June 14, 2006 Approved: June 28, 2006
6:00 pm
Executive Session for a Level III Grievance
Pursuant to RIGL 42-46-4 and 42-46-5 (9)
*The
employee has been notified that this personnel matter may be heard in public at
his/her discretion
7:00 PM Worksession
Central Administration Building
100 Fairway Drive, North Kingstown
“Challenging Student Excellence”
Minutes
I.
Meeting
Organization
A.
Call to Order;
Pledge of Allegiance
1.
Chairperson, Don
DeFedele, called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
B. Roll Call:
Present: Chairperson, Donald DeFedele; Vice
Chairperson,
Absent: Janice DeFrances and William Brennan,
Administration
Present:
Legal
Representative:
C.
Calendars
1.
Dr. Halley went
over the dates in June with the Committee:
a. There will be a SELAC meeting on June 15th
at 7:00pm in the NK Library.
b. High School Graduation will be held on June
17th at the URI Ryan Center at 11:00am.
c. June 20th will be the last day of
school for grades 6 – 12.
d. June 23rd will be the last day of
school for grades K-5, except Hamilton Elementary.
e. June 26th will be the last day of
school for Hamilton Elementary.
f. There will be a reception for school department
retirees on June 28th at 6:30pm followed by a School
Committee Business meeting at 7:00pm.
g. The special executive session scheduled for
June 22nd at 4:00pm has been cancelled.
There was concern that only one
school will be attending school on a Monday, June 26th because of being
required
to make up a day
missed due to a water problem. Options
were submitted by the teachers, but could not be
accommodated.
D.
Ground Rules:
Don
DeFedele read a list of ground rules for the Committee to approve and abide by
at this meeting. (Appendix A)
Motion was made by Don DeFedele to
approve the ground rules. Seconded by
Barry Martasian.
Vote:
5 to 0 to approve, with Bill Mudge abstaining.
E.
Presentations:
Mr.
DeFedele welcomed Peter Chatellier of Prescott, Chatellier, Fontaine &
Wilkinson, and Walter Edge and Tom Sweeney of Bacon & Edge Consulting. Mr. DeFedele stated that both firms were here
to present their respective findings related to the recent audits conducted on
both Town and School Department
functions.
A
protocol for this meeting was explained that would allow each School Committee
member to ask a question, allow for an answer to be given, and to ask a follow
up question. We will then move on to the
next member. One hour will be allowed
for the presentation and question and answer period for Mr. Chatellier and 1 ˝
hours for Mr. Edge’s presentation and question and answer period.
Mr.
Mudge objected to this procedure.
Dr.
Halley stated that he has had an opportunity to review the transcript of the
Town Council’s meeting of
May
22nd. He had received information about
comments that were made at that meeting by Bacon & Edge, and that
information was not completely accurate.
Because of that information, he made comments to the newspaper about the
company being unethical. That was
incorrect and he apologized.
Peter
Chatellier introduced himself and Deb Mitchell who was the manager for this
“Agreed Upon Procedures Report.” The
report was organized into categories, and they summarized each one.
1. Medicaid -
Deb
Mitchell explained that procedures were reviewed and some of the reports were
tested. Most of our transactions are
submitted for the district by the outside firm of Compuclaim. Medicaid is reported under special revenues
on pages 75 and 92 in the town budget.
Recommendations
were made to develop a policy stating that excess Medicaid revenues be put into
the school general fund and to develop a procedure for the reimbursement of
Medicaid. It was suggested to obtain a
SAS 70 report from Compuclaim.
2. Housing Aid -
Reports
were reviewed and no information was found to be inaccurate.
Recommendation
was made to include Housing Aid in the general fund budget. It is now found on pages 78 and 95 in the
town budget.
3. Reserve Funds -
The
school capital reserve fund was reviewed, including appropriations from the
general fund, transfers, and the receipt of housing aid. These items are located on pages 79 and 96 of
the town budget.
Comments
were made that transfers were authorized and made properly.
4. Purchasing -
Purchasing
policies as well as fifty-six transactions were reviewed. Three non-finance personnel staff were
interviewed and found that people were aware of the procedures.
Comments
were made that procedures were being followed.
There were several sole source providers encountered with explanations
for each.
Recommendations
were made to maintain a list of sole source vendors. An example was given of the purchase of
diplomas which exceeded $2500, but quotes were not seen on this issue.
5. Encumbrances -
Twenty
transactions were reviewed that were issued seven days prior to the end of the
year and seven days after the end of the year.
No improprieties were found.
There were some manual adjustments that were made because of
expenditures charged to the wrong account when the purchase order was paid.
Recommendation
was made that the town set up expiration dates for encumbrances.
Questions
and Answers:
1. Mrs. Benson:
Does the firm follow up to see if recommendations are implemented?
Mr.
Chatellier: Meetings were held with the
Superintendent and Town Manager to go over the draft and make comments. There is no follow up by the firm to
implementation of the recommendations.
2. Mr. Mudge submitted his own calculation of
financial data (Appendix B). Mr. Mudge
asked if we budgeted for all anticipated expenditures and revenues in 04, 03
and 02.
Ms.
Mitchell explained that the net was reported in the operating budget.
Mr.
Mudge stated that we never had a special revenue account for Medicaid before 04
and asked if we budgeted for all expected expenditures before 04? We provide services special ed services, then
receive reimbursement from Medicaid and asked if every penny that comes back is
surplus.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that it is reimbursement.
