‘A long list of problems’: MCPS proposes adding auditor to expand investigative abilities

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) may hire a program audit coordinator to expand the district’s investigative abilities beyond financial audits in response to County Council concerns that the district relies too heavily on the county inspector general’s office for oversight, according to MCPS officials. 

“Well, we have a long list of problems, there’s no question about that. There’s a long list of things that we could look into and correct,” Superintendent Thomas Taylor told the county school board during a Jan. 20 work session on the district’s proposed $3.78 billion operating budget for fiscal year 2027.  

Creating the position, which would report directly to the board, “might help to support identifying areas of improvement … it may enhance our efforts to continuously improve,” Taylor said.

The audit coordinator was among several positions Taylor included in proposed discretionary spending, such as 10 full-time equivalent positions to support implementing a proposed regional program model, a Safe Routes to School coordinator to support pedestrian safety, 28 full-time equivalent elementary school-based safety staff and 153 full time equivalent special education resource teachers...  

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/01/29/mcps-auditor-budget/

ABC7 Found $10M in Unapproved Spending by MCPS Administrators. Board of Education Asleep at the Wheel.

Report raises questions about spending at Montgomery County Public Schools

by Kellye Lynn

Tue, November 25, 2025 at 6:01 AM

Updated Tue, November 25, 2025 at 7:08 AM

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Md. (7News) — A new inspector general report shows Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) failed to get school board approval for more than a million dollars in payments to various vendors.

The review comes just three months after 7News told you thousands of MCPS employees had outdated criminal history checks.

The Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of the school system's procurement process. The report focused on fiscal years 2023 and 2024.

It found the Division of Procurement, which purchases supplies and equipment for MCPS, failed to follow laws, regulations and procedures for expenditures.

For instance, the school system is required to get Board of Education approval for purchases over $25,000, but in several cases, that didn't happen...

“We just saw the State Board of Education determine that the electric school bus bid award was made illegally. How many illegal things are we going to have before there's some prosecution or action?” Janis Sartucci said.

https://wjla.com/news/local/montgomery-county-inspector-general-report-million-without-broad-approval-procurement-review-spending-education-vendor-payments-accountability-jp-morgan-chase-policy-violations-maryland-transparency-oversight

Report flags risks in Montgomery County schools' background check system

...Thousands of Montgomery County Public Schools workers have fallen through cracks in background check systems, according to a new report, potentially meaning people with criminal histories could be working closely with children.

Maryland’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report Monday detailing “deficiencies” with background checks in MCPS, which serves more than 160,000 students.

The report found what it calls serious lapses in important personnel security measures required by state law and county policy within Maryland’s largest school district...

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/report-flags-risks-in-montgomery-county-schools-background-check-system/3970639/

Montgomery watchdog says school system is behind on criminal history checks

About 12,000 employees have outdated criminal history checks, and 4,900 employees haven’t been screened for cases involving child abuse and neglect.

...Inspector General Megan Davey Limarzi said in an interview the tone of the superintendent’s response letter was unusual, but she maintained that her office’s work was factually accurate. She noted that the school system agreed to most of the report’s recommendations.

“I think a lot of this back-and-forth really is a distraction, and it’s to get people to talk about something other than the deficiencies that we identified and that are contained in the report,” Limarzi said...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/08/05/montgomery-schools-background-checks/

Breaking**Inspector General: "Actions of MCPS senior leaders do not demonstrate either accountability or transparency." Report on MCPS Failure to Background Check Staff/Contractors/Volunteers.

Today, the Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General issued a report entitled, "Review of MCPS Background Screening Office."

The IG's Report details disturbing gaps in the MCPS background checks of staff, contractors and volunteers.

The MCPS Superintendent, Thomas W. Taylor, responded to the Report and criticized the IG's process.

The IG responded to the Superintendent's criticism with a response letter that included the following statements:  

...OIG staff met with members of the Superintendent’s leadership team on June 25th and in response to that meeting made corrections to address the concerns raised and provided a revised draft report on July 7th. On July 16th we held another meeting to discuss MCPS’s proposed corrective actions and address any other questions or issues. At no time during or after that meeting did MCPS leadership request additional changes to the report, raise wording discrepancies, or identify any inaccuracies. The Superintendent did not attend either of these  meetings, and despite his claims, MCPS leaders did not exhibit or invite an authentic collaboration. In fact, during our last meeting with MCPS leadership, they repeatedly refused to discuss specifics of certain planned actions which would assist the OIG in determining if the proposed steps would address observed deficiencies or offer alternative considerations. It was only in the Superintendent’s July 25th formal response that we learned of the nature and extent of discussions with the State regarding CPS checks...

