Special Board Meeting, August 24, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEINyrw-34
Roll call is taken with Valentine
the only absent member.
Boozer-Strother and Williams move
to approve the agenda, which unanimously passes.
Miller explains the only item on
the agenda is the legal contract. On July 28, the board approved a contract
with the Robertson Law Group to provide legal services. On August 12, the CEO
presented information from the administration that the firm did not meet the requirements
necessary to enter into a contract with PGCPS. Today’s meeting is to discuss
options to move forward.
Boozer-Strother makes a motion to
reconsider the vote from the July 28 meeting in light of the new information the
board has learned. She voted in the affirmative and would like to cast a different
vote. Mickens-Murray seconds.
Miller again asks all board
members to turn on their cameras.
Roll call vote begins on the
motion. Adams-Stafford votes to abstain.
Miller stops the vote to ask the
parliamentarian if abstention votes require an explanation. After some
technical difficulties, Bill Shelton, the parliamentarian, states no, it is not
needed.
The board secretary then asks for
clarification on whether or not the student board member can vote.
Miller says no because he could
not vote on the original contract.
Thomas disagrees with Miller’s
ruling because the motion is to reconsider a vote, not on a contract; it is not
a budget or personnel item. Shelton says he doesn’t think that’s correct but
just move on. The student board member can’t vote on the underlying issue
anyway. Mickens-Murray agrees with Thomas’ interpretation having just taken
training.
Vote is taken:
Abstain: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed,
Burroughs, Harris
No: Murray, Thomas
Yes: Boozer-Strother, Queen,
Monteiro, Mickens-Murray, Williams, Miller, Ceron-Ruiz
Absent: Valentine
Motion fails as 8 votes are needed
when the student board member is present.
Miller notes a group of board
members were selected to solicit proposals for legal counsel; the committee reviewed
and ranked the proposals. The scores were relatively close for both firms and
the costs were relatively identical, except for parliamentarian services. With
that, she asks for a motion to award the contract to the second highest scoring
firm: Shipley & Horne.
Murray would like to understand since
the motion to reconsider failed, the contract with Robertson still stands. Why
are we voting to approve a contract for the second firm?
Miller explains the contract with
Robertson is moot because procurement will not sign off on it, as explained by
the CEO. A vote to reconsider would have formalized the board not moving ahead
with the Robertson contract, similar to a vote to end a contract.
Williams affirms Miller’s explanation.
She expresses her confusion about the outcome of the vote to reconsider, noting
legal counsel is needed. There are two options before the board: start the RFP
process over or vote to approve a contract with the second highest scoring
firm.
Mickens-Murray asks if there was
an argument to be made to pursue the Robertson firm? Otherwise, she too doesn’t
understand the outcome of the vote.
Boozer-Strother explains her
motion to reconsider, noting it is the first time she has received very
different information after she cast a vote.
Adams-Stafford then makes a
motion to authorize, consistent with PGCPS procurement policies, the board’s
two existing hearing examiners to provide legal counsel to the board in deciding
any and all appeals by PGCPS staff, students, and labor partners until issues
are resolved around the legal counsel contract. This would be a limited
authorization and would not include them providing legal counsel to the board
regarding appeals to state, etc. She notes the urgency of resuming hearings as
there is a backlog and it impacts students and staff.
Thomas seconds.
Miller responds she wants to make
sure the board is in compliance—can this be discussed as the agenda was limited?
Shelton states this motion is
probably out of order.
Mickens-Murray makes a motion to
hire Shipley & Horne as board legal counsel.
Williams seconds.
Boozer-Strother asks if due
diligence has been done on the second firm? She does not want to learn more
information later. Miller responds she can’t provide those assurances.
Ahmed states she is not sure if
her colleagues are aware, but Shipley & Horne have provided financial campaign
contributions to family members of people on this board (Sonya Williams’ sister)
and to the county executive, who has appointed members to this board. She “feels
some type of way” about moving forward with the firm.
[NOTE: reported campaign
contributions can be searched here: https://campaignfinance.maryland.gov/Public/ViewReceipts
If you search a board
member’s last name, first name in the “receiver” search box, you can find the
disclosed contributions to the campaign, for example.]
