Board Meeting, September 23, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l15647IiQPA
Note: there are Zoom and technical
issues throughout the meeting, and it is in two parts because the board meeting
stops at one point.
Murray is absent at the time of
roll call but appears later in meeting.
After the adoption of the agenda
and approval of minutes, Miller
presents the report of the chair. She states the board has selected legal counsel
to handle appeals only and is still looking for legal counsel. Shayla Adams-Stafford
is spearheading a board retreat, which will be held on Saturday, October 2.
Adams-Stafford provides further details: they are going to establish norms for
public meetings and have mediation. Board member Judy Mickens-Murray has been
assisting.
Goldson presents the CEO’s
report, apologizing for the transportation problems. They are holding job
fairs, a class of 13 future drivers completed the paid driver training, and middle
and high school students can ride The Bus with their ids. She will be holding a
Hispanic Heritage Month townhall. On Monday, PGCPS will start random pool
testing for COVID. Updated/detailed information regarding what happens when
students have to quarantine will be available online in the PGCPS continuity of
learning plan. Goldson concludes by thanking the entire PGCPS community for
their hard work over the first three weeks of school.
Adams-Stafford asks about rapid
test use for COVID testing. Goldson states that based on health department
recommendations, PGCPS will continue with PCR.
Harris asks about the timeframe
for the COVID dashboard or if we can expect one. Goldson replies that they already
have one, which is one of the most visited pages on the PGCPS site, and she
will provide the link to the board.
Thomas says he was hoping to hear
an update on transportation. Goldson responds that she provided information in
the first part of her report, but she will send that update in writing to the
board.
Item 2.9 is the Introduction of
Committee Members and Committee Charge: Operations, Budget & Fiscal Affairs
Committee. Queen, as chair of the committee, introduces the members: Harris as
vice chair, Boozer-Strother, Murray, and Dr. Miller. Queen then reads the
committee charge.
Burroughs as chair of the Policy
and Governance Committee presents revisions to Policy 0118, Basic Commitments
and Policy and 0125 Nondiscrimination. A motion to open the policies for public
comment for 2 weeks passes unanimously.
Because there are technical
problems, the board votes on the consent agenda before going to public comment.
The consent agenda items include World Space Week (10/4- 10, 2021), National
Day of Writing Proclamation (10/20/21), Read for the Record Day Proclamation
(10/28/21), National Hunger & Homelessness Awareness Week (11/13 -21,
2021); Red Ribbon Week (10/23 -31, 2021), National Bullying Prevention Month
(October 2021), and International Conflict Resolution Day (10/21/21).
Public Comment includes comments
by Deni Taveras, Vice-Chair
of the county council, in support of the Adelphi overcrowding plan that
includes construction of a new northern area high school. She also speaks in
favor the other CIP projects, such as the construction of a new International
High School in Langley Park and Hyattsville ES and that the schools in phase 2
for modernization and reconstruction cannot be forgotten. Taveras notes she spoke
to the media about the transportation issues.
Brianna Urbina is a New Carrollton
council member but is speaking as a mother. Her son attends Chelsea School and
once PGCPS started, they began experiencing transportation problems. She asks
that the board ensure special education students are a priority for transportation.
Michele Clark, Ericka Cuvilie, and
Gina Bowler all speak about the transportation problems, followed by Timothy
Meyer of Mount Rainer PTA who states he supports a vaccine mandate for all
eligible students and staff when feasible. William Small advocates for the
support of NJROTC drill meets.
Tonya Wingfield has concerns about
the role of the committees and the role of the policy director as things are
still not being done in accordance with board policy. She suggests establishing
a transportation advisory committee to consider how programming and boundaries
impact transportation.
Donna Christy, head of PGCEA, has
concerns about policies regarding quarantined students. Next is Rashad Lloyd who
presents seven ideas to help with the transportation problems. Magalie Salas of
an Adelphi civic association, speaks in support of the new northern area high
school and characterizes it as a win for districts 1, 2, and 3. Finally Lisa Burnam
voices concern about the CIP, specifically ballooning project costs and the
high budgets, which she characterizes as the height of fiscal mismanagement and
blank checks being written to developers.