...Lastly, in contrast to their statements, the actions by MCPS senior leaders do not demonstrate either accountability or transparency. The fact remains that thousands of individuals with unsupervised access to MCPS schools and students have not had a criminal history check in more than five years and thousands more have not completed a CPS check. In the end, only one entity is tasked with and has accepted the responsibility for obtaining these background checks to safeguard employees and students, and that is MCPS.  

The full IG Report is reproduced below: 

Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland screening of employees by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd

In lawsuit, HET MCPS, LLC (electric school bus vendor) says Mont. Co. Inspector General "issued misleading and inaccurate findings."

The company that is leasing electric school buses to the Montgomery County Board of Education has filed a lawsuit against one of the other bidders on the MCPS electric school bus procurement.  

Contained in this new lawsuit is an extensive list of things the electric school bus vendor, HET MCPS, LLC, says were misleading and inaccurate in the Montgomery County Inspector General's July 25, 2024, Investigation of MCPS' Management of the Electric Bus Contract Memorandum of Investigation. (Pages 10 - 16)

The lawsuit also discusses the funds allegedly owed to the Board of Education from HET MCPS, LLC.  (Page 18)

The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is below.

 

HET MCPS, LLC and HEF-P Bal... by Parents' Coalition of Montg...

"Despite the delays, Montgomery County Public Schools did not end its relationship with Highland Electric Fleets — or enforce penalties for the company’s lapses, the inspector general found"

 

Probe finds ‘wasteful spending’ in Montgomery electric school bus effort

An electric bus company that was supposed to deliver hundreds of vehicles to the Maryland’s largest school district repeatedly missed delivery deadlines and made late repairs to its vehicles, leading to “millions of dollars in wasteful spending,” according to a report from Montgomery County inspector general criticizing the district’s handling of the contract.

Despite the delays, Montgomery County Public Schools did not end its relationship with Highland Electric Fleets — or enforce penalties for the company’s lapses, the inspector general found. Now the district is spending more than $14 million to buy diesel buses as it faces a vehicle shortage...

https://wapo.st/3MvBTXE

Board of Education to Raid Student Activity Funds. ***Complaint Filed with MoCo Inspector General***

 Mon 6/10/2024 3:41 PM

To:  Megan Davey Limarzi, Esq. 

       Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General 

       ig@montgomerycountymd.gov

In reviewing the Agenda for the Montgomery County Board of Education's June 11, 2024, business meeting we were shocked to read a Resolution that discussed using Independent Student Activity Funds (IAF) as an option for funding a MCPS Operating Budget expenditure.  

Buried in the Montgomery County Board of Education's Agenda Item 6.6 for June 11, 2024, is the following sentence: 

...A total of $14,225,000 is projected to be funded in the FY 2023–2028 CIP, and $10,775,000 is projected to be funded in the FY 2025 Operating Budget or the Independent Student Activity Funds...

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/D5WRBX6A8F88/$file/Cont Apprv RFP 121923 Tech Products Servcs Solutions Ext.pdf

The Resolution does not give any further explanation as to how the superintendent would accomplish this transfer of student funds.  

MCPS Student funds ...IAFs for each school are to be used for the benefit of the student body currently in attendance...

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/diara.pdf

We have reviewed the MCPS Financial Manual chapter on MCPS Independent Activity Funds (IAF) and do not find any exception that allows the Board of Education to steal funds from student accounts at neighborhood schools.  

IAF funds are raised through student fees at sporting events, student ticket sales at musical and drama performances, yearbook sales, senior dues, field trip fees, memorial funds (deceased students), student parking permits, and student picture sales. We are not aware of any policy or regulation that permits the Montgomery County Board of Education to use these funds to fund the Operating Budget.

If MCPS student funds can be used to fund the MCPS Operating Budget, please advise how that would be accomplished and we will make that information available to parents and guardians so they are aware of how fees they pay into their local school can be diverted by the Board of Education.   

Thank you for your review of this issue.  

