Jack Smith contract litigation from Calvert County. Now Smith is withholding $800K Contract Term from MoCo Board of Ed.

Let's review what happened when Jack R. Smith was the Superintendent of Calvert County Public Schools. 

SoMdNews Online

March 5, 2015
...Members of the Calvert board of education claim they were unaware of the executive team contracts held between the employees and Smith and said because the contracts were signed with Smith and not the board, the provisions stated in the contract were not to be extended past the June 30, 2013, date...

SoMdNewsOnlineSeptember 2, 2015
...At the end of the 2013 school year, Smith announced his resignation as Calvert’s superintendent of schools to become chief academic officer for the state. In the following months, some Calvert County Board of Education members uncovered the amount of money Smith was permitted to take from the school system in comprehensive benefits.While Smith’s contracts paid him an annual base salary of $169,000, his total compensation was upward of $300,000 in his last year as superintendent. Smith said the additional income was due to benefits, including life and health insurance coverage that will continue for life for him and his wife, paid by the Calvert school system and approved by the previous school board.Smith also was permitted to cash in annual sick leave he hadn’t used. Though Smith’s salary remained at $169,000, his take-home amounts increased each year.Smith also had granted similar contracts to his executive team members. Many Calvert school board members, including current board member Kelly McConkey, were not aware of these contracts.“I couldn’t believe somebody could do what they did and be promoted to a position of importance like that,”..
Now, here we are in 2020, in the beginning of a global pandemic where schools are closed and the public is not allowed to attend public meetings.  

****************
Now let's look at what is happening this week in Montgomery County Public Schools. 

• Tomorrow the Montgomery County Board of Education will be given a MEMORANDUM that purports to detail a CONTRACT.  
• The Board of Education is to vote on the CONTRACT without ever actually seeing it.
• Based on the years of litigation generated in Calvert County by then Superintendent Jack Smith's signing of contracts one would think that Superintendent Smith would be providing Montgomery County Board of Education members with the actual CONTRACTS that they are voting on.  But that won't happen tomorrow, April 21, 2020.

On April 21, 2020, the Montgomery County Board of Education will vote to spend up to $800,000 for an artificial turf football field for the City of Gaithersburg without even knowing it. 

Here is the MEMORANDUM that Superintendent Jack R. Smith is presenting to the Montgomery County Board of Education: 

Jack Smith Memo to Board of Ed.

 https://www.scribd.com/document/457356446/Gaithersburg-Cluster-ES-8-Land-Acquisition-Agree-1

But here is the ACTUAL CONTRACT that Superintendent Jack Smith has sent to the City of Gaithersburg.  
The Parents' Coalition has obtained the actual document and made it public.  

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2020/04/emergency-mcps-must-agree-to-fund-up-to.html

In the actual Contract it says that the City of Gaithersburg shall construct a field of THEIR choice, either artificial turf or natural grass.  The Contract says that if the City of Gaithersburg builds an artificial turf field then the Board of Education shall reimburse the City for up to $800,000 for the design and construction of an artificial turf field.  

On April 21, 2020, the Montgomery County Board of Education will unknowingly vote to spend $800,000 on a luxury item for the City of Gaithersburg, meanwhile children in Montgomery County are out of school, missing meals and families are in crisis.

Audit finds PGCPS broke the law when awarding millions in school contracts

UPPER MALRBORO, Md. (FOX 5 DC) - Prince George’s Co. Public Schools is not following state law or its own policies when it comes to awarding millions of dollars in contracts, according to a state audit on the school system’s financial management.

FOX 5 has learned the school district’s director of purchasing is no longer employed as of Friday. 

According to the audit by the Department of Legislative Services, the contracts in question total nearly $85 million.

According to the report, “the required justification was not documented for 13 of the 15 sole source contracts we tested totaling $6.8 million and PGCPS had not documented the benefits from one ICPA (intergovernmental cooperative purchasing agreement) contract“ valued at $34.8 million over five years.

The audit also found 32 contracts totaling $43.1 million were not submitted to the Board of Education for approval as required. Two of those contracts were awarded to vendors that were either not the most qualified or the lowest cost bidders, according to the audit.

“It has the appearances of bid steering, improper bid steering,” said Louis Clark, CEO of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project.

The state audit does not name the companies or offer details on why rules were not followed with certain contracts. Clark says an additional investigation is necessary to find out if there was improper bid steering...

