Sunday, April 19, 2015

A message from The Taxpayer to the Press...


To: John Ramsey <jramsey@timesdispatch.com>, Jim McConnell <jmcconnell@localnewsllc.com>, Village News <news@villagepublishing.com>, Chelsea Rarrick <crarrick@wtvr.com>, rdepompa@nbc12.comCc: "Elswick, Steve" <ElswickS@chesterfield.gov>, Art Warren <warrena@chesterfield.gov>, Dorothy Jaeckle <JaeckleD@chesterfield.gov>, Jim Holland <HollandJ@chesterfield.gov>, Dan Gecker <geckerd@chesterfield.gov>


Press,


Per your articles and stories regarding Chesterfield County. 


What has happened to critical thinking in this county and in the Press?  It looks like their attempts to shut you down is working.


First, the tax rate LEVY is composed of the tax rate and the tax base. The county RAISED both! It is not my opinion, as the notice required by our State Constitution requires the public be notified when a municipality receives more than what the tax increase implied, as happened the year before. The 1 cent (last year) increase raised more than the $3.2 million it was supposed to, in fact it raised $18 million (all per county data on its website). 


Therefore, the tax rate was automatically lowered to $0.94 and the BoS had to have a public meeting to RAISE it 2 cents. Its not really the same rate.  If you don't believe me, read the notice. So again, the county raised both the tax rate and the assessed values (not market) and raised YOUR taxes (the total tax LEVY). Its all right there on the LEGAL NOTICE.

This is EXACTLY why the VA code requires this, to avoid these shenanigans!!! 


If you can’t figure that out, look at the chart (all county data) and tell me why it generates more tax revenue above the 2015 $0.98 plan soundly rejected last year.



Why don’t you all post the notice and its true language and this chart that proves the 2016 $0.96 budget and levy generates more money, every year for 5 years, than the 2015 $0.98 plan soundly REJECTED last year.


The only way that can happen is to raise the RATE and the assessment.  Ask the BoS members like Elswick, Warren, Jaeckle if they raised taxes.  Mr. Holland and Mr. Gecker already know that answer.  They raised spending too, a lot.  And, they gave CCPS more money than what Newsome asked for and more than the memorandum of understanding they entered into last year.  


All of that with SOLs flat to down, title one schools way up, non-accredited schools rising in number exponentially, and teacher fatigue at an all time high.  In fact, the greatest cheerleaders of Newsome is Holland and Wyman. It’s interesting to note that the Dale district’s high schools are both not fully accredited. Wow!  But hey, the BoS is going to monitor the CCPS progress from here on out do to all the era money they gave.  

Great!
Does the plan seem fair and balanced to you as Mr. Elswick stated?  I am sure it does to CCPS and other bureaucrats.  Oh yes, and the 5 year plan concept is nothing new.  Its been their for years as projections out 4-5 years for well over a decade.  Just go look at past budgets, again all on the county website.  Mr. Gecker is stretching the truth o meter here as its an election year!
That is why Jim Holland motioned so quickly before Mr. Carmody finished his introduction on this massive tax increase!


Well done Mr. Holland, well done indeed.  Checkmate you sly dog!
With kindest regards, I am, 
The Taxpayer

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Do you know that Chesterfield County is using corrupt, inaccurate numbers for its budget talks?


Date: April 14, 2015 at 3:34:18 AM EDT


Steve,

1.  The e-mails in response to my question to the school division last week regarding the discrepancies between their "CCPS adopted Budget for FY2015" and the "Appropriations Resolution" passed by the Board of Supervisors last year are copied below this e-mail.  The relevant portion of their response has been inserted here for convenience.

   
       "We used a draft of the county resolution.  The county then updated that draft to reflect the correct number;  we did not, however, update our document.  We are in the process of updating the document and it will be posted tomorrow with copies being sent to the public libraries."