3. Barry Martasian asked if any of their recommendations
are because we are in violation of any laws or doing anything illegal.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that he did not see anything in violation of any law.
4. Renee Cockerill: Do you think we need further investigation?
Mr.
Chatellier: Not that we saw in this
agreed upon procedures report.
5. Denise Coppa asked if we are consistent with
other school departments.
Mr.
Chatellier replied that in the areas that they reviewed, they did not find
anything in violation of the law.
6. Don DeFedele asked to clarify the
recommendation about the need to develop policies to deal with what the school
department follows. The recommendation
was that the school department is following procedures, but it just has to have
policies.
Mr.
Chatellier stated that is correct.
Mr.
DeFedele also asked if this were for the Town to develop policies, or just the School
Department.
Mr.
Chatellier stated that this recommendation was for the School Department.
7. Dr. Halley stated that prior to 2004,
Medicaid was treated as a revenue, and based on the advice of the Auditor
General it is now treated the same as grants, a special revenue.
Ms.
Mitchell answered that their concern was that it was shown as net and they
wanted to see gross. Most schools
include it in the general budget.
Dr.
Halley stated that the gross is shown now.
8. Melvoid Benson asked if it was standard
procedure that they are given certain transactions to review.
Ms.
Mitchell explained that they were given procedures to look at, not specific
transactions.
Mrs.
Benson asked if there were parameters to look at certain things.
Mr.
Chatellier stated that this is an agreed upon procedures report – not an
audit. It is a separate type of
engagement that lays out the ground rules as to what is to be reviewed.
9. Bill Mudge stated that previously Medicaid
was never accounted for in the audits.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that if it was reported as a net figure, it was accounted
for.
Mr.
Mudge felt that if there was a $50 million budget and there was a negative
$800,000 for Medicaid expenses, then we really spent $50,800,000.
Mrs.
Benson sited a point of order. We were
concentrating on the report, not discussing figures.
10. Barry Martasian stated that there are areas
pointed out that need to be changed and asked if there is a follow up the next
time a review is done.
Ms.
Mitchell responded that the report is a management letter, but they do address
recommendations that were made in the previous visit.
Mr.
Martasian asked if repeat issues come up often.
Mr.
Chatellier answered that they do.
11. Don DeFedele reviewed the process that was
used: the town decides what procedures
will be looked at and when producing an agreed upon procedures report, it is
decided what areas you are going to look at.
This is more comprehensive in focus and you are only dealing with a
certain amount of issues that the Town Council asked you to look at.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that this is correct.
12. Dr. Halley referred to Section C –
purchasing. It was noted in the report
that the School Department wrote on the purchase order that this was a sole
source vendor. This procedure was a
result of a previous recommendation made by this firm to note when there was a
sole source bid. This is done in the School
Department, but not the Town.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that this is correct.
13. Melvoid Benson: how do you label an audit that is agreed upon
transactions?
Mr.
Chatellier replied that they try to make agreed upon procedure as specific as
possible and referred to their Appendix A.
They get objectives and need procedures to accomplish those
objectives. They send an engagement
letter to the Town and the Town changes procedures if they choose.
14. Bill Mudge stated that in 2005 there was
$257,000 in undesignated funds and designated funds which means we have a
reserve, but we don’t know if that is a Medicaid reserve.
Mr.
Chatellier replied that he is making assumptions in looking at Mr. Mudge’s
figures, that the general fund, in the unreserved fund balance, does not have
the fund balance that is in the special revenue fund for Medicaid in it.
Mr.
Mudge stated that we designate subsequent year’s expenditure of funds, not the
Town Council and no one can use those funds absent the School Committee
approval. Bill asked if the Town Council
took it and used it in their account, is that illegal? If they used our appropriated funds, we lost
control of $2.3 million of School Department money, if they did that. We could have had a special account that held
Medicaid revenue.
We
also had additional Medicaid surplus in 05 of another $58,000. The School Committee had $58,000 plus $257,000
surplus at the end of the year.
Deb
Mitchell responded that you do have a special account.
Mr.
Mudge stated that it was never recorded before.
Don
DeFedele corrected him that it was never recorded that way before, but
it was recorded.
15. Mr. DeFedele asked if housing aid goes directly
to the Town.
Deb
Mitchell replied that it does and that is common.
Mr.
DeFedele stated that this is up to the Town how they deal with this, not School
Committee policy.
Ms.
Mitchell responded that it was really the Town’s comment in the report.
Mr.
DeFedele stated that he just wanted to clarify that this was something that the
Town needs to address, not the School Committee.
Ms.
Mitchell replied that was correct.
16. Dr. Halley referred to page 3-C, fourth
paragraph that stated the School Department follows their procedures related to
purchasing. He stated that he assumes
they were given the written procedures to check, and found that we follow them.
Ms.
Mitchell responded that this was correct.
17. Bill Mudge stated that there were items he
requested that the Town Council look into.
There was $77,000 in transactions that had to be shifter from FY05 to
FY04 and asked if the auditor recalled that.
Ms.
Mitchell replied that she did not recall those transactions.
Mr.
Mudge stated that purchase orders were put out in 04, materials came in and
were paid for in 05, and this is improper.
He demanded a forensic audit.
Mr.
Mudge felt that encumbrances were astronomical.
Mr.
Mudge asked if it was ever audited that $2.3 million was to leave School
Committee authority to be placed in any other fund.
Ms.