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/audit-finds-pgcps-broke-the-law-when-awarding-millions-in-school-contracts?fbclid=IwAR367OzapMPZNzzLcns-LRBzXN7T5nq0IaVHqXg9PkHhVNkEytyGX7-hTxg

Former Balt. County Superintendent Dallas Dance released from jail, Tweets apology

Former Baltimore County Public School superintendent, S. Dallas Dance, has been released from a Virginia jail after serving four months  for perjury charges after failing to report nearly $147,000 of income on his financial disclosure statements. Upon his release early this morning, Dance took to Twitter to apologize...

...But prosecutors found that Dance did not report nearly $90,000 from work he did for SUPES and its sister company, Synesi Associates.  The rest of the unreported income was earned through speeches, professional development and consulting services in other school districts and organizations.

Dance brought a $875,000 contract to Baltimore County schools after he began receiving payments from SUPES and Synesi, records show.

Dance was indicted in January on four counts of perjury for failing to report the income he earned as he led the country’s 25th largest school district. In March, he pled guilty to the charges. In April, he was sentenced to serve six months in a Baltimore County detention center. He was granted a transfer to Henrico County Jail West near his home in Virginia and served four months of the six-month sentence...

https://thebaltimorepost.com/former-balt-county-superintendent-dallas-dance-released-from-jail-tweets-apology/

Among the approved cuts was the $25 million that Leggett recommended trimming from Montgomery County Public Schools’ $2.5 billion annual budget.

Question:  How would County Councilmember Craig Rice know whether or not there is "fat in the central office" of MCPS?  The MCPS Operating Budget documents do not even disclose the over $8 million in Capital Budget funds that are used to fund the Operating Budget.  How can he say that there is no "fat" in the multi-millions of dollars in no bid purchases that are made every year?  What about travel, gift, and food budgets for administrators?  No fat? 

...The cuts were focused on reducing funding for the central office and administrative functions, according to the school system.
“The savings and reductions will focus more on the central office and not hit our classrooms,” Rice said. “I want to caution people out there who think there is still fat in the central office—there is not.”...http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2018/County-Council-Approves-Budget-Cuts/

Md. DOT takes over agency’s procurement after irregularities found

ANNAPOLIS — State transportation officials said they are taking more direct control of contracting within the Maryland Transit Administration after the discovery of dozens of contracts that lacked formal approval or instances in which vendors were paid for services for which there was no contract...

http://thedailyrecord.com/2017/10/04/procurement-irregulaties-mta-maryland/


[How many Montgomery County Board of Education vendors get paid but do not have a contract?]

Auditors critical of Baltimore County schools' contract process

A legislative audit of Baltimore County's public school system released Friday found that officials haven't always followed purchasing rules that would give the system the most competitively priced services and contracts.

In a review of about 10 contracts, the Department of Legislative Audits found instances in which the school system had decided to "piggyback" off other government contracts rather than use the more common process of asking for bids from multiple companies.
 
"These contracts were issued by other governmental entities that allowed other jurisdictions to use the contract terms and prices," said the audit, which covered fiscal years 2013 and 2014. "However, we found that BCPS did not use the contract terms and prices established by the other government entities, but negotiated their own unique contract terms and prices."

Among the contracts the auditors criticized was a $875,000, three-year contract with SUPES Academy to train principals. The contract, which has expired, became controversial because Superintendent Dallas Dance was found in violation of the ethics policy for working for the company without getting school board approval.
The audit said the county did not provide good reasons why the SUPES contract and others should not be competitively bid.
In the future, auditors want school officials to provide further analysis to school board members before they vote on contracts. George Sarris, the school system's executive director for fiscal services, said they agreed with the audit's findings and "have created an analytic procedure with a check list that we will use."...

 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/sun-investigates/bs-md-sun-investigates-audit-20150711-story.html

Breaking News: BOE Loses at State BOE with "Have Its Cake and Eat it Too" Legal Argument #msi #churchillhigh #artificial turf

MSI Soccer, Inc. filed an appeal with the Maryland State Board of Education concerning the Montgomery County Board of Education's decision to award the use of the Churchill High School football field to other clubs. 

At the same time, MSI filed a civil action in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

The Montgomery County Board of Education sought to have the appeal at the State Board dismissed.

In arguing for dismissal of the MSI action before the State BOE, the Montgomery County Board of Education's top outside lawyers argued the well known legal principle of "have it's cake and eat it too." (See opinion below.)  The Montgomery County Board of Education's argument was that MSI could not "have it's cake and eat it too" by pursuing an appeal in two different places at the same time. The Montgomery County Board of Education requested that the MSI appeal at the State Board be dismissed.