2.  So, CCPS set no controls and performed no verification or proofreading to be sure that they accessed the Appropriations Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors instead of a draft.  We are two and a half months away from the end of the fiscal year that budget governed, and "grandma" is the only one who noticed that not only is the narrative copied from the draft appropriations resolution wrong, the numbers for the appropriation totals and categories are wrong as well.  The "Transfer to and/or Assignment for School Capital Projects" is $1.2M higher in the CCPS adopted budget than the amount appropriated by the BoS, for example.


3. Take a look at page 107 of the CCPS Adopted Budget and the figures displayed there for the broad categories of funds for FY 2015.  They are yet another set of numbers that do not match either the numbers on page 11 of the CCPS Adopted Budget or the numbers in the Appropriations Resolution. I understand that they left off a couple of the categories for FY 2015 on that page (food service, grounds maintenance and transfer for school capital projects), but most of the other appropriation categories do not match either.  Perhaps CCPS should be asked to footnote the differences or somehow explain to the reader why those differences exist.


4.  I cannot understand how the BoS can proceed to vote on a real estate tax rate and a budget on Wednesday, April 15th, to provide millions of extra dollars to the school division when there are unanswered questions raised by the budget documents that are corrupted by these inaccuracies, as well as questions about why this year's five- year plan shows so much more money to be provided the school division than the "approved" five-year plan included in last year's budget.  The BoS has not clearly shown a "need" to raise the taxes by increasing the 94-cent levy to 96 cents.


5.  How do you know what the effect of using the wrong budget figures has been on other school division accounting issues?  If the numbers in the printed, adopted FY 15 budget are not the numbers used to populate the accounts that control the spending, why not?  How does CCPS justify not ensuring that they are using the legally appropriated amount of funds?  I consider this to be a serious failure, especially in light of other problems plaguing CCPS, such as--


     a.  all the audit findings with respect to construction management (some of the same findings appear in three audits since 2008 (actual date of audit)),  school transportation and payroll, among others;


     b.  failure to use proper processes and perform adequate analysis in the bus camera issue;


     c.  a complete fiasco surrounding the outsourcing of the custodial services, including the failure to use past performance in the evaluation factors for selecting the successful contractor (contact me if you need more information); 


     d.  the security risk associated with releasing improperly drafted solicitations and improperly marked school floor plans for the two solicitations for custodial services (pilot and current); 


     e.  failure to establish any quality control reporting procedures for use by the eight schools with outsourced custodial services;


     f.  granting of special access to GCA Services prior to soliciting offers;


     g.  paying GCA Services for more than $8800 of work not done on a fixed price contract (documentation available) and not deducting anything when work was not done;


     h.  questionable evaluation procedures that seem to result in Moseley Architects and BCWH getting most of the A/E services contracts (per August 2011 audit  Moseley was awarded 40% and BCWH 32% of the dollars and the two firms combined received 50% of the projects from FY 09 - date of audit in August 2011).  These same two firms have received four of five A/E services contracts funded by the 2013 bond referendum.  Earlier bond referenda have resulted in these same two firms receiving most of the A/E services contracts also.

     i.  nepotism which may have contributed to CCPS trying to charge me more than $1100 to get information on the failure of the wastewater treatment plant at Matoaca High School on August 1, 2013 that was not repaired until February 2015 and has cost approximately $750,000; (My challenges to charges resulted in zero payments.)


     j.  the climate of fear that exists among the staff of CCPS with respect to reporting improper actions of other staff members;


     k.  the failure to respond to allegations of falsification of personnel records of the secretary fired at Ettrick Elementary discovered after her appeal had been denied, and the failure to properly address many other problems with the principal at that school which has been in the State Improvement Program and has had oversight by the Virginia Department of Education;


     l.  the failure to produce justifications for the more than 170 vehicles that were being driven home daily (commuting vehicles) and that were identified as a problem last year;

    m. the maintenance of two separate specialty centers (International Baccalaureate) at Meadowbrook and Midlothian which are inefficient in use of teacher resources and require payment of double the fees of a single center; (The diversity statistics at these two centers should raise serious questions about the reason for these separate, inefficient facilities)

     n.  the use of differing yardsticks at some of the high schools to hide the degree of overcrowding for several years in the presence of vacant seats at nearby schools; (Look at the actual numbers for Matoaca High and Thomas Dale High and ask why that inequity has been allowed to exist; I have asked orally and in writing and have received no answer.)