Williams replies she doesn’t keep
track of contributions to her sister, but she would recuse herself. She goes on
to explain that she is on the board to do the work of the BOE, and we need to
get that work done. She would like to take the vote to see the outcome, which
is why she seconded Mickens-Murray’s motion. Shipley & Horne had the second
highest score in the RFP.
Mickens-Murray reads from a
statement that it is important to hire a legal firm tonight. It is important to
carry on the business of the PGCPS system. When she was appointed, she made a
commitment to make the best decisions with the information she had and ends
with an endorsement of the work of Shipley & Horne based on their
reputation.
Murray thanks Ahmed for bringing
Shipley & Horne’s political contributions to light. We should have an
unbiased attorney serving the board. He is concerned that Williams did not
disclose the contributions to her sister to date and notes the firm donated
$10,000 to the County Executive as well as having significant development
business before the county council.
Adams-Stafford would like to
amend her motion and have the Operations, Budget, Fiscal Affairs Committee
(referred to as OBAFA) review the issue of legal counsel and bring back a
solution to the board within two weeks.
Ahmed seconds.
Mickens-Murray interjects that she
thought her motion was still on the floor?
There is confusion about which
motion is being considered.
Miller asks if the BOE can
authorize a committee to overrule what a subcommittee authorized? She also
points out this could open the board to a technical protest and liability,
without legal counsel.
Ahmed responds that either firm
could protest. She doesn’t want to break confidentiality of what was discussed
in executive session, but she had a different interpretation of what was listed
as the reasons for why the Robertson firm did not meet the technical
requirements. She supports Adams-Stafford solution.
Shelton asserts he thinks he needs
to push this meeting along. The discussion needs to be on the motion made by
Adams-Stafford. Vote on it and move on to something else.
Williams points out it may be a
challenge to have the hearing officers providing legal counsel during the
appeals as they are already participating in the appeals process.
Mickens-Murray states that the
reason she had earlier asked who was on the OBAFA committee was that she did
not understand that acronym. She suggests shortening the time stated in the
motion to 1 week as this needs to be resolved quickly.
Adams-Stafford responds to
Williams that if a situation came up where a hearing officer could not provide
legal counsel due to existing involvement in the case, the board’s former legal
counsel could assist as he has already indicated his willingness to provide
assistance.
Boozer-Strother asks if a
committee already selected two firms and has experience and knowledge of the
process, shouldn’t it stay with that committee? Why are we going through
another committee now?
Miller states that the chair
selected the subcommittee who worked on the RFP and selection. The board is now
overriding the authority of the chair. That is her concern.
Williams makes a point of
clarification: the policy committee—then headed by Ahmed—had received approval
of the board to participate in the selection of the legal counsel. The subcommittee
tasked with finding legal counsel consequently consisted of three members of
the policy committee and board leadership.
Burroughs states he sees value
in Mickens-Murray’s suggestion to shorten the timeframe and in
Boozer-Strother’s point. He makes a friendly amendment to Adams-Stafford’s
motion incorporating those suggestions.
Queen notes she has been quiet
on this situation. She is trying to look at the big picture and look at it from
a business standpoint. I am focusing on the needs of the board. It takes all of
us, though. We need to take the personal stuff out of here and realize it is
not about us. School is about to start. I am not going to just give this
contract to anyone though. I’ve been on the board less than 3 years and we’ve
had two attorneys.
Adams-Stafford asks if we can just
vote on the motion?
The board secretary restates the motion
with amendments after clarifying that Adams-Stafford accepted them. The motion
is to have the previously approved subcommittee to continue with the actions of
this motion which is to review the issues of board legal counsel and bring solutions
back to the board of education within 1 week’s time.
The motion passes unanimously.
Mickens-Murray asks who the chair
of that subcommittee is. Miller responds it will be Ahmed.
The subcommittee members consist
of the chair (Miller), vice chair (Williams), former chair of governance
committee (Ahmed), Burroughs, and Thomas.
Queen makes a motion to adjourn.
Miller makes a closing
statement. The budget committee that is administrative cannot overrule
purchasing guided by law. Dr. Goldson has provided the board with sound legal
advice, guidance, and board policies. We are now deferring having legal counsel
at this time.
Meeting adjourns.
Before Zoom is closed, Burroughs
is heard asking “who wrote that speech?” Miller replies “it wasn’t you, that’s
for sure.” Burroughs is heard answering, “I know because it had too many
inaccuracies…”
Comments