Janis Zink Sartucci

Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, MD

Formed in 2002, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland seeks to achieve the goals of coherent, content-rich curriculum standards; high expectations combined with timely remediation and acceleration; a wider range of educational options for parents and children; greater transparency and accountability; and meaningful community input.

County Council Education Committee Discussion on Inspector General Report, Thursday, Feb 8th 3-5 pm

 

There will be a discussion of the Inspector General Report #OIG-24-08 next Thursday, February 8th, 3-5pm. This meeting will be streamed, as well as on the county council cable channel.

The full report "MCPS Complaint Process" is here. 

Per this excerpt from the Executive Summary of the report: 

            "The Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review in response to assertions that the inadequate response to alleged misconduct committed by former principal Dr. Joel Beidleman was caused in part by shortcoming in how complaints of employee wrongdoing are handled by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). It is important to note that this review focused on MCPS's general processes involving complaint handling and investigations of employee misconduct. It did not examine specific allegations against Beidleman or MCPS's actions to address them, nor did it re-examine the promotions process at MCPS which was part of the work done by a law firm hired by MCPS in August of 2023.

The MCPS Department of Compliance and Investigations (DCI) is responsible for investigating allegations of employee misconduct, harassment, workplace bullying, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission violations.

Our review found numerous issues with the manner in which MCPS and DCI handle and investigate complaints of employee misconduct. Of note, many of the same deficiencies we found were previously identified by other entities and reported to MCPS. Although informed of the concerns, MCPS failed to implement appropriate corrective actions." (Page i)

National watchdog group calls on Baltimore County Council to reject Jones’ amendments

The association representing inspectors general nationwide today took the unusual step of denouncing amendments proposed by Baltimore County Council Chair Julian E. Jones Jr., saying they serve no purpose but to “undermine” and “restrict” Kelly Madigan, the county’s inspector general.

Noting that a blue ribbon commission had spent over a year crafting plans to enhance the powers of Madigan’s office to undercover waste, fraud and abuse in county government, the Association of Inspectors General said Jones’ amendments would upend the county’s “progress towards the creation of a truly independent office of the inspector general.”

“The AIG calls on the Baltimore County Council to reject Council Chair Jones’ amendments to Bills 83-23 and 84-23,” the group, which represents 2,000 federal, state and local government watchdog offices, said in a statement released from its New York headquarters.

The statement follows Jones’ attempt last Monday to slip unpublicized and unvetted changes into inspector general bills up for a final vote at the Council.

Shortly before the scheduled vote, The Brew disclosed the secret amendments, which Jones had sent to fellow Council members the day before on his private email account...

National watchdog group calls on Baltimore County Council to reject Jones’ amendments | Baltimore Brew

Former MoCo Planning Board Member Says, "...Planning Board members’ ability to make informed decisions were further impeded or gaslighted in public session..."

Former Montgomery County Planning Board member Tina Patterson submitted written testimony on Senator Ben Kramer's local bill MC/PG 105-23 for the December 15, 2022, local bill hearing held on Zoom. Below is portion of her written testimony. The full testimony is reprinted below. 

...Section 15-105 of the Land Use Article requires that before the County Council may remove any Planning Board Commissioner before the conclusion of his or her term, the Council must issue a written statement of the cause for such removal and hold a public hearing.

I did not receive, and the public was not informed by any written statement of the cause for my removal. The County Council said it had “lost faith in the Board.” But that is not a cause. Loss of faith is a result from some event or action. As stated in my requested letter of resignation, “I remain proud of the work that I have done as Planning Board member. I have not done anything to tarnish the Board’s work or undermine its public trust.”.

Instead, I was told that if I did not resign within 15 hours of the request, I would be given two minutes to make a statement, and regardless of what I presented the Council would thereafter vote to terminate me since the decision had already been made.

The media continues to report that the Planning Board resigned “amid a scandal” creating an implication that there was such a scandal involving all Planning Board members. There was not. The Inspector General Report regarding the alcohol make no mention of my name. While it would be expedient to dismiss the entire Planning Board to restore order to this body, I emphatically believe that requiring the resignations of those members who have not taken part in the misdeeds is not only be an unjust outcome but amount to guilt by association. I understand that some people may believe that the Board members who have not been implicated by the IG should have spoken out about the disconcerting conduct of others. I have reported disturbing conduct, but my concerns fell on deaf ears...