Mitchell replied that she didn’t know if they were ever asked to review
that. She stated that Mr. Mudge was
adding the undesignated fund balance in referring to the $2.3 million. She explained that this was a cumulative
balance.
Mr.
Mudge asked if they every audited the transfer of $180,000 in 05, and was it in
compliance with the law.
Ms.
Mitchell explained that would be appropriated in FY06.
Mr.
Chatellier stated that the $180,000 referred to at the end of FY05 means that
in the FY06 budget, $180,000 would be used out of surplus to balance the FY06
budget. This is approved by the School
Committee when approving the budget.
Mr.
Mudge asked if we could have put this in the Medicaid fund.
Mr.
Chatellier replied that it is a School Committee decision.
18. Denise Coppa commented with all of this going
back and forth with Mr. Mudge’s long diatribes, it is making the School
Committee look like it’s doing something below legal limits that is outside of
procedures that are sound accounting procedures and she doesn’t want that to be
the final word. She didn’t see anything
in this report that is illegal, unethical, immoral, or anything else. She suggested that someone summarize this in
a positive manner.
19. Don DeFedele asked if proper bidding
procedures were followed.
Deb
Mitchell stated that they were. There
was only one instance that required multiple quotes that they did not see.
Mr.
DeFedele asked if bidding procedures needed to be strengthened or revised in any
way or form or in the case of encumbrances, should the recommendation that
purchase orders expire in a 60 day period be a School Committee or Town policy.
Mr.
Chatellier replied that this policy should be in effect for both.
Mr.
DeFedele went over the objectives of Medicaid and Housing Aid at the direction
of the Town Council. They were to
determine compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, provide
recommendations to resolve any deficiencies in the design of relevant policies
and procedures, and identify instances of non-compliance with policies and
procedures. He stated that they were
asked to do the same in all areas based on what the Town Council heard about
the School Department and to look into these things based on these specific
criteria to find out if there was non-compliance with policies or
procedures. There are recommendations
made to both the School Department and Town, but he didn’t see anything that
implies the School Committee or Town was doing anything not in compliance, but they
are recommending strengthening policies.
It that a correct assessment of the report?
Deb
Mitchell replied that it was correct.
20. Dr. Halley stated that in this audit and all
others they have performed, they had never come across any misappropriations or
people spending money in wrong accounts.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that this was correct.
21. Melvoid Benson asked how we compare to other
school departments – were we above the curve, in the middle of the curve, or
below the curve?
Mr.
Chatellier replied that we were above the curve. There is on-going vigilance by the
Administration and School Committee to deal with procedures and controls.
22. Bill Mudge questioned what has been
instituted to fix the sole source vendor issues that have been continuing.
Public
Comment:
Lynda
Avanzato stated that there were no improprieties found, but there were two
pages of eighteen potential fraudulent findings in the 2001 report.
Mr.
Chatellier explained that there was a follow up report that detailed those and that
was dealt with in a separate report.
Mrs.
Avanzato asked if he audited those eighteen transactions.
Mr.
Chatellier said yes, there was a 2001 special engagement to deal just with
those items.
Paul
Dion stated that it is common practice for there to be deadlines for purchase
orders to be submitted for the previous year.
He gave an example that after May 15th, a purchase order could
no longer be entered for that year.
Mr.
Chatellier stated that it can be entered late and this is common in other
school departments. The criteria is to
evaluate if it is really a necessary order, or a wish.
Mr.
Dion was curious about the cut off date with other school departments.
Ms.
Mitchell stated that others have put a freeze on anything other than normal
purchases.
Mr.
Dion stated he was not implying that there was any impropriety involved.
Linda
Avanzato stated that she spoke to Sharon at Chatellier’s office who stated that
they did not perform an audit on the eighteen items mentioned earlier.
Mr.
Chatellier responded that he issued a report and there is a copy at the Town.
Recess was taken at 8:40pm
Meeting resumed at 8:55pm
Dr.
Halley provided a copy of the report that Mrs. Avanzato mentioned. This was an audit report performed for the
year ending June 30, 2001 concerning eighteen alleged fraudulent
violations. This was done for the Town
Council as a special audit and provided to the School Committee in the fall of
2001. Copies were provided to the public. (Appendix C)
Don
DeFedele introduced Walter Edge and Tom Sweeney of Bacon & Edge Consulting
and stated that he would allow 1 ˝ hours for the presentation and questions.
Walter
Edge, President of Bacon & Edge, stated that this company has worked with thirteen
communities related to school budgets.
He was asked to update his report of 1998. There were ninety-eight recommendations made
at that time and he was responsible for add-ons in purchasing, outsourcing,
elementary roof projects and the cutting of the lawn at the football field.
Summary:
Purchasing: Mr. Edge
stated that purchasing policies and procedures were inadequate as well as the
policy handbook. He gave examples in the
report of where the School Department should improve. He felt the School District and School
Committee should improve some policies and once approved, the accounting
department can improve their procedures.
Outsourcing: Mr. Edge
looked at transportation, food service, central supply and technology for
outsourcing.
Transportation: He felt that we have an opportunity in
transportation and recommended that the School Department go out to bid in this
area.
Food
Service: Mr. Edge felt this was an
excellent department, but with high labor and benefit costs, subsidies drying
up and competition with school vending machines, there will be a $150,000 loss
this year. He recommended that this
should be outsourced but with the School Department still maintaining control.
