DID SERESC RECEIVE TRAINING CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF SCHOOL BOARD POLICY?
Posted August 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Girard at Large received information indicating that one of the bidders for the consulting contract to evaluate Mountain View Middle School was interacting with administrators at the school. Given that they have yet to award the contract, and we contend they are acting outside the legal process to solicit services using tax payer dollars (see earlier Oh My BLOG posts below), we demanded to know whether or not there was any connection. Below is the email exchange I’ve had with Superintendent Stacy Buckley. NOTE WELL that she has yet to comply with the request made in our last email.
[mailto: rich@girardatlarge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Stacy Buckley
Subject: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
Superintendent Buckley.
It has come to my attention that a SERESC Associate working on the PBIS Committee for MVMS named Dr. Howard Muscott, has already met all the administrators at the middle school and worked with them.
If this is true, under RSA 91-A, I am requesting to know with whom he met, when he met with them, and the issues discussed. Further, if there is any written correspondence between you and this individual or any other party at SERESC relative to the pending contract award for consulting services at MVMS, kindly forward that material. This includes any email or “snail” mail.
This request is justified and appropriate for several reasons.
1) Because you provided the names and fees of those consulting companies you contacted to provide services at MVMS to the school board in public, there is no longer a presumption of confidentiality.
2) As no RFP was authorized, approved or issued, knowing who has been contacted, what has been discussed, what has been submitted, and who has continued to interact with the district is necessary to ensure the process, such as it exists, is accountable to public scrutiny.
3) Where there is no criterion, public or otherwise, for awarding a consulting contract, any interaction with any potential service provider must be known to ensure there’s no favoritism at work.
If there have been other similar contacts with other potential service providers, that information is also requested.
Thank you,
RH Girard
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From: “Stacy Buckley”
Date: Wed, August 01, 2012 8:43 am
To:
Rich,
This was a staff training and does not fall under 91-A.
Stacy Buckley
From: rich@girardatlarge.com [mailto: rich@girardatlarge.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 9:09 AM
To: Stacy Buckley
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
Yes, it does, unless the training has to do with the exception highlighted below. It seems to me that the details about who was trained, what they were trained on, and how the trainers were chosen is absolutely a matter of public record.
91-A:5 Exemptions.
The records of the following bodies are exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
I. Grand and petit juries.
II. Parole and pardon boards.
III. Personal school records of pupils.
IV. Records pertaining to internal personnel practices; confidential, commercial, or financial information; test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examinations; and personnel, medical, welfare, library user, videotape sale or rental, and other files whose disclosure would constitute invasion of privacy. Without otherwise compromising the confidentiality of the files, nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a body or agency from releasing information relative to health or safety from investigative files on a limited basis to persons whose health or safety may be affected.
V. Teacher certification records, both hard copies and computer files, in the department of education, provided that the department shall make available teacher certification status information.
VI. Records pertaining to matters relating to the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, including training to carry out such functions, developed by local or state safety officials that are directly intended to thwart a deliberate act that is intended to result in widespread or severe damage to property or widespread injury or loss of life.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From: “Stacy Buckley” < sbuckley@goffstown.k12.nh.us>
Date: Wed, August 01, 2012 9:24 am
To: < rich@girardatlarge.com>
Rich,
It was a staff training and does not fall under the definition of a “public body” for which 91-A refers.
Stacy
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From:
Date: Wed, August 01, 2012 11:33 am
To: “Stacy Buckley”
Stacy,
Then kindly provide all materials, including agendas and school board minutes, showing where the RFP was requested by the administration, authorized by the board and issued, the RFP, the list of bidders with their proposals that answered the RFP and the amount of money spent on the training.
Certainly, RFPs and payment of public funds are subject to Right to Know, aren’t they?
Rich
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From: “Stacy Buckley”
Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:10 pm
To:
Rich,
This does not reach the level as outlined in our policy to warrant an RFP. The board does not approve or authorize professional development/staff training so this item was not a board agenda.