Full text of former Planning Board member Tina Patterson's statement is below on SCRIBD and in text at bottom of this post. 

2022 Tina Patterson - Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23 by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd

 Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23

1

December 14, 2022

Dear Senator Kramer and Legislators:

My name is Tina Patterson. I am resident of District 39. I am writing in support of the Montgomery

County Planning Trust and Transparency Act of 2023 in principle (later in this document I do have a few

recommendations for your consideration). I believe that the increased transparency and accountability

are part of a mechanism of checks and balances that are necessary for any entity, especially a public

agency.

I served on the Montgomery County Planning Board from 2017 to 2021. I was reappointed to the

Planning Board in 2021 to serve a second term and did so until I was forced to resign in October 2022. I

have also served on the Montgomery County Human Rights Commission from 2007 to 2014. In addition,

my leadership and community engagement include:

• (2021) Public Leaders for Inclusion Council (PLIC,)

• (2019) FBI Baltimore Citizens Academy,

• (2018) Project 500 / Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority Small Business University

• (2017) Walker’s Legacy,

• (2015) Montgomery County Community Emergency Response Training (CERT),

• (2012) Montgomery County Maryland Police Citizen’s Academy,

• (2011) Leadership Montgomery (Maryland),

• (2007) White House Project’s ‘Go Run’ program,

• (2004) Leadership Texas,

• (2003) Leadership America

In addition to my community engagement, I own a consulting firm based in Montgomery County. I share

these details with you because they shape my rationale for support of this legislation.

During the time which I served as a Planning Commissioner, I frequently explained that the Planning

Board reports to the County Council but is subject to State of Maryland ethics requirements and the

Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) is a state agency. While the County

Council has been delegated the authority to appoint, and if appropriate to remove commissioners, both

actions are subject to compliance with specific processes established under state law - processes that

were designed to provide the public with transparency so that there is appropriate accountability.

From my perspective, as early as 2018 questionable events and activities were reported by Planning

Board members and the general public to the MNCPPC Inspector General (IG), County Council and the

County Executive. Memos of correspondence between the branches of government appeared on

Facebook for all to read and comment upon. As mentioned above, currently the Planning Board reports

to the County Council so adjudication of these concerns was the County Council’s responsibility. In early

2022 when Attorney General Frosh made inquiries to the County Council about complaints the

Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23

2

Montgomery County Planning Board was tasked to take action. Publicly, the request was followed

upon. Internally, Planning Board members’ ability to make informed decisions were further impeded or

gaslighted in public session or when convening as the MNCPPC.

Section 15-105 of the Land Use Article requires that before the County Council may remove any

Planning Board Commissioner before the conclusion of his or her term, the Council must issue a written

statement of the cause for such removal and hold a public hearing.

I did not receive, and the public was not informed by any written statement of the cause for my

removal. The County Council said it had “lost faith in the Board.” But that is not a cause. Loss of faith is a

result from some event or action. As stated in my requested letter of resignation, “I remain proud of the

work that I have done as Planning Board member. I have not done anything to tarnish the Board’s work

or undermine its public trust.”.

Instead, I was told that if I did not resign within 15 hours of the request, I would be given two minutes to

make a statement, and regardless of what I presented the Council would thereafter vote to terminate

me since the decision had already been made.

The media continues to report that the Planning Board resigned “amid a scandal” creating an implication

that there was such a scandal involving all Planning Board members. There was not. The Inspector

General Report regarding the alcohol make no mention of my name. While it would be expedient to

dismiss the entire Planning Board to restore order to this body, I emphatically believe that requiring the

resignations of those members who have not taken part in the misdeeds is not only be an unjust

outcome but amount to guilt by association. I understand that some people may believe that the Board

members who have not been implicated by the IG should have spoken out about the disconcerting

conduct of others. I have reported disturbing conduct, but my concerns fell on deaf ears.

Separation from MNCPPC has resulted in loss of health insurance. I am navigating that process as

expeditiously as possible (COBRA is not available until 2023) and exercising as much care as possible in

public. The larger concern since the forced resignation is the addressing and managing personal and

professional reputational risk and damage. I’m aware that in 2023 I will need to defend my suitability to

continue to do work as a federal contractor because the “scandal” raises questions about my character,

trustworthiness and reliability. I also realize that at any point a client using my company’s dispute

resolutions services may challenge my integrity, to serve in a neutral, judicious capacity because of the

alleged “scandal” and I could ultimately lose work. I have been advised that I should be prepared to

explain my innocence for perpetuity.

