system; and
H. Promote
development of uniform procurement procedures to the extent possible.
Local Board Policy
Resolution 4.4.1 passed by Local Board on
September 11, 2012, was introduced and voted on in one meeting in violation of
Local Board’s policy on new business. Local
Board did not vote to waive this policy.
Local Board
Handbook Page 21
4. A new business item shall
lie on the table until the next business meeting before being voted upon by the
Board. This provision may be waived without notice if all members are present
and there is unanimous agreement.
We ask that the September 11, 2012, vote
of the Local Board be overturned, and that the Local Board be directed to put
these two purchases and two financing agreements out for competitive bids in
compliance with Maryland law.
...