Stacy
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From:
Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:36 pm
To: “Stacy Buckley”
Stacy,
I’m assuming there was an invoice for services rendered and a record of payment? That is all public record, has clearly been asked for and is awaited. While you’re at it, I’d appreciate it if you’d send the policy these services were solicited under.
Thank you.
Rich
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From: “Stacy Buckley”
Date: Wed, August 08, 2012 11:33 am
To:
Rich,
All of the Goffstown Policies can be found on our website. SAU #19 does not have an invoice for this training. It was done in conjunction with the Hampton School District through a grant from the NH Department of Education. The Hampton School District is the fiscal agent for the grant. You would need to request such information from them.
Stacy
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From:
Date: Wed, August 08, 2012 5:44 pm
To: “Stacy Buckley”
Stacy,
How can it be that this training didn’t reach the threshold your policies require before issuing an RFP and also be funded by a grant received by another school district? An explanation is requested.
Further, since I have no idea which specific policy your referencing, and since the RTK law requires you to provide what you’ve referenced upon request, I ask, once again, that you provide me with the specific policy you cited.
Regards,
Rich
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: [FWD: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.]
From:
Date: Fri, August 10, 2012 7:36 am
To: “Stacy Buckley”
Stacy,
In addition to the below, be advised that RTK requires you to provide any requested information upon request if readily available. Keeping that in mind, in addition to whichever policy you’re referring to, please provide the grant details from Hampton.
Right to Know is not satisfied by causing those who make inquiries to engage in “Where’s Waldo” searches. It requires the information be directly provided.
Thank you.
Rich
PS: The explanation of how we get from not rising to the threshold for an RFP to being a grant funded activity in conjunction with another school district. Why does the story change with every inquiry and back and forth?
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From: “Stacy Buckley”
Date: Mon, August 13, 2012 11:35 am
To:
Rich,
The policy on bidding can be found at the following link from our website:
http://goffstown.k12.nh.us/common/policies/DJE%20-%20Bidding%20Requirements.pdf
If you would prefer, I would be more than happy to print out a copy for you and make it available for pick up at our SAU office.
Stacy
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From:
Date: Mon, August 13, 2012 12:52 pm
To: “Stacy Buckley”
No need to provide printed copy. The link sufficies since you know what policy you’re referencing and I don’t.
I note that you’ve chosen not to address my question regarding how this training activity went from being below the threshold requiring an RFP to a joint activity with the Hampton School District, paid for a DOE grant. I trust the requested financial data is being gathered to send to me.
Regards,
RH Girard
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From:
Date: Mon, August 13, 2012 12:57 pm
To: “Stacy Buckley”
Stacy,
Having just read this document, I’m compelled to ask why the consulting services sought for Mountain View Middle School did not go through a formal bid process. Please advise.
Thank you.
RH Girard.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From: “Stacy Buckley”
Date: Mon, August 13, 2012 1:48 pm
To:
As I stated earlier, the oversight of the grant is the responsibility of the Hampton School District. You would need to connect with them directly to request information from them.
Stacy
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: SERESC meetings…RTK Again.
From:
Date: Mon, August 13, 2012 2:12 pm
To: “Stacy Buckley”
Stacy, I don’t mean to belabor this but the RTK law requires you to provide me with the requested information, not direct me to where to get it. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that you don’t know how much of the grant funds were provided to Goffstown to engage the training. That, frankly, is absurd and I insist that you FOLLOW the law and provide the requested information. If need be, I’ll gladly send it to you for your own review; the law that is.
RH Girard
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: [FWD: 8/21/12]
From: rich@girardatlarge.com
Date: Tue, August 21, 2012 12:39 pm
To: sbuckley@goffstown.k12.nh.us
Thank you. since I’d received information asserting that you’d said no minutes would be kept because out was a retreat, I thought I’d check.
I’m still waiting for you to provided the financial information on the training at MVMS, btw. The interesting idea that you don’t know the funding details because another community handled the grant aside, I trust you realize that the law obligates you to provide the info, not send me on a search for it. It’s not like you didn’t participate on the grant.
When will this information be provided?
Rich.