Returning to the Montgomery County Planning Trust and Transparency Act of 2023, I believe shifting

appointment of the Chair to the County Executive will treat that position as one similar to other

Department Heads, while leaving the appointment of other Commissioners to the County Council to

create a more robust partnership within the branches of government. The Chair of the Planning Board is

supposed to be the administrative manager of the Planning Board. Implementation of this Act will

enhance the relationship and encourage better coordination with the Executive branch.

Finally, I do have several suggestions:

Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23

3

• There needs to be some parity in the appointments by adding to Section 15.103.1 that the

appointment of the Chair would require the approval of 8 members of the County Council within

30 days after the hearing on the appointment.

• I recommend adding a requirement for a Compliance Officer within the Office of General

Counsel to assure compliance with state laws, particularly Open Meetings and Maryland Public

Information Act.

• Section 15-105 dealing with discipline or removal of a commissioner should be allowed by either

the Council or the County Executive with approval of the other. The written reason for discipline

or removal should be published for public review and consideration at least 2 weeks before the

hearing.

• Instead of the proposal to exclude a commissioner from the ability to testify in his or her

defense as a matter of due process, I suggest, there should be a provision specifically allowing

for a commissioner be placed on Administrative Leave pending the outcome of the hearing.

The timeline of the previous configuration of the Montgomery County Planning Board serves as

cautionary tale and justification as to why the Montgomery County Planning Trust and Transparency Act

of 2023 is necessary and supports good governance. Whether elected or appointed, public servants are

supposed to serve the public. I believe this Act is a catalyst in restoring public trust.

If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me

Respectfully,

Tina E. Patterson, MCIArb

Breaking: Former MoCo Planning Bd Commissioner Partap Verma Describes Toxic Work Environment, Says Fmr PB Chair Influenced IG Investigation of Sitting Councilmember and more...

Listen to Partap Verma, then Carol Rubin and then hear Senator Ben Kramer's follow up question: 

Breaking: @mcps Under Investigation by Montgomery County Office of Inspector General (OIG)

  The OIG currently has four announced engagements in progress: 

o Audit of the Department of Environmental Protection 

o Audit of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations 

o Emergency Procurement Practices 

o Accountability at Montgomery County Public Schools 

Microsoft Word - October 27 Audit Meeting_v1 with karen edits (montgomerycountymd.gov)

A Montgomery County Official Kept An Incredibly Well-Stocked Office Bar. We Made Him A Cocktail Menu

 

Local news lovers may have seen the ABC7 exposé this week revealing that the chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board stocked his Wheaton office with a full bar and hosted Planning Board meeting after-parties and happy hours in said office.

A whistleblower reported Casey Anderson’s liquor cabinet, which reportedly has more than 30 bottles of liquor in it, along with citrus squeezers and other bar tools, ABC7 reported. An investigation by the Inspector General of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which administers the county planning board, turned up at least three employees who acknowledged drinking alcohol in Anderson’s office, according to the report. In a statement to ABC7, Anderson apologized for keeping the bar at the office.

A Montgomery County Official Kept An Incredibly Well-Stocked Office Bar. We Made Him A Cocktail Menu – DCist

Montgomery Council launches probe of official who kept well-stocked bar in his office

 

...In an interview, Council President Gabe Albornoz (D) said he and his colleagues are “very concerned” about Anderson’s practice of drinking at work and have launched their own review.

“The Council oversees Casey, because he is a political appointee,” said Albornoz. “So whatever action is taken will be the council’s responsibility.” He said the panel cannot disclose details because they consider the issue to be a personnel matter.

Albornoz declined to speculate on potential sanctions, but he said the council would be guided in part by how the commission has handled instances in which other employees have engaged in similar conduct.

“There are factors that are going to be considered. Scope and any sort of precedent. We’re looking at commission rules [as well as] how as the commission handled other incidences in which alcohol has been involved with merit-level employees to see if there is some guidance,” he said. “All of those are factors that we’re going to weigh.”..

Montgomery Council launches probe of official who kept well-stocked bar in his office - Maryland Matters

How Did Tens of Millions of Dollars of Flat Panel Screens End Up in MCPS Classrooms This Fall?