     o.  the millions of dollars lost as reported in the audits because Construction Management will not set up a procedure to avoid paying sales tax;

     p.  the failure to heed the warning of the MGT of America Efficiency Review of March 16, 2010 that with respect to the supplemental retirement program, "This unfunded liability represents a significant challenge to the financial status of CCPS and options for managing this significant long-term obligation should be developed"; (Referring to the "baby boomers" reaching retirement age in the next few years, the report stated, "The increased number of participants will dramatically increase the cost of this program."  Action to close the program to new employees as of July 1, 2013 will not effectively address the identified problem.)

     q.  the general failure to understand the importance of discipline in dating documents, identifying contact persons for documents, project management, documenting spending decisions, explaining assignment of scores in evaluation matrices, using appropriate evaluation factors in selecting contractors for negotiated contracts, and the use of basic business processes; 

     r.  the continuing use of false statistics such as the 99.3% efficiency cited despite repeated, public notices that no such statistic was cited in the MGT of America Efficiency Review--not audit;
  
     s. the full court press being used on the media outlets in our area to stifle the reporting of the school division's mishaps, failures and poor performance;  (Just last week I received an e-mail from yet another local media outlet sharing that Tim Bullis had asked that if I gave that outlet anything that they were considering writing about, the editor should let Mr. Bullis see what was provided first.) 

     t.  the proliferation of programs that have not been justified and the failure to establish adequate performance measures to show that programs should have continued funding;   (This was a finding of a Curriculum Audit a few years ago and nothing much seems to have changed.)

    u.  the unjustified use of expensive outside speakers and professional development programs that teachers have decried for years and the failure to recognize the experts within the ranks of CCPS that could provide such opportunities for a much lower cost with greater acceptance;

    v.  the continued rental of venues such as the University of Richmond, even with the opening of the CTC @ Hull;

    w.  the excessive compensation of employees assigned to some positions as reported a few years ago and the continued granting of raises to those in grades 39 and above based on questionable justifications and despite the notable failures of many of those in this group to perform at acceptable levels;

    x.  the failure to provide any procurement training to Construction Management personnel and others who, together, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars with little to no understanding of proper procurement and contract administration procedures;

    y.  the failure to formally document "lessons learned" from each major A/E and construction project and use them in subsequent procurements; and

    z.  the apparent failure to establish management indicators and reports that regularly allow comprehensive assessment of the school division's performance and the failure to properly support many of the recommendations and provide essential information to the Board; (One example:  The list of those seeking approval of their participation in the SRP each year does not even contain the cost of the benefit for those people on the list, so the School Board does not even know the impact of their approval on the budget and the unfunded liability.)

6.  There are more issues, but I have given you an idea of the concerns.  As a taxpayer, I am outraged at the overwhelming evidence of the lack of competence of the school division in almost every area--construction management, budgeting, personnel, Community Relations--you name it and they have fouled it up.  You can be sure the rest of the community will be upset as well at pouring more money into giving raises and other funding to the school division with no consequences for such failures as those identified in this e-mail and the references provided. 

7.  Once again, no one has explained why the five-year plan shows increased revenues from last year to this year.  Neither has anyone combed through the budget for savings.  CCPS claims in their budget document to be using zero based budgeting.  I am not sure they understand what it is.  

8.  While teachers constantly lament many of the "professional development" activities, the proposed budget for FY 2016 shows one added position to HR - Professional Dev at $77,395 to bring the total up to 7 FTEs.  I am sure the teachers could find a better use for that money.