Central
Supply: Mr. Edge felt there is not a
perpetual inventory. Reordering is done
annually which can result in overstocking and felt this could be tightened up.
Technology: Mr. Edge stated that in the last report, he
recommended outsourcing. He now feels
that North Kingstown has one of the best, if not the best, technology
departments in Rhode Island. He feels
this is extremely well run and does not recommend outsourcing.
Roofs: Mr. Edge felt
that mistakes and poor decisions were made on this project. He stated that there were quotes in the
newspapers that he said “illegal and unethical”. That quote was correct but he stated that
“the questions were asked of me, by me, and I was answering my own questions”. He stated that he should not be giving a
legal opinion, or opinion on ethics, but he found nothing illegal in his
experience. People do things for
expediency and he saw nothing that upset him about the roof transactions. There
were questions about why Wayne Roofing wasn’t aware of how much asbestos was on
the roof when twenty days before, Vortex gave a report that said there was more
asbestos on the roof. So things like
that were confusing. When the contract was signed, Public Works, Director of
Administrative Services of the School Department
and Wayne Roofing knew there would be a change order for the asbestos. That should have just been noted on the
contract.
Grass
Contract: Mr. Edge explained that this in not just a
grass cutting contract. He felt that the
expert in turf should not be doing other jobs such as maintenance. In-house staff could do those jobs. He recommended breaking out the contract.
Tom
Sweeney: When the report was done in
1998, they “went after” the Special Education area. Now, when he visits other districts, Mr.
Sweeney suggests that they look at North Kingstown because “they have it
together”. There is only a question if
Dr. McGregor is the Assistant Superintendent, or the Director of Special Ed,
but this is moot at this point.
Mr.
Sweeney praised the technology department as outstanding. He stated that we have given people great
tools and now they need to be able to use it.
Funding was taken away from technology and he doesn’t recommend that
this should happen.
Mr.
Sweeney noted that many previous recommendations had been implemented and the School
Department had done a good job. Some recommendations
were budget specific to 97-98 and now not valid.
Mr.
Sweeney felt that SmART was a great program and congratulated the School Department
for having it. He stated that a lot of
districts would like to have it, but it was expensive. The staff doesn’t feel it is as effective as
it should be because funding was cut.
Mr. Sweeney suggested to either fully fund the program, which they
recommended because it is an excellent program, or find other ways of using
these discretionary dollars.
The
biggest problem found was that there are not sufficient School Committee
policies. There are voids and people
have to make decisions in the absence of policy. Progress has been made with regard to
policies, but there is still work to do.
Policies are the School Committee’s responsibilities and procedures are
the administration’s responsibility. The
School Committee creates the policy and administration says how to implement
the operating procedures.
Questions
and Answers:
1. Dr. Halley asked if they acknowledge that the
roof projects were Town contracts. They
were not school contracts. The Town gave
the specifications and managed the contracts, and the School Committee
approved.
Mr.
Edge agreed that the Town had the expertise to write detailed descriptions and engineers
to evaluate them. They took the lead in
reviewing proposals. The School
Committee approved and the DAS was involved in making sure bills were paid
properly.
Dr.
Halley stated that the Town put out the contract, wrote the specifications,
advertised for the bid, generally doing things expected of a contractor. The Town’s rules and policies were used, not
the schools. In terms of the School Department
developing policies on that, he didn’t know if there would be any difference
whether the schools had a complete policy.
The Town’s bidding procedures were utilized for that job.
Mr.
Edge agreed that the Town’s policies and procedures were used, in part because
there were no policies that would have covered or handled this
transaction. He believed that the point
that since the Town is doing the work, they use their policies is probably
correct. If there were policies in the
schools, they would have only been reviewed to see if they were in compliance
with the Town. They tend to follow their
own rules.
Dr.
Halley noted that having policies and procedures in that instance would not
have made a difference in terms of mistakes made or problems that existed. All contractors knew the procedures were
based on Town policy and all contractors bid on the same things and on the same
amendments. It wasn’t really three
people in the room making decisions. All
contractors bid on Amendment 4 which was the asbestos problem and it was up to
each contractor to determine the extent of the problem.
Mr.
Edge stated that he was referring to the three people in the room when the
contract was signed. If school policy
was in effect, it would have given guidance to the DAS as to what to do when
certain things happened. He believes
that the policies would have had to work together.
2. Don DeFedele stated that we have 131
policies. Since the last report,
seventeen policies are new and thirty-three have been updated. He asked what would be recommended to be the
most expedient manner to update policies – hiring someone to work with the
sub-committee, or go through the entire manual and revamp.
Mr.
Sweeney replied that they are a company that does that work. He suggested setting up a process that covers
section by section and having members work with a third party.
Mr.
DeFedele stated that we presently have a consultant.
Mr.
Sweeney suggested setting up a timetable, such as nine months to a year, to
complete the work. It is a lot of work
and working by computer improves the process.
3. Denise Coppa stated that we already have the
process that was recommended by Mr. Sweeney.
Our consultant has reviewed all the outdated policies. When policies are put on the agenda for
approval, the School Committee never gets to them. Hours are spent going over things that don’t
need to be talked about. She suggested
putting the conduct of School Committee meetings in the report. The Committee needs to abide by ground rules,
etc. What has to be fixed has to do with
the conduct at School Committee meetings because the process that is
recommended is what we do now.
4. Renee Cockerill asked if we need a forensic
audit and how much it would cost.
Mr.