Next is the budget consent agenda.
Items 5.1 through 5.4 pass unanimously.
Item 5.5 is the approval of the
new educational specifications of the new northern area high school. Ahmed states she is very supportive
of fixing the infrastructure and relieving overcrowding but she has heard community
concerns. She asks Shawn Matlock, head of CIP, about the soil stability of the
proposed site. Matlock replies that due to soil boring results, they are going
to build on the site of the current Cherokee Lane ES (which is being replaced).
The price has not gone up as a result.
Ahmed then asks if a traffic study
has been completed. Matlock states it is in draft form and not yet finalized.
They are waiting on approval to establish a new right of way on UMD property.
This drive will provide access to all three schools from Metzerott, thus relieving
traffic through the neighborhood. Ahmed also wants to know if a feasibility
study was done, and Matlock replies in the affirmative but it is also in draft.
Williams praises the report and
states her support of this project, which will serve as the northern area CTE
hub. The report produced by the CIP office will help the board maintain
oversight and track progress. She just asks there be a site plan included. Williams
also asks about budgeting and if what happens during the project can impact the
budget. Matlock explains that the major problems are getting permits issued and
soil problems. To overcome this, they are trying to do more site borings early
on to uncover potential problems as well as focusing on the preliminary site
plans.
Ahmed asks as a follow up if the
site is too small for the proposed building since it will be on the former
elementary school site. Matlock says it is not. They are doing a land swap for
10 acres that is swampland and working with MNCPPC to jointly use existing
athletic fields. Ahmed is concerned about having to use swampland but she can’t
think of a solution other than finding another site.
Burroughs points out that 2 years
ago, the board voted to advance the new northern area high school and High
Point; what is the status of High Point? Matlock explains the county council
did not initially fund High Point but now they have funding and are about to kick
off the project with the architect/engineer on design.
Williams asks for clarification
on how the CIP office handles challenges that arise during construction, and
Matlock shares each project has a design team of multiple members from various disciplines
who meet regularly to review projects. He also states they try not to build on
bad sites and examine whether there are fixable problems at a reasonable cost.
Queen states sometimes as a board
we aren’t informed there are problems until additional funds are needed. She
wonders why do we keep going over budget? How good are these architects and
builders if we keep going over price? Matlock points out there are so many
issues that occur on construction problems, it would overwhelm the board if
they were informed of every single problem.
Murray asks Matlock how he would
describe the community engagement regarding the planning of this school, to
which Matlock responds that it has not been as good as they’d like but they are
trying to improve that within their department. Murray then follows asking if
the building will be in a floodplain or wetland, which Matlock answers with a no.
Finally, Murray inquires if the boundary change process will impact the project
(i.e., will these seats still be needed?). Goldson assures him there are so
many seats needed in this part of the county that even a boundary change will
have no impact.
Miller asks Matlock to expound
on permitting and states she knows contractors often have difficulty with
permitting and the time it takes. Matlock lets her know that are many layers of
permitting required plus multiple county agencies involved. Because PGCPS doesn’t
pay, their reviews are done by a third party. For example, if they need an
electrical permit, a third party will come out to inspect it; if they approve
it, then DPIE does the same inspection and if they approve it, work can
proceed. This can delay projects or drive up costs. Every time there is a
review there is an opportunity for comment, which can result in changes or the
need to respond to the comment.
Burroughs requests additional
information on how permitting can drive up costs. Matlock explains how at the
Glenridge Middle School, Maryland Soil Conservation District required
additional soil borings to verify the borings and engineering. That resulted in
a lengthy delay as the district asked for more data to validate the plan was
sound. Burroughs asks if those same issues reside in DPIE. Matlock says there
are delays sometimes because the plans can sit on people’s desks. Burroughs
asks what they can do across agencies to facilitate better communication
between permitting entities. Matlock indicates what they have done for the ACF
project has been very helpful; there are weekly meetings with all the permit
issuers. A dedicated point of contact at DPIE would be helpful. Goldson states
they are beginning to have those conversations at the upper levels, and they
will continue to engage in that dialogue.
Item 5.5 passes.