9.  Other items of interest in the FY 2016 proposed budget for schools: 

     a.  Student Services has added one FTE at $73,997 to bring their total to 62.

     b.  School Improvement has 8 FTEs with an average salary of $75,676.

     c.   Communities in Schools shows an addition of 7 FTEs at a cost of $371,642 with a salaries and wages supplement of $12,500 which I suspect is for a car allowance.  Total budget for this item shows zero (0) in FY 2015 and $518,561 in FY 16.

     d.  Four FTEs in the Superintendent's office are costing us $877,230 ($18,568 more than last year including a $5,000 increase for "Other Salaries").

     e.  Accounts 950 and 951 for Community Relations show a total of $1,639,717 for FY 16.   How is that amount of money justified for people who are spending at least some of their time contacting the media outlets in the area to try to shut down the first amendment rights of certain citizens--namely Rodney and me?

10.  I do not have the time tonight to continue to list reasons why it is unconscionable to tax all the real estate owners to give as much money to this school division as the BoS is proposing to do.  We citizens are questioning how the BoS has shown the "need" for the increased appropriations for the school division.  No doubt they want the money, but the "need" for it when they are operating without controls as documented above is certainly debatable.  At what point will there be any accountability?  CCPS simply did not produce a budget that matches the appropriations provided by the BoS last year.

11.  We are weary of the lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations and lack of accountability for what our local government is doing with our money.  By the way, we have not even gotten around to discussing the transfer of Deputy Circuit Court clerks back and forth contrary to the provisions of the Chesterfield County Charter and the waste of money there, including the return to a manual system that triggered all kinds of bad results that, for the most part, have been unreported to the citizens.


12.  The bottom line is that you need to delay the vote on the tax rate and the budget for two weeks so we can find out what CCPS has really done with their money this year and find out why the five-year plan is growing despite your "agreement" which was not reduced to writing in a memorandum.  If you decide to raise taxes, at least do what you obligated yourself to do last year on the record, and "give back the penny."  Also, we are calling upon you to be clear and unequivocal in making your motions.  The reduced tax levy is 94 cents.  If you "give back the penny," you are really increasing our taxes and you need to make that clear in your conversations and your motions this year. 


13. It is a tough job, but you volunteered for it.  Thank you for your service, and remember that "Consumer Survey Finds Average Family Didn't Recover Wealth Lost From 2007-2010."  See http://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-gap-between-rich-poor-americans-widened-during-recovery-1409853628.  In addition, the top percentile of Americans also increased their wealth share since 2010, corresponding to a loss in wealth for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, according to the Fed data.  See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/.

Respectfully,

Brenda Stewart
804.XXX.XX09



From: "Deborah Salyer" <deborah_salyer@ccpsnet.net>
To: "Brenda Stewart" <bl-stewart@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 3:44:15 PM
Subject: Re: Follow up to your question

Brenda, 

I have some more information for you regarding this matter.

We used a draft of the county resolution.  The county then updated that draft to reflect the correct number;  we did not, however, update our document.  We are in the process of updating the document and it will be posted tomorrow with copies being sent to the public libraries.  

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.  

Deborah

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <bl-stewart@comcast.net> wrote:

Thanks, Deborah.  Enjoy your weekend!

Brenda


From: "Deborah Salyer" <deborah_salyer@ccpsnet.net>
To: "Brenda Stewart" <bl-stewart@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:56:08 PM
Subject: Follow up to your question


Brenda, 

I know that you talked to Carol, but I wanted to respond to your question from late yesterday afternoon regarding the FY 2015 Appropriations Resolution and the total appropriations being different from what is on the county's website.  To the best of my knowledge, no changes or corrections have been done.  

Deborah

--
Deborah H. Salyer
Deputy Clerk to the School Board

804-748-1897

Friday, April 10, 2015

The Taxpayer is on the march this weekend...

Now is the time for action. The local county budget is in full swing.

The Taxpayer is opposed to the Board of Supervisors raising her real estate taxes scheduled for a vote on Wednesday April 15, 2015.

She wants to send a clear message that their Five Year Tax Increase Plan is unacceptable.

The Taxpayer supports all of the citizens' calls and emails coming to her aid.

The county and school system is not being transparent nor accountable to her.

Take part in this issue and make a difference in the outcome!

Free your wallet!
The Taxpayer



Sunday, April 5, 2015

Chesterfield Taxpayer on a rampage... Pickpockets beware!!