 Montgomery County Joint House and Senate Priorities Hearing

November 15, 2021

Janis Zink Sartucci on behalf of

Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County, MD

parentscoalitionmc@outlook.com

Montgomery County Public School classroom November 2021

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Janis Zink Sartucci and I am a member of the Parents’ Coalition of Montgomery County, MD. 

Formed in 2002, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland seeks to achieve the goals of coherent, content-rich curriculum standards; high expectations combined with timely remediation and acceleration; a wider range of educational options for parents and children; greater transparency and accountability; and meaningful community input.

Should Major Educational Technology Purchases Be A Surprise?

What happens when a public school system with an annual operating budget of $2.7 Billion dollars is allowed to spend education funding without a public process? The image above shows what happens. The image shows what Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) classrooms look like this fall, as sent to us by MCPS teachers.

MCPS has about 8,100 classrooms. This fall, those classrooms are receiving a new flat panel screen that is being installed in front of the existing Promethean Boards. The Promethean Boards were installed in front of the existing chalkboards and projector screens.

The new flat panel screens now render the existing Promethean Boards unusable. The projector screen is unusable, the chalkboard is unusable, and now the Promethean Board is unusable. Students now look up at the front of their classrooms and see unusable education resources piling up.

How did the flat panel screens arrive? Teachers, the public and even the Board of Education don’t know. BOXLIGHT Interactive Flat Panels are not mentioned anywhere in Montgomery County Board of Education minutes or agendas.

Montgomery County Board of Education search “BOXLIGHT”.

Yet, BOXLIGHT has been announcing their “selection” by MCPS since 2019. BOXLIGHT announced a deal and “pilot” with MCPS back in 2019, yet no mention of this deal or the “pilot” of this product has appeared in Board of Education minutes. (See Appendix A)

Currently, Maryland law allows public school administrators to spend tens of millions of dollars without Requests for Proposals, bids, public notice or even votes of our Boards of Education.

About $45 million dollars of functional, paid for education resources are now unusable because of the lack of a public process. Classroom floor space is also now diminished as each new piece of equipment is being installed in front of the previous equipment.  

This lack of a public process means that this fall MCPS teachers have had to re-tool their lesson plans overnight. One day they were teaching on Promethean Boards, the next day they had to learn how to use the BOXLIGHT screen. Is changing how a teacher presents curriculum to students overnight, mid-year an educational best practice?

Consider how it would be if I took each of your laptops right now, rendered them unusable and handed you a new laptop. Would you be able to continue this session immediately? That is what is being expected of MCPS teachers this fall.

Montgomery County Inspector General Confirmed Competitive Bids not Required under Maryland Law, Administrators Can Give Their Word They Picked Product, and Used Pricing of Other Agencies.

Back in 2008, I uncovered the purchase of about $20 million dollars of Promethean Boards made without Board of Education discussion or vote, without Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or competitive bids. My investigation was validated by a November 30, 2013, Report from the Montgomery County Inspector General, OIG Report Number: 14-002. (Appendix B)

The Montgomery County Inspector General confirmed that Maryland law permits MCPS administrators to spend tens of millions of dollars without competitive bids, Requests for Proposals or even a public vote of the Board of Education. All those administrators have to do is say they have selected one product and looked at the pricing others obtained. No actual documentation is required beyond their word.

The Promethean Boards were purchased one or two at a time with invoices, thus avoiding the triggering of §5-112(b). (Appendix C) From the 2013 Inspector General’s Report we know that Maryland law does not require documentation for the selection of a sole source supplier deemed the “technology standard.” Maryland law also does not require documentation of the use of other agencies’ deals.

MCPS administrators have found a legal way to keep the Board of Education from knowing about major purchases, or even from voting on these major purchases. The result is now seen in the front of every MCPS classroom. Unusable educational technology is piling up. When the Board of Education is excluded from education purchases, so are teachers, parents and the public.

We know in Maryland these types of surreptitious, no bid education purchases are perfectly legal, but are they the best and highest use of precious education dollars? Might it be time for the legislature to address these expenditures?

What do children that sit in these classrooms think when they look up and see the front of their classrooms piling up with unused technology and resources?

Minority Businesses left out of surreptitious procurements.