The Maryland State Board of Education didn't bite.

The Maryland State Board of Education did not dismiss MSI's appeal.  Instead, MSI prevailed in their request to have their appeal to the Maryland State Board of Education stayed until 60 days after the conclusion of their proceedings in civil court.

   MSI,Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Education by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

New Council Report Reveals Complaints about MCPS Procurement Process

On July 29, 2014, the Montgomery County Council released a report from their Office of Legislative Oversight entitled Procurement and Small, Minority, Female, Disabled and Locally-Owned Businesses.  The Council requested this project in order to examine the County’s procurement process, particularly for small and minority, female, disabled, or locally-owned businesses. Appendix F of this report contains comments from businesses. A number of the businesses commented on the MCPS procurement process even though this report is limited to Montgomery County procurement. 

The comments about MCPS are interesting coming on the heels of the MSI Soccer litigation against the Board of Education concerning the procurement process for selecting artificial turf field partners. 

Over the last 8 years the Parents' Coalition has documented a number of these same issues cited by these businesses.  

Will the Montgomery County Council pay any attention to the comments in this report?

• I have two complaints. Montgomery County based businesses should get priority. Perhaps a 5% advantage. The printing supply bid for MCPS schools should be put out every year and not be rolled over for three years.

• Montgomery County Schools, college and other agencies that procure institutional style educational furniture, primarily purchase everything from ONLY 1 or 2 vendors. Many local county vendors never get an opportunity to participate. Procurement policy discourages competition. Purchases are almost exclusively made through the state's BRCPC contract or agencies develop their own contracts. Once a contract has been established, it can be renewed for years. The opportunity to bring new vendors or products in is almost impossible. Once a vendor has been awarded a contract, an agency can "standardize" on that product and purchase only it for what ever price the "authorized dealer' selects. Montgomery County should bring back the bid process. It should be the function of procurement to seek out local qualified vendors. Procurement should provide equal access to contracts by not limiting the scope of the specification to favor 1 or 2 vendors. There is no reason to limit the period of time to a small window to place items on a contract. Procurement should go back to using bids and seek out local vendors. There should be either a limit or some oversight to the amount of procurement that can be given to the same vendor.

• A new bid was created for school pictures and the county didn't have good information for the basis of the process.

• I am a local MBE/DBE office furniture dealership, living in Montgomery County as well as owning a business located in Montgomery County. My children attended Mont Cty Public Schools. Yet, as both a business and residential taxpayer the majority of the furniture business is awarded to a vendor outside the County. It has been virtually impossible getting assistance that is meaningful.

• I never see any bids for commercial printing. I know the public schools send a tremendous amount to Virginia, but neglects to keep it in Maryland. I went to Montgomery county schools. A bit surprised Maryland businesses are not valued

  OLOReport2014-11ProcurementandSmallMinorityFemaleDisabledandLocallyOwnedBusinesses by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

Council Will Ignore MSI Litigation, Councilmembers Don't Understand Issue

At today's Montgomery County Council's Education Committee meeting the Education Committee members announced that they intended to ignore the MSI lawsuit against MCPS concerning the Churchill High School artificial turf project.

Council President Craig Rice says the litigation has nothing to do with the "field being constructed."

Actually, President Rice, the litigation has everything to do with the construction of the field because the field is being constructed with PRIVATE funds.

Does the Council imagine that one private club would happily pay to build the Churchill artificial turf football field and another private club could be granted the right to use it?

The MSI litigation has everything to do with the construction of the Churchill High School artificial turf field.

Maybe the Council would like to see the construction begin, and then be stopped by a Court order mid-project? How would that work out for the public school students that attend the school? A public football field closed because private parties are tied up in litigation? 

Rock Terrace School Audit: No Credit Card Logs Could Be Located

Board of Education's Fiscal Management Committee met today, September 9, 2013.  One of the Agenda topics was the recent misappropriation of student funds at Rock Terrace School. 
The Parents' Coalition attended the meeting and videotaped the discussion. (BOE committee meetings are held off camera.)  MCPS internal auditors presented the BOE with two documents, an August 2013 Audit of the school and an Action Plan.  Both documents are below the video.