Spring break!! (School is still in session though if you are The Taxpayer...)

Using the Chesterfield County FY2016 Proposed Budget, the total value of real estate in Chesterfield County is projected to rise from $31.1B to $36.8B from FY15 to FY19. This represents an 18 percent increase over the five year period and is shown in BLUE. 



To maintain the total real estate tax revenue stream at FY2015 levels, one would need $298.7M per year (shown in GOLD).  Since the total value of real estate is projected to increase, state law requires the real estate rate to be revenue neutral unless action by the Board of Supervisors is taken to raise or lower the real estate tax rate.  The following rates (shown in GRAY) would be in effect with no Board action using the County’s projected increase in total real estate value:

·         FY16 $0.92 per $100 value of real estate
·         FY17 $0.88 per $100 value of real estate
·         FY18 $0.85 per $100 value of real estate
·         FY19 $0.81 per $100 value of real estate


It is also important to note that the proposed $0.98 real estate tax rate proposed last year and rejected is now within 99% to 100% of the proposed FY16 real estate revenue budget projections at a tax rate of just $0.96.  ????   Clever.


The Taxpayer's Bottomline... 

Watch your purses on April 15th when the Board of Supervisors meets to raise your taxes once again.  Purse snatchers and pickpockets walk the halls of Chesterfield County.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Chesterfield County Public Schools Flunk Construction Audits


"Collusive bidding, price fixing and bid rigging...."

This is no April Fool's....



Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Senator Steve Martin had a good trip?

What is going on at VV?  Why did they pull this story from their website?

Inquiring minds want to know...



Friday, March 20, 2015

School Board Sweeping Chesterfield's Custodians under the Rug...

Public Comment Transcript 


My name is Brenda Stewart from the Matoaca District.

This single sheet of paper labeled “cost analysis of outsourcing 28 schools” has several columns of numbers on it and apparently serves as the basis for moving forward with the request for proposal to outsource $5 million of custodial services at 28 schools.  The paper does not reveal how many custodial jobs will be eliminated; does not report what cost factors are included in or are excluded from the current cost shown.  Apparently documents with unexplained data from unknown sources pass for decision documents to support multi-million dollar contracts in CCPS.  Outsourcing by all levels of government is not a new process but is a practice that has been around for decades.  There is however a process but it has not been followed for this project.  To ignore the proper process is to be irresponsible with public funds. I could find no evidence that the multitude of questions that should have been asked before these decisions were made were ever asked or properly answered.  My research (referenced a large notebook) and my experience in contracting confirms the lack of discipline in the CCPS process.  You will likely be making a very expensive mistake to proceed without the proper examination of processes and adequate documentation to support this decision.  Important questions to be asked and fully answered:

  1. Where is the documented analysis that justifies the initial outsourcing of 8 schools?
  2. Did you examine the current operation for efficiencies before deciding to outsource? Internal management reform is one of the most efficient, cost effective solutions.
  3. Why are you moving forward now without a decision paper documenting at least the results of the pilot thus far?
  4. It appears you did not consider the in-house cost of administering this contract.  Transaction costs should not be ignored – they can be the tipping point from cost saving to a loss. Monitoring these contracts is essential.
  5. Have you looked at the extent of change in wages and benefits for the workers involved? Poverty is not cheap.
  6. Do you know where the cost savings is coming from…reduced wages and benefits or increased efficiencies?  With no documentation there is no evidence that you fully understand the economic and social impact of firing your current custodians and contracting with a huge out of state company who will siphon revenues from our local economy. Is it really necessary to transfer wealth from this community to highly paid executives with multi-million dollar compensation packages?
  7. Have you considered the risk of contracting? Low-balling in this type of contract is a real, identified risk that can result in a higher cost for lower services instead of savings.
  8. Stability in the workforce is often a problem with contracts. When and how did you consider the social good, good will, and loyalty to your veteran employees compared to the lack of properly documented, anticipated savings?  Are you really comfortable in firing your lowest paid employees in order to give raises to other employees (some which I had mentioned previously are already being paid at well-above the market)?
  9. Where is the analysis of the impact of the impact of this decision on the local economy?  Studies have found that unless there is real innovation that leads to greater efficiency or higher quality, communities will see a net negative effect on the wider social and economic levels.  The public should have been informed on the expected impact of this outsourcing decision on the workers, the community and businesses before you decided to move forward.