When the Maryland legislature passed Md. Code, Art. § 5-1129(d), the Minority businesses utilization program in Montgomery County, they limited that section to the competitive bid process. MCPS can easily skirt that law by buying without competitive bids and when they do that there is no requirement for consideration of minority businesses.

Minority business utilization program in Montgomery County

(d)(1) In this subsection, the term “minority business enterprise” has the meaning stated in § 14-301 of the State Finance and Procurement Article.

(2) In Montgomery County, by resolution and by implementing regulations, the Montgomery County Board of Education shall establish a minority business utilization program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified minority business enterprises in contracts awarded by the Montgomery County Board of Education in accordance with competitive bidding procedures.

Unusable educational technology is piling up.

It’s time for the Maryland legislature to close these loopholes and tighten up the public school procurement process. If the legislature doesn’t act soon, there may not be enough room for students in the classrooms amid all of the unusable tech junk.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix A

MIMIO BOXLIGHT announced deal with MCPS back in 2019, yet no mention of this deal or the “pilot” of this product in Board of Education minutes.

Boxlight Reports Second Quarter 2019 Results

...Key Business Highlights for Q2 2019

• Selected for and commenced new implementations in San Diego Unified School District, CA, Montgomery County School District, MD, Guilford County School District, NC, Chesapeake School District, VA, Provo Schools, UT, West Orange Cove Independent School District, TX, Anacortes Schools, WA, Aurora School District, CO, Stonehenge Schools, UK and Owosso Schools, MI…

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190813005709/en/Boxlight-Reports-Second-Quarter-2019-Results

Boxlight Reports Third Quarter 2019 Results

...Key Business Highlights for Q3 2019

...Continued roll-out implementations with Beaufort County School District, SC; Montgomery County Public Schools, MD; Clayton County Public Schools, GA; San Diego Unified School District, CA; Huntington Beach City School District, CA; Anacortes School District, WA; Aurora Public Schools, CO; and Tangipahoa Parish School System, LA…

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191112005870/en/Boxlight-Reports-Third-Quarter-2019-Results

...We also had Montgomery County that ordered a significant number after an extensive pilot. This is a second round of a purchase that they've done with us...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4285370-boxlight-corporation-boxl-ceo-mark-elliott-on-q2-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript

BOXLIGHT Investor Presentation May 2020

Reference Contract Wins • June 2019 - Montgomery County School District, Maryland, 14th largest school district in U.S. with over 160,000 students

https://s27.q4cdn.com/567304918/files/doc_presentations/2020/05/1/Investor-Presentation-May-2020.pdf

BOXLIGHT Investor Presentation February 2021

June 2019 | Montgomery County School District | 160,000 students | 14th largest district in U.S

https://s27.q4cdn.com/567304918/files/doc_presentations/2021/Boxlight-Feb-2021.pdf

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549

 SCHEDULE 14A

June 2021

...To date, our solutions have been sold into over 1.2 million classrooms globally including New York City Public Schools, Broward County Public Schools, San Diego Unified School District, Montgomery County Public Schools, Atlanta Public Schools, Academies Enterprise Trust in England and the Ministry of Education in Jalisco, Mexico, among others….

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001624512/118569da-4e94-4342-b969-1893ef0e9b4e.html

Appendix B

Montgomery County Inspector General

Montgomery County Public Schools’ Acquisition of Promethean Interactive Classroom Technology OIG Report Number: 14-002 November 30, 2013

What We Recommended We conducted this review while the Promethean procurement process was ongoing and we were prepared to alert MCPS of any potential problems or concerns. Based on our review, no recommendations were made. However, we did notify MCPS that lack of documentation supporting a standard may be subject to challenges by stakeholders and competing vendors, and could even present appearances of improper financial relationships

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/IGActivity/FY2014/mcps_promethean_acq_final_report_30_nov_2013.pdf

Appendix C

Effective: June 1, 2018

MD Code, Education, § 5-112

§ 5-112. Contracts for school buildings, improvements, or supplies

Currentness

Application of section

(a) This section does not apply to:

(1) Contracts for the purchase of books and other materials of instruction as defined in the State Department of Education Financial Reporting Manual;

(2) Emergency repairs; and

(3) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, a county board's participation in contracts for goods or commodities that are awarded by other public agencies or by intergovernmental purchasing organizations if the lead agency for the contract follows public bidding procedures.