Edge replied “No, and $100,000-$200,000 based on the scope of the issues”.
A forensic
audit is to look at every transaction within the range of scope of what you
want to look at. For instance, it might
take $20,000 to just look at the roofing project. It could take $10,000 to look at the grass
cutting.
Mr.
Edge stated that the scope of a forensic audit is total detail. It is a 100% review of every transaction. If you reviewed every purchase order over the
last five years, it could cost $250,000 just for that.
Mrs.
Cockerill asked if anything raised any red flags.
Mr.
Edge stated that a number of things went wrong.
Some bad decisions were made and some were made on the part of the Town,
who was running a majority of the program.
There is a lack of policies which are needed to give guidance.
5. Barry Martasian agreed that we have issues
with policies and agreed with Dr. Coppa on how we behave at School Committee
meetings. He tried to find policies on
negotiations and found that most School Committees do not have a policy. Mr. Martasian asked for a recommendation on
what we need for negotiations.
Mr.
Sweeney suggested the NSBA handbook which gives samples of policies.
6. Bill
Mudge felt that tonight’s meeting was designed to cut the flow of ideas. He stated that the School Committee wasn’t
asked to participate in providing input into this audit. He asked the Town Council to look at purchase
orders that were cancelled on the last day of the fiscal year. He is appalled at the Town Council that they
didn’t do an audit He is appalled that
Dr. Halley suggests that the Town was responsible for the roof contracts and
blamed the Town for the illegal award of this contract. His reports demand a forensic audit. The school department was responsible for the
contract. Mr. Quinn was the authorized
agent for this Town and he had the responsibility for the implementation of the
entire contract. It wasn’t the
Town. He had the ultimate responsibility
to answer for this contract and ensure that everything was complied with. He lied to the School Committee.
Don
DeFedele stated that there was no basis for that statement in fact, and asked
Mr. Mudge to stop his accusations.
Mr.
Mudge stated that Mr. Quinn lied to the School Committee and it is on record. He asked Mr. Edge if he had known that Mr.
Quinn lied to the Committee about change orders, he might have changed a little
bit of his assessment, but he wasn’t told, was he? Mr. Mudge stated that Mr. Edge wasn’t told
that Mr. Quinn lied to the School Committee and said that there were no change
orders in November, 2003.
Recess
was taken at 9:45pm
Meeting
resumed at 9:50pm
Mr.
DeFedele asked Mr. Mudge to state a question.
Mr.
Mudge asked if Mr. Edge was aware that Mr. Quinn signed the contract.
Mr.
Edge: yes.
Mr.
Mudge stated that it was a School Committee function and we took
responsibility. He asked if Mr. Edge was
aware that when the contract was issued, that the cost of asbestos was not
added.
Mr.
Edge: yes.
Mr.
Mudge asked if Mr. Edge was aware that the Densdeck was removed from the
contract at the time the contract was written.
Mr.
Edge stated that he was not aware that the Densdeck was removed at the signing
of the contract, but he was aware that there was a comment by the architect that
the Densdeck was not needed in order to get the warranty on the roof, therefore
that money could be used to offset the additional cost of the asbestos.
Mr.
Mudge asked if the Densdeck was removed.
Mr.
Edge stated yes, and it was part of the change.
7. Melvoid Benson asked if it made any difference
in regard to his recommendations that we are now K-3 and 4-5 schools.
Mr.
Sweeney replied that they had recommended that we to go to pairing of schools
in 1998.
Mrs.
Benson asked about the recommendation for itinerant teachers.
Mr.
Sweeney noted that because of pairing we now use the itinerant staff more
efficiently and they recommend
no
new changes.
Mrs.
Benson asked how to prioritize policies.
Mr.
Sweeney stated that we have a consultant and should ask him to prioritize and
suggested holding a School Committee meeting once a month to do nothing but
approve policies.
8. Dr. Halley stated that the School Department
isn’t staffed to do contracts such as roofing.
One purchasing agent is fine for normal items, but when contracts are
complicated, we do not have the proper staff.
Mr.
Edge replied that this is correct.
Dr.
Halley asked if we would need additional staff.
Mr.
Edge replied that when schools don’t have the expertise, someone in the
industry can be called in to help.
Guidelines are needed to be given to the staff and policy would say
that.
9. Don DeFedele stated that some previous School
Committees had reversed some decisions that were made on recommendations, such
as cutting of technology and reinstating librarians, so the recommendations are
now still back to 1998. The School
Committee is the policy makers and needs to re-focus on what our job is. The Superintendent and School Department are
the experts and we need to rely on them.
Some School Committee members believe they could run the School
Department, but we should not micromanage.
We should only do policy.
Mr.
Sweeney stated that this is correct.
Once policies are in place, there is no need for the School Committee to
micromanage and there won’t be a conflict with the School Department.
10. Denise Coppa stated that the policy
consultant has eighty policies ready for review by the School Committee but
they can’t get on the agenda because there is an obstructionist on the School
Committee.
11. Renee Cockerill asked why the SmART program
is recommended.
Mr.
Sweeney explained that it integrates the curriculum and makes teachers work
together. He stated that they think it
is doing tremendous things for the School Department.
Mr.
Edge stated that the school has a limited budget and has to be used in the best
way for the students. This program is
excellent from an educational view, but expensive. If you keep it, you need to cut other things
and
re-direct
dollars to fund it.
12. Barry Martasian commented that he saw the
work that was needed on policies.
