Scammers pretending to be from Dell stole $610,000 from Fairfax County

...The Virginia case unfolded between August and September of last year, according to court papers. The government ultimately sent $1.3 million to Muli that was supposed to go to Dell for a public school program, according to prosecutors. It took several emails back and forth between Dell and the government to make clear the money was not going to its account...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/scammers-pretending-to-be-from-dell-stole-610000-from-virginia-locality/2019/06/17/53e632f2-911a-11e9-b570-6416efdc0803_story.html?utm_term=.bd950939ac70

The State Law the County Council will Ignore Tomorrow

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012, the Montgomery County Council will vote to approve the expenditure of rebate funds that have come back to the County after MCPS overpaid for services. The County Council has control over these funds under Maryland law.  Here's the specific section of Maryland law that establishes the control that the County Council has over these funds:

(c) Expenditure of nonlocal funds received after adoption of budget. -- Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, nonlocal funds received by a county board after the adoption of the annual budget by the county fiscal authority may be spent by the county board if the county fiscal authority is notified and approves of:
   (1) The source and amount of the funds; and
   (2) The manner of spending the funds.

But, instead of using the oversight granted to them by Maryland law, the County Council will simply approve whatever Superintendent Joshua Starr puts in front of them.  The County Council will not investigate the manner in which the funds will be spent.  Instead, the Council will do a lot of talking about how they can't control MCPS, and can't get involved in how MCPS spends $14.5 million dollars of taxpayer funds.  

In the case of the $14.5 million dollars for Promethean, Dell, Cisco, and Banc of America, the County Council will ignore the LOCAL MONTGOMERY COUNTY BUSINESS that could provide the same products.  The County Council will ignore the MANNER in which these funds will be spent by MCPS.  

Shock! Texas Public School System Posts Promethean Prices

Warning:  If you are in Montgomery County, Maryland, please cover your eyes.  What we are about to show the public is pricing for Promethean products.  This information is not to be revealed to taxpayers in Montgomery County, Maryland under any circumstances!  

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012, the Montgomery County Council will vote on an Appropriation to spend $14. 5 million on...well, whatever.  The Montgomery County Council doesn't actually know how this money will be spent.  All the Council knows is that 4 companies are going to get a boatload of Montgomery County tax dollars.  

The 4 companies are Promethean, Dell, Cisco and Banc of America.  3 of those companies are known partners.  Dell is a distributor of Promethean products and also does the financing.  (Act now for Veterans Day pricing!)  Cisco is also a partner of Promethean.  

Why doesn't the County Council know how this money will be spent? Because they have not seen the contracts for these purchases.  They have not seen the pricing.  They have not seen competitive bids.  They have zero details about this $14.5 million dollar transaction.  All they know is the names of the 4 companies that will profit. 

But, take a look at this!  In Texas, this public school system has posted ALL of the pricing information for the Promethean products that are used in its schools.  Notice that the products in the Texas school system are also being purchased from Dell!  Just like us! How do the prices that MCPS will be paying for these items compare?  Take a guess, go ahead. Might as well guess because we will never know.  The County Council has no interest in contract details.  

Texas public school

Did the BOE violate Maryland procurement law?

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.

...

Attachment A - Consent Agenda 4.4.1