Bids required if costs of school building, improvement, supplies, or equipment more than $25,000

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, if the cost of any school building, improvement, supplies, or equipment is more than $25,000, the county board, at least 2 weeks before bids are to be filed, shall advertise for bids in a medium accessible to the general public, which includes:

(i) A newspaper of general circulation in the region;

(ii) The Maryland Contract Weekly or comparable State publication; or

(iii) An electronic posting on a bid board and physical posting on the local school system bid board.

(2) If the amount specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection differs from the amount in § 13-109(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article, the amount in § 13-109(a) of the State Finance and Procurement Article shall apply under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3)(i) The county board shall draft specifications that provide a clear and accurate description of the functional characteristics or the nature of an item to be procured, without modifying the county board's requirements.

(ii) The specifications may:

1. Include a statement of any of the county board's requirements; and

2. Provide for the submission of samples, inspection, or testing of the item before procurement.

(4)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, specifications that use one or more manufacturer's product to describe the standard of quality, performance, or other characteristics needed to meet the county board's requirements, must allow for the submission of equivalent products.

(ii) Subparagraph (i) of this paragraph does not apply if the county board determines in the written specification that:

1. A particular manufacturer's product is required to maintain compatibility of service or equipment;

2. A particular manufacturer's product is required to meet the health needs of students;

3. Replacement parts or maintenance are a paramount consideration; or

4. A product is purchased for resale.

Contracts for school building, improvements, or supplies awarded to lowest bidder

(c)(1) A contract for the school building, improvements, supplies, or other equipment shall be awarded to the responsible bidder who provides the best value and conforms to specifications with consideration given to:

(i) The quantities involved;

(ii) The time required for delivery;

(iii) The purpose for which required;

(iv) The competency and responsibility of the bidder;

(v) The ability of the bidder to perform satisfactory service;

(vi) The plan for utilization of minority contractors; and

(vii) The price offered by the bidder.

(2) The county board may reject any and all bids and readvertise for other bids.

Minority business utilization program in Montgomery County

(d)(1) In this subsection, the term “minority business enterprise” has the meaning stated in § 14-301 of the State Finance and Procurement Article.

(2) In Montgomery County, by resolution and by implementing regulations, the Montgomery County Board of Education shall establish a minority business utilization program to facilitate the participation of responsible certified minority business enterprises in contracts awarded by the Montgomery County Board of Education in accordance with competitive bidding procedures.

...

Bulk purchasing, bundling, and intergovernmental purchasing

(h)(1) A county board is encouraged, consistent with competitive bidding, to use bulk purchasing, bundling, and intergovernmental purchasing.

(2) A county board may bundle, for approval and procurement purposes:

(i) Similar systemic renovation projects at different schools; and

(ii) Interrelated systemic projects at a single school.

Contracts void if made in violation of section

(i) A contract entered into or purchase made in violation of this section is void.

Credits

Added as Education § 5-110 by Acts 1978, c. 22, § 2, eff. July 1, 1978. Amended by Acts 1980, c. 720; Acts 1984, c. 114; Acts 1987, c. 502, 682; Acts 1988, c. 6, § 1; Acts 1989, c. 5, § 1; Acts 1993, c. 5, § 1; Acts 1993, c. 391; Acts 1994, c. 4, § 1, eff. Feb. 28, 1994; Acts 1994, c. 88, § 2, eff. April 12, 1994; Acts 1994, c. 661, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1994. Renumbered as Education § 5-112 by Acts 1996, c. 10, § 16, eff. April 9, 1996. Amended by Acts 1996, c. 46, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1996; Acts 1997, c. 105, § 1, eff. June 1, 1997; Acts 2000, c. 208, § 1, eff. July 1, 2000; Acts 2001, c. 545, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2001; Acts 2002, c. 170, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002; Acts 2002, c. 171, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002; Acts 2006, c. 95, § 1, eff. July 1, 2006; Acts 2009, c. 454, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2009; Acts 2012, c. 566, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2012, c. 567, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2018, c. 14, § 1, eff. June 1, 2018.

Formerly Art. 77, § 123.

MD Code, Education, § 5-112, MD EDUC § 5-112

Current with all legislation from the 2021 Regular Session of the General Assembly. Some statute sections may be more current, see credits for details.