13. Bill Mudge stated that policy update was
recommended years ago.
Mr.
Edge stated that work was done on policies, but there is still more work
needed.
Mr.
Mudge asked if Mr. Edge were aware that in the roof contract there was work
done at Davisville Elementary within the school to put in ceilings for $10,000.
Mr.
Edge explained that he was made aware that there was damage inside the school that
needed to be addressed, but no dollar amount was listed.
Mr.
Mudge stated that it was not in the contract or change order and asked if Mr.
Edge was told that we substituted a membrane for the roof.
Mr.
Edge remembered the membrane and that Public Works Director decided that the
change would not affect the roofing project.
Mr.
Mudge asked who wrote the bid specifications.
Mr.
Edge replied that the Town engineers wrote it.
Mr.
Mudge asked if Mr. Edge was aware that there was assistance from a contractor
in writing the bid.
Mr.
Edge was aware of that.
Mr.
Mudge asked if Mr. Edge was aware that during the bid process, Wayne Roofing
stated that the Densdeck was not required.
Mr.
Edge explained that the Densdeck information came from the architect who stated
that it was not needed for the warranty on the roof.
Mr.
Mudge stated that he is suspicious of bid rigging by the contractor who helped with
the roof bid.
Mr.
Edge replied that everyone was aware that the Densdeck was not applied, so that
was eliminated as an issue.
Mr.
DeFedele asked Mr. Mudge to finish his questions.
Mr.
Mudge commented to Mr. DeFedele that at the Town Council meeting “your cohort,
Mr. Miccolis, wouldn’t allow me to join in the conversation…”
Don
DeFedele ordered Mr. Mudge to stop his comments, as they were not appropriate.
Mr.
Mudge accused Mr. DeFedele of covering up.
Mr.
DeFedele again ordered Mr. Mudge to stop his accusations.
Mr.
Mudge apologized to Mr. Edge for this whole thing as it was done tonight.
Mr.
Edge asked if Mr. Mudge was apologizing for his own pontification. He stated that he had listened to him all
night go on about some things that are not even in the report.
Mr.
Mudge stated he believes there was attempted bid rigging of the contract and
Mr. Edge wasn’t given all information.
He stated Mr. Edge wasn’t aware the Mr. Quinn told the School Committee
that there was no change order.
Mr.
Edge disagreed with Mr. Mudge’s conclusions.
He stated that he was made aware of significant information. He was aware that Mr. Mudge asked the
question about change orders two weeks before and was told there wasn’t a
change order. At that time there wasn’t,
but he could have said we will be dong one in the next couple of days.
Mr.
Edge stated that he also knew about the glue and he knew about most of the
things that were said, and it doesn’t change his opinion. The job was done by the low bidder and below
cost and the roofs are working now.
Mr.
Mudge asked why we didn’t ask the second lowest bidder to bid on the asbestos
because the first low bidder didn’t comply with the specifications.
Mr.
Edge insisted that he did comply.
Mr.
DeFedele ended this line of questioning.
14. Melvoid Benson asked why it was recommended
that transportation not be outsourced in the last report.
Mr.
Edge explained that there was a savings of $200,000 and the recommendation was
to keep it. Now things have changed with
the cost of fuel, so it is recommended to go out to bid.
15. Don DeFedele read from the B & E
report: “The above summary of events does
not reflect the politics that has gone on for the last two years relating to
this issue. Further, the comments above
do not address the real problems faced by the elementary school students and
staff as a result of the project continuing into November. Many things
went
wrong on this contract, but the construction, once it got started, was
completed in two months, by the low bidder, under budget, and the roofs are
apparently fixed.
B
& E believes that the Town and School employees who were part of this
contract acted in the best interest of the School and Town and completed their
assignments to the best of their abilities throughout the contract. Everyone makes mistakes and poor decisions at
times. But B & E believes that the
mistakes on the roofing contract were honest mistakes.”
Public
Comment:
William
Gilbert: Thanked auditors, Town Council
and the School Committee. We are
criticizing the lack of policies because there were two or three policy per
year. We’ve been on notice for a long
time with these issues regarding policies.
The School Committee blames each other why there are not more
policies. One policy that is missing is
regarding the Booster funds that are coming in and not accounted for.
Mr.
DeFedele stated that this is not accurate, that it was not said that the
Booster funds were not accounted for.
Mr.
Gilbert stated that we need a policy for all funds such as yearbook, and
principal’s discretionary funds. We want
to fund the schools properly but audit after audit state the policies are not
done. This is why the Town has a problem
with funding. We don’t trust that the
money goes where it should go.
The
roofing contract was given to the low bidder but how do we know if it was given
to the lowest bidder if the contract was flawed from the go. We knew the contract would be changed and
there were multiple mistakes made.
Why
didn’t we allow the Town to do the field contract? We allow them to do a roof contract, but not
the fields? It doesn’t make sense. The credibility is not there.
Over
a year ago I wrote a letter to the School Committee asking you to give an
accounting of the yearbook money and never got an answer.
Barry
Martasian stated that he asked Mr. Gilbert three times to provide information
and he never did. He asked Mr. Foley for
the same thing and got it in two days.
Mr.
Gilbert stated that he gave the School Committee everything he had. This has never been on the agenda, he doesn’t
have the information requested, and there is still no policy.
Mr.
Martasian stated that Mr. Gilbert has to get his facts straight and be
honest. He asked Mr. Gilbert not to call
the School Committee liars if he didn’t do his responsibility as well.