Rock Terrace School Audit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/166817090/2013-Rock-Terrace-IAF-Audit-Report"  style="text-decoration: underline;" >2013 Rock Terrace IAF Audit Report

Rock Terrace School Action Plan

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/166802117/Rock-Terrace-Action-Plan"  style="text-decoration: underline;" >Rock Terrace Action Plan

Over $10 Million without Competitive Bids in 24 Hours

Joint House and Senate Priorities Hearing

Montgomery County Delegation to the Maryland General Assembly
Rockville, Maryland
November 14, 2012

In the last 24 hours, Montgomery County Public Schools has confirmed purchases totaling over $10 million that will be made without the issuance of Requests for Proposals or competitive bids.  These are not purchases that are part of any other procurement program.  In the past, these exact same purchases were made without even contracts.

While in the past the Board of Education President would sign off on MCPS contracts, purchases can now be made without contracts and without Board of Education approval.  Attached is an example showing the signature of a MCPS staff member in the place marked “Board of Education”.(See page 4) 

1.  Yesterday, the County Council held a hearing on a $2,042,000 Appropriation request from MCPS.  During the course of the hearing it was revealed that MCPS would be buying 2,000 Interactive White Boards from a London based company without the use of competitive bids or a bulk buying contract.  The MCPS Chief Technology Officer simply contacted the company and the deal was made.

What is the result of this? The result if that at least 2 Montgomery County vendors of Interactive White Boards were unable to bid on this procurement that will total $8,900,000, including one vendor that is minority owned.  A MCPS purchase that could have gone to a Montgomery County vendor will instead go to a London based company.
This morning I sent each of you a video clip of the Council hearing yesterday where the no bid purchase was discussed. 

2.  Later in the day, the Montgomery County Board of Education met to discuss putting an artificial turf field at a high school.  Before the Board had even voted on the installation, MCPS staff announced the vendor that would be used for the artificial turf installation.  Once again, this is a foreign based company and companies based in the United States are unable to bid on this procurement.  The vendor for the construction was picked before any formal bidding process.
There really is no solution to the problem of MCPS skirting procurement laws.  My information is just to notify you that procurement laws are not working and are unenforceable.
3.  In January of 2009, the Maryland Office of Legislative Audits released their last Audit of Montgomery County Public Schools.  We are almost 4 years from when that Audit was released. Our public school system has a budget of over $2 billion dollars.  That’s over $8.4 billion dollars that has been spent without an Audit.  The timing of State Audits needs to be every 2 years, not every 4 to 6.

4.  The State Board of Education has no time limit on when they must release Opinions from Appeals.  In some cases the State Board of Education has sat on decisions for a year.  This makes the review process of the State Board of Education meaningless.  Please consider placing a time limit on when Opinions of the State Board of Education must be released.
5.  Appeals to the State Board must be filed within 30 days under the current law.  However, there are situations where the parties impacted by a Board of Education decision are not even aware of the Board’s actions until after 30 days.  Please consider extending the time limit on Appeals to protect citizens that may not have notice of Board of Education actions that impact their neighborhood.
Thank you,
Janis Sartucci

Elrich to Collette, "You didn't bid it."

Here is the video of the entire November 13, 2012 Montgomery County Council hearing and vote on the Appropriation request from MCPS to buy 2,000 Promethean brand Interactive White Boards on a 5 year lease, along with Promethean's partner Cisco's wireless access.

At Minute 28:00 Councilmember Marc Elrich makes the following statement to the MCPS Chief Technology Officer Sherwin Collette during the Council's hearing:

"Now, Mr. Collette and I had a conversation yesterday. And, what you described to me...[sigh]...you didn't say you competively bid.  You wouldn't know whether there were any other bidders, cause you told me, correct me if I am wrong, that you negotiated a price directly with Promethean World. And Promethean instructed Dell to sell the product to us at the negotiated price.  So you wouldn't 've know if there were any other bidders, because you didn't bid it.  You simply went to Promethean and negotiated what you felt was a really good price. 

It may be a really good price. I have no ability to judge whether it is a good price or a bad price. But, it is not a bidding process. And, it doesn't give other people the opportunity at the local level to compete with the bid. And, it wouldn't give anybody the opportunity to look at this, and say next time this comes up for bid I know what my competition is and I am going to have to do better..." 

MCPS refuses to release financial aspects of Wireless Generation agreement

In an article last week, we released several of the documents showing royalties received by MCPS from Wireless Generation.  MCPS released these and other documents after repeated MPIA requests for information about the deal that former deputy superintendent John Q. Porter made, on behalf of MCPS, with Wireless Generation.

Of all the documents that have been received, perhaps the most interesting is the Development Agreement.  The copy of the Development Agreement, which is 24 pages long, is of interest not because of what it contains but because of what the provided copy excludes.  Under claim of exemption from disclosure pursuant to Section 10-617(d) of the MPIA, MCPS refused to provide two sections of the Development Agreement.  Without those sections, it is not possible to determine who, other than MCPS, is receiving royalties under the agreement, nor is it possible to verify that MCPS is receiving all of the royalties to which it is entitled.