School leaders and the School Board should take a broad, thorough, and careful look at all anticipated benefits against the cost and potential problems identified in the literature.  From the documents I have seen, CCPS has not followed a process.  Failure is unacceptable and there is much that must be corrected before proceeding.

I am calling upon the School Board to require appropriate accountability from the Superintendent in this matter.


Prepared by:  Andy Hawkins, Assistant Superintendent of Business & Finance
Date:  March 17, 2015

Response:


During the fall and winter of 2013 the Financial Services team was assigned the task of exploring the concept of outsourcing several areas throughout the district.  They were mail services, warehouse operations, and custodial services.  As a part of exploring the possibility of outsourcing of custodial services we calculated CCPS’ current cost per square foot and we met with selected vendors and conducted research with other school divisions throughout the State/nation and searched for independent studies of this topic to determine its viability (see attached).   Once it was determined that custodial outsourcing was viable, we met with the industry leader in Virginia, GCA Services, and they visited several of our schools and submitted a estimate of the cost for their services.  The Financial Services team compared these costs to our current cost of operations.  We also met with our Facility Department management team to determine if we could restructure the department enough to provide equal or better savings to the division.  We soon realized in this evaluation, that with the School Board’s legal responsibility to the Virginia Retirement System (approximately 15% of each custodians wages must be sent to the VRS) and our commitment to the health insurance program (a very rich plan in comparison to the market place) that it was not possible to restructure the department to achieve the savings that outsourcing to a private vendor could achieve. 

The results of this operation were reported to the Superintendent and to the School Board.  The decision was made to pilot the custodial services to 8 schools for the FY15 school year, with continuous review of the results achieved to determine if a 3 year phase-in program would be appropriate.  Under the leadership of the Assistant Superintendent of Business & Finance, CCPS engaged the County Procurement Office to work with our Facilities Department to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) and submit it to the marketplace.  This was completed during the spring of 2014 and this RFP generated a response from 16 firms.  An evaluation team was established consisting of the Facilities Department Director, the Assistant Director of Custodial Services, a Custodial Services Zone Supervisor, the Cosby High School Director of Student Activities, and the Assistant Superintendent of Business & Finance.  This team independently reviewed the responses received from the RFP and ranked the vendors.  Of the 16 vendors that responded, the evaluation team interviewed the top 4 firms and then selected its top choice (GCA Services) for contract negotiation. 

After successful contract negotiation, GCA Services began their contracted services on July 11, 2014. 

Initially, GCA Services struggled to meet the deadlines of cleaning, stripping, and waxing approximately 1.0 million square feet of flooring within the time frame allowed and in conjunction with the ongoing activities at each school.  To assist with this transition, GCA Services brought in staff/equipment from throughout Virginia, Kentucky, and South Carolina to meet their deadlines, while also hiring permanent staff for these buildings.  Coordination of these efforts were daily challenges during this period of time, but as of the first day that teachers reported to work, all of the floors had been properly stripped, cleaned and waxed.  All of the classrooms were back in place and new permanent staff hired.  Through the fall of 2014 GCA Services experienced approximately a 30% turnover rate of staff as the company was refining its staff to meet the needs of CCPS.  As a result, there were occasional temporary issues with the quantity and quality of services rendered.  The Assistant Superintendent of Business & Finance, the Facilities Department Director, the Custodial Services Assistant Director, and the school Principals worked closely with GCA services to immediately correct these concerns and put procedures in place to prevent reoccurrence.  As of this date (3/17/15), it has been determined that the outsourcing of custodial services has been an overall success for CCPS and now it is embarking on the second phase of this project which will entail the outsourcing of approximately 28 schools for FY16 and the remainder in FY17.  The County Procurement Office, Facility Services Department, and the Financial Services teams have once again prepared an RFP for all schools and has submitted it to the marketplace.  The vendor proposals are due back to the County Procurement Department by the beginning of April of 2015.  These proposals will be independently evaluated by an evaluation committee and top performing vendors will be interviewed and a top firm will be selected.  It is anticipated that this firm will be selected by mid-May for contract initiation on July 1, 2015.  Once these results are known, the School Board will be notified of the results.  


