MCC School Board: Procurement Reform or Jail?!

[XLFD]

It sure would be sad to see seven respectable people go to jail just because they allow school administrators to perform the duties of their jobs, and keep the public uninformed about the school district's procurements, but that's what's happening at Mason County Central (MCC) Schools.  The Ludington Torch is here in Mason County to help officials earn the faith and respect of their constituents and do the right thing which is why we went to a sparsely attended July meeting (with no 'action items' and only organizational items on their agenda) of their school board this Monday to inform them of their lack of fealty to their own policies and state law. 

XLFD, MCC Class of 82:  "I want to thank the district for sharing the agenda for this meeting on their live feed, I hope that in the future you can archive these on the school board page.  I am hopeful also that there will be more action items on your agendas, especially referring to district purchases.  Over the last couple months, the Ludington school board, which I have criticized heavily since 2020 for being unduly secretive and elitist, have openly approved purchases that would never find their way on MCC's agenda.  They purchased 100 laptops for staff for $78,000, after approval by the school board.  Their board approved furniture for the Central Business Office at a cost of $88,000.  Their board approved the purchase of middle school social studies textbooks at a cost of $53,000.  Their board approved janitorial services for the coming year, agreeing to the lowest bid of three qualified contractors.  

It's concerning for many residents of your district when they see you spend more than the statutory limit on goods or services, and they don't see you approving those goods or services at any school board meeting, as your written policies indicate that you should be doing.  I point out the previously mentioned absence of board action on a substantial contract over $700,000 for janitorial services approved administratively without any competitive bids, Travis Aultman's construction of this room totaling $92,000, approved once again administratively without bids, both purchases indicating cronyism and wasting district dollars.  I point to the recent seal coating of district parking lots that assuredly costs over $30,000 for that service and the lack of any school board approval for the improvement.  

I would like to believe that Superintendent Mount has the acumen and experience at this point in his career to make such decisions wisely and ethically, but the district's policies indicate that he cannot make those decisions outside of the eyes of the board and the public, and so this board should be making a commitment to following their own purchasing policies.

The board's policies themselves are a bit hard to navigate, but state law is very explicit in MCL 380.1274 as to what the school district's policies are as is this attorney's power point presentation:  

The most meaningful of which is that competitive bids are needed for contracts over approximately $30,000.  Aultman's employment to renovate the school board room is additionally controlled under section 1267 of the school code.  And while state law distinguishes between goods and services, federal law doesn't, and federal law respects the state's minimal purchase threshold:

Every procurement of construction, supplies, or services over $30,000 must get board approval.  The accomplished and diverse seven minds that make up the school board should know that this is the law and it makes good sense for any public corporation as a check-and-balance of their administrators by their governing board.  The Michigan School Code has rules that apply to school board members who do not want to do the duties of their jobs as delineated in section 1267, as linked to above:

One hopes that a future school board meeting will not have to happen on the third Saturday of the month during visiting hours at the Mason County Jail, but it just might happen if these good people continue to refuse doing their jobs and get 93 days in the county lock-up for violating the school code.

[Willy]

Thanks X for reminding them of their duty to the people. Must have slipped their minds. Or they could have been up to no good. Who knows? They do, of course.

[XLFD]

They will be getting an audit over past contracts during the next year, so we're hopeful that they can change their methods to match their policy.