The sections of the Development Agreement that MCPS reluctantly shared contain no financial details and, as such, are probably of interest mainly to MCPS and Wireless Generation.  The sections that have been redacted are short and probably of great interest to taxpayers, but MCPS has advised us that if we want copies of those sections, we will have to pursue the matter in circuit court.

In the meantime, here are the cover letter and signature page for the Development Agreement.  It is worth noting that the Agreement was signed by John Q. Porter, instead of Superintendent Weast or the President of the Board of Education, which, from all appearances, is contrary to MCPS procurement rules.
Wireless Generation Royalty Agreement (excerpt)

What MCPS deletes, we provide...

In multiple posts on this blog we have directed readers to the MCPS Procurement Manual online link as we discussed the failure of MCPS to follow state law in procuring technology and equipment.

So what's a Tech-Savvy school system to do? Take the Procurement Manual link off the MCPS website, of course! So now when you go to the link for the MCPS Procurement Manual here is what you see...

But you may have heard the saying "You can't put the Genie back in the bottle?" And so readers of this blog, what MCPS deletes, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland provides.

Here for your procurement education is the MCPS Procurement Manual as it appeared on the MCPS website just a few months ago, with all of the important references to State procurement law.
MCPS Feb 2007 Procurement Manual

Security Webcast Scrubbed?

"I do have to start things off with some bad news ... Robert Hellmuth, the director of the department of public safety and security for the Montgomery County Public Schools has been called into a department of education meeting ..."
― Sam Pfeifle, Editor, Security Systems News

This webcast was broadcast live on Thursday, March 19, 2009. There is no record of an MCPS BOE meeting on that day.

(Related bad news is here.)

Hear it here:






The Essential Guide to Deploying HD Video Surveillance Webcast

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Education Presentations & Slid public schools

Obscurity masquerades as transparency in unauthorized $25,000.20 expenditure

When it became time to renew the software license for the MCPS instructional management system, MCPS officials went to the Board of Education (under the watch of former BOE president Nancy Navarro) and received approval to spend $350,000.

The BOE minutes of October 14, 2008 show approval for $350,000 in funding under award number 1152.1, Edmin.com, Inc.

A memo dated January 13, 2009, from Superintendent Weast to the BOE, confirms the expenditure of $350,000.

But the purchase order (shown below) shows that the amount spent was $375,000.20. That’s $25,000.20 more than the amount that was appropriated.

Edmin Purchase Order

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Education Presentations & Slid illegal Bowers



Meanwhile, BOE President Shirley Brandman and other officials claim that all expenditures over $25,000 are available for public viewing in the BOE minutes.

Maybe $25,000.20 isn’t that much money to Ms. Brandman, but if MCPS tacks on an unappropriated $25,000 here and an unappropriated $25,000 there, it starts to add up to real money.

E-Rate - too good to be true?

Is the e-rate rebate program truly "found" money? If you think this program is too good to be true, you may be correct. Before we thank Superintendent Jerry Weast for tapping into this great resource, check out what has happened to some other school systems who have found the same pot of gold.

E-rate participants have been the focus of criminal and civil investigations at the US Department of Justice and other federal agencies for several years.

Is this "old law" that doesn't apply to Montgomery County Public Schools? Think again.

In December, 2008, a businessman in Atlanta received a prison sentence of 5 years because he bribed an Atlanta school official in connection with the E-rate program.

Just last week, Federal agents requested records from the school boards in Atlantic City and Pleasantville as part of a bid-rigging investigation. Philadelphia and Camden schools are also under investigation.

Recently, a Illinois contractor was fined $3.3 million for bid rigging and procurement fraud in connection with E-rate.

Its not just the feds who are looking into this practice. Earlier this year, the Arizona Attorney General found pervasive problems with the procurement process at the Tucson Unified School District.

Want more case studies? Run your own google search.

Is the great e-rate funded Promethean promise one that will likely find our own MCPS school system under investigation? Stay tuned, but remember, unlike their friends in Arizona who settled the case and put the three individuals involved in the scandal on leave - MCPS would rather litigate than admit mistakes.

But then again, MCPS may hit the jackpot a second time, since no one, including the County Council or the MCPS Ethics Panel, has yet to demonstrate any willingness to provide meaningful oversight over the MCPS budget.