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Carol Timpano wrote:

Andy,

I have attached a transcript of Mrs. Stewart's comments and questions from the last school board meeting. I feel you already have most of the answers to this already so can you provide these so that we can try to close the loop with her? I appreciate your help with this.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

There have been other questions raise by Ms. Stewart and Rodney Martin during the budget community meetings that I would like to address:


Q: Have you looked at the extent of change in wages and benefits for the workers involved? Poverty is not cheap.
Q: Do you know where the cost savings is coming from…reduced wages and benefits or increased efficiencies?  With no documentation there is no evidence that you fully understand the economic and social impact of firing your current custodians and contracting with a huge out of state company who will siphon revenues from our local economy. 
Q: Is it really necessary to transfer wealth from this community to highly paid executives with multi-million dollar compensation packages?  Stability in the workforce is often a problem with contracts. 
Q: When and how did you consider the social good, good will, and loyalty to your veteran employees compared to the lack of properly documented, anticipated savings?  
Q: Are you really comfortable in firing your lowest paid employees in order to give raises to other employees (some which I had mentioned previously are already being paid at well-above the market)? 
Q: Where is the analysis of the impact of the impact of this decision on the local economy?  Studies have found that unless there is real innovation that leads to greater efficiency or higher quality, communities will see a net negative effect on the wider social and economic levels.  The public should have been informed on the expected impact of this outsourcing decision on the workers, the community and businesses before you decided to move forward.

CCPS Response:  The top priorities of CCPS are:

A.  Safety and security of the students and staff.
B.  Provide a quality education to assist our students to be productive citizens in our community.
C.  Be good custodians of taxpayer funds.  

CCPS is joining most private businesses and an ever increasing number of public institutions who have recognized the savings that can be achieved through outsourcing of certain areas.  During my tenure we have studied the outsourcing/elimination of the warehouse function, mail service, grounds maintenance, copier/printer services and custodial services.  In the future we will also study the outsourcing of maintenance operations, transportation, fleet maintenance, and food services.   The advantages/disadvantages of each will be fully vetted and outsourcing will occur if it is determined that we can get the same amount and quality of service to our students as we currently receive at a lower cost.  CCPS does not exist to be a job placement center.  It's primary function is to provide a quality educational experience for all of our students.  To that goal, the School Board and CCPS administration are looking at all areas to insure that the maximum amount of funds are placed directly into the classroom.

Q:  In the current Custodial Outsourcing Request for Proposal (RFP) the term "should" (instead of "shall") is placed in most areas of the RFP when discussing CCPS requirements of potential vendors.

CCPS Response:  The CCPS administration, the School Board Attorney, and the School Board Chair reviewed this RFP in detail and had INCLUDED the word "shall" in all sections of the RFP.  When our complete draft was submitted to the County Procurement Department, the word "shall" was replaced in most instances with the word "should" since it was their opinion that by having the word "shall" in the solicitation may suppress vendor interest/competition.  

The RFP is a solicitation of bids.  It IS NOT the final contract.  Just because it says "should" in the solicitation does not mean that CCPS will sign a contract that doesn't enforce certain areas that we find nonnegotiable.

Q:  Have you considered the risk of contracting? Low-balling in this type of contract is a real, identified risk that can result in a higher cost for lower services instead of savings.

CCPS Response:  We have considered the risk of contracting and low balling.  That's why it was important to have conversations with current long-term clients of GCA Services both in the Commonwealth of Virginia and nationally.  We spoke with many of their current school division clients and GCA was given very positive performance and contracting reviews.


Please let me know if there are other questions or concerns.


Andy