Mr.
Gilbert replied that he gave them everything and asked for it to be put on the
agenda. He asked Mr. Foley and never got
an answer. Bill Mudge stated that he
asked and never received information either.
Mr.
Gilbert requested that Mr. Martasian forward information and will put it in
writing.
Doug
Roth asked Tom Sweeney about the recommendation concerning the reconfiguration
of schools. It was based on an
efficiency model, but asked if he considered the other factors such as
community preference.
Mr.
Sweeney stated that the effective use of staff is an important piece. The advantage to the curriculum with pairing
is that there is a sufficient number of teachers in each grade and more
integration with teachers and students
This is a model that is well appreciated throughout the country. We looked at financial aspects and staffing
in 1998 and pairing made sense. This
decision wasn’t rushed. We recommended
pairing in 1998 and it wasn’t implemented until 2006. We stay with the recommendation based on good
educational theory.
Mr.
Roth said that 60% of schools around the country are K-5 or K-6.
Mr.
Sweeny stated that they are impressed with how this district is operating on a
pairing basis.
Linda
Avanzato thanked the auditors and felt that the roofs impacted kids. There might be a lack of policy, but the
School Committee wasn’t in charge of the roofs, the Town and Joe Quinn were in
charge. Lack of policy will not address
when laws and ethics are disregarded.
The contract was also disregarded.
The contract states that no changes will be made in materials without
prior change orders. People working with
contracts should have known better. You
don’t switch materials without prior orders.
When Mr. Mudge asked at a School Committee meeting, he said have there
been any changes made to the roofs, have there been materials changed and they
said no. But that’s not the case, it had
been done already.
Mistakes
happen but Hamilton is a different story.
This is the same contractor who switched materials. How could two separate contracts have a
problem? This seems to be a pattern and shouldn’t be ignored. If the
guy would have bid on the whole amount of asbestos, he would have lost the
contract by $2,000. So he got the
contract by under bidding asbestos.
How
much is owed back for the Densdeck not used?
Other contractors told myself
and others that we would have been owed a substantial amount of money had we
been given what was owed on the Densdeck.
That needs to be looked at.
You
said that the contract was probably illegal and unethical. We want to look at where the money is going.
Mr.
Edge replied that points made are good ones.
He was unable to determine what the contractor bid on Densdeck. The only number you would back out of his
contract is what he bid – not what some other contractor who bid
$200,000
more bid on the contract. Everyone has
the right to their opinion, but he was misquoted. He never said this was illegal or immoral –
that’s wrong.
Chris
Prata: The exact quote was “Do you think
this is illegal, immoral or unethical?
Was it legal, probably not. Was
it ethical, probably not.”
The
value of the Densdeck the Town would have received back is hard to
determine. It is not specified in the
contract. There was about 32,000 square
feet of roofs repaired. Densdeck is
about $2.00 per foot, plus labor and adhesive.
We were credited $7,000 for asbestos but there might be $50,000-$60,000
missing that we can’t account for. The
auditor said people did their best.
Maybe we need people who can do better best efforts. There are numerous contracts that keep
appearing with problems.
The
Town came in with a lower bid for the fields that would save $35,000. Lack of policies and procedures cause lack of
confidence and are costing us dearly.
Sharon
Schubert: For the last three years, I
have been inquiring to the state about having a full time Special Ed
Director. You commented that it is moot at
this point. Why is this a moot question?
Mr.
Sweeney replied that it is the state’s responsibility to take action and they
never did anything. We recommended that according
to the state regulations there has to be a defined, full time special ed
director and you are not in tune with the state regs in our opinion. Dr. Halley says that there is a full time special
ed director with other duties. He is a
special ed director but also does other things.
I have had a special ed director who worked for me and had other
duties. It’s semantics. We made the point because be have to, but it
doesn’t mean an awful lot.
Dr.
Halley noted that Mr. Sweeney stated that our Special Ed program is an
excellent program.
Mr.
Sweeney replied that it is.
Mrs.
Schubert asked if the policy manual included Special Ed policy.
Mr.
Sweeney replied that the policy on Special Ed was approved in 1977-78. Special Ed has come a long way and the policy
needs an update.
Dr.
Coppa stated that federal law supersedes policy and we are following federal
law.
Dr.
Halley agreed and stated that our procedures are in tune and we are following
the law.
Mr.
Sweeney agreed and stated that there was no problem with what we are doing in
special education. They were very much
impressed with special ed. It ‘s just
that the School Committee is behind in what is happening in the schools with
respect to special ed.
Don
DeFedele thanked the auditors and stated that we take the recommendations seriously. We will do our jobs.
II.
Routine Items
A. Correspondence – none discussed.
B. Disclosure of Executive Session Votes – none
disclosed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approved
items on the consent agenda
are marked with * on a
motion by Denise Coppa/Renee Cockerill with a vote of 5 to 0 with Bill Mudge
voting no.
Approved items that were exempted or amended within the consent agenda are marked with ** as
indicated immediately following the item.
Withdrawn or Tabled Items
from the consent agenda are marked with *** as indicated immediately following
the item.
C. Home
Schooling Requests – none submitted.
D. Approval
of Minutes of Prior Meetings:
1 May 24, 2006 Business Meeting*
E. Bids and
Awards:
1. Window and door replacement at WMS, DE, FC,
FP*
F. Personnel
Items:
1.
Appointment, Non-Certificated Staff –
budgeted
a)
Mark Dawson, 3rd
Shift Custodian at the North Kingstown High School, 8 hours per day, 5 days a
week for a total of 40 hours per week, Step 1 @ $12.19 per hour plus an hourly
stipend of $.20 for a total hourly rate of $12.39, effective June 5, 2006.*
b)
Jose Concepcion,
Weekend Custodian @ the North Kingstown High School, Saturday and Sundays for a
total of 20 hours plus 2nd Shift Custodian at Stony Lane Elementary
School, 4 hours per day, 5 days a week for a total of 20 hours, Step 1 @ $12.19
per hour, effective June 2, 2006.*
2.
Appointment, Ramp
Up Program Teacher, Certificated – Budgeted through Fishing Cove School Funds
a)
Jennifer Vadnais,
Ramp Up Program Teacher at Fishing Cove, 2.5 hours per day, salary $3,500.*
3.
Request for
Approval of Unpaid Leave of Absence – Certificated Staff:
a)
Patrissa Luzzi,
1.0 FTE Language Arts Teacher at the North Kingstown High School for the
2006/2007 school year.*
4.
Request for
Approval of Unpaid Parental Leave of Absence-Certificated Staff:
a)
Tara George, 1.0 FTE Special Education Teacher at
Quidnessett Elementary School, from May 29, 2006 through the remainder of the
2005/2006 school year.*
b)
Barbara-Jean
Medeiros-Mancini, 1.0 FTE Dance/Drama Teacher @ Forest Park Elementary Teacher
from June 6, 2006 through the remainder of the 2005/2006 school year.*
5.
Resignation,
Non-Certificated Staff:
a)
Joao Fidago, 3rd
Shift Custodian at the North Kingstown High School, effective June 1, 2006.*
6.
Retirement,
Certificated Staff:
a)
Evelyn Bradshaw,
1.0 FTE Guidance Counselor at the North Kingstown High School, effective at the
end of the 2005/2006 school year.*
G. Textbook Adoption for Middle School
Foreign Language: *
1.
Invitation to Languages
2.
Exploring Spanish, French & German
H. Elementary
Social Studies Curriculum and Materials*
I. Middle
School and High School Math Curriculum and Materials –*** withdrawn
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
Motion
was made by Denise Coppa to adjourn after comments. Seconded by Renee Cockerill.
Vote: 4 to 0 to approve. Bill Mudge voting no; Melvoid Benson did not
vote.
III. Unfinished Business – NO DISCUSSION OR ACTION TAKEN
(For Discussion and Possible Action)
A. Superintendent’s
Contract – Restructuring of Compensation Package
B. 2006-2007
School Budget
C. Modernization
of Wickford Middle School/Davisville Elementary School
D. School
Start Times
E. Bond
Issue Update
F. Discussion of Issues Pertaining to the Physical
Limitations of WMS as Related to Current Middle School Programs
G. 2005-2006
School Budget
H. 2005-2006
School Committee Goals and Objectives
IV. New Business – NO DISCUSSION OR ACTION TAKEN
(For Discussion and Possible Action)
A.
New
Policy #GBEB – Standards of Employee Conduct
B.
Strategic
Plan
C.
Southern
RI Legislative Coalition
D.
Building
Feasibility Study of Wickford Elementary School by RGB
E.
Return
of Wickford Elementary School to the Town of NK
F.
Governing
Style Policy/Committee Self-Assessment Policy
G.
Consider
Letter to Town Regarding High School Band Room Repair
H.
Consider
School Committee Policies on Website
I.
Legal
Representation at School Committee Meetings and Contract Between Law
Firm/School Department
J.
Charter
Resolution to Change Dates of Public Budget Hearings
K.
Possible
Disciplinary Action Regarding a School Committee Member
V. Reports – NO DISCUSSION OR ACTION TAKEN
(For
Discussion and Possible Action)
A. Special Reports
B. Standing/Sub Committee Reports
C. Ad hoc Committee Reports
Committee
Member/Citizen’s Comments:
Mr. Tetherington noted that the report document on the
eighteen items stated that it was not an audit.
Don DeFedele stated
that in reality that is the company’s disclosure statement that is standard
practice and he has seen this on
state audits before.
Mr. Tetherington disagreed.
Mr. Tetherington asked if the Superintendent’s
contract has been reviewed by legal counsel.
Don DeFedele replied that our attorney David Reilly
was present.
Mr. Tetherington said he had never seen terms along
this line where if someone is removed for cause, financial results are better.
Dr. Halley stated that was not correct.
Mr. Tetherington said all pay, benefits and severance
would be received.
Mr. DeFedele noted
that there has been no discussion in public yet. It was presented in executive session and it
will be done in
public.
Jack
Bartholet, a 6th grader at DMS, stated that he appreciated the work
of the School Committee and their efforts were not
always
appreciated. He was upset at the possible
disciplinary actions against Mr. Mudge.
He stated that it seems Mr. Mudge
wants people
to see his point of view. There could also be complaints filed against all of
the Committee. There are examples of
rule
breaking among most of the Committee. This
is a distraction from the real issues and he felt that it is prejudiced against
Mr.
Mudge. Jack thanked the Committee, stated he knew
this was a strenuous job, but essential to the community and efforts are
appreciated.
VII.
Meeting adjourned at 11:10pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
_______________________________________
Karen
A. Nutini
Administrative Assistant
to
the Superintendent/School Committee