Yes: Adams-Stafford, Boozer-Strother,
Mickens- Murray, Monteiro, Queen, Thomas, Valentine, Williams, and Miller
No: Ahmed, Burroughs, Harris,
Murray
Item 5.6 is a recommendation for
the purchase of a digital laser projector for the board room. Ahmed asks if
alternative options were considered.
PGCPS staff reply that they explored obtaining a refurbished or surplus piece
of equipment from another agency but it would not have a maintenance plan. Potential
vendors stated they would not install it. Ahmed continues that she cannot wrap
her head around the cost.
Thomas explains that he will be voting
no as he has only seen the projector used in a limited capacity during his time
on the board, and funds would be better spent on teacher supplies.
Queen says she is in favor because
they need to be in the 21st century. She would prefer that money be
spent on installing metal detectors at her high school, but we need a
projector.
Valentine asks for an additional
explanation on the reasons for why this projector is needed. Goldson explains
it came up as staff began to prepare for a return to in-person meetings in
October. The projector is 10 years old, so if the bulb burns out, they cannot
replace it. The projector is used at every meeting. It is also needed to allow
people to participate from home in public comment.
Miller suggests if there is money
left in the board budget, they could allocate those funds to teacher supplies.
Vote is taken:
Yes: Adams-Stafford,
Boozer-Strother, Harris, Mickens-Murray, Monteiro, Queen, Valentine, Williams,
Miller
No: Ahmed, Murray, Thomas
Abstain: Burroughs
Motion passes.
Item 6.1 is approval of the FY 23
Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2023-2028, second reader. Ahmed makes a point of order to
present her memorandum that was introduced at the September 15 Operations,
Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee meeting that proposed caps on various components
of capital projects. The committee voted to recommend the amendments to the CIP
be sent to the board.
Valentine asks Ahmed what the
percentages she has proposed are based on. Ahmed replies it is based on
industry standards and people “who are way smarter than me.” Goldson states
their response to Ahmed’s memorandum has been posted on Board Docs. They are
also in conversation with the Interagency Commission on School Construction, who
had comments on statements they had made, and they are in conversation right
now. Goldson cannot speak to Valentine’s
question about how to proceed; that would be a question for Mr. Shelton. She has
already presented her recommendation and to overturn that would require a two-thirds
vote.
Adams-Stafford wants to talk
about the proposed change to architectural/engineering fees. The state
recommends a 10 percent cap on those fees. She has researched the IAC website and
found the state is willing to participate in up to 10 percent of those fees.
Matlock states yes, that is his understanding. She further questions why PGCPS
doesn’t request the maximum, such as at Suitland. Why are we leaving money on
the table? Matlock explains the formulation means there isn’t actually more
money available.
Williams wants to know what the
motion maker is expecting to see from making the proposed changes and when would
we see them? Ahmed states she
will respond to that when she has her time to speak.
Shelton responds to Goldson’s earlier
comment and suggests that the best thing is to vote on the motion or postpone
it for either an indefinite or definite period of time. Miller asks are we voting
on the CIP or the amendments? Shelton recommends postponing until Goldson and
Ahmed can work out the different numbers. Goldson points out they have a
deadline to pass the CIP. It has been posted for over a month now, and the recommendations
from Ahmed were just presented. Miller asks if Ahmed is willing to put her
amendments on hold until next year so they can move forward. Ahmed declines; she would like
to move forward with voting on the CIP with her amendments.
Mickens-Murray states
administration gave us a document and addressed every point that was made in Ahmed’s
recommendations. She asks Ahmed, did you not see anything that would change
your mind or that you could compromise on? Ahmed replies yes but she is waiting
for her time to speak. Mickens-Murray goes on to state it’s a little late for
us to make changes to this budget. The committee should do this for next year.
You are hamstringing the administration if you impose this recommendation. It’s
the timing.
Queen responds that it was brought
to her as the chair to discuss in the committee. Ahmed has been bringing them
this proposal for the last 3 years.
Ahmed thanks the budget committee
members for their support of her common-sense spending caps. She has done a lot
of research and spoke with various colleagues and individuals. These amendments
are born out of her desire to see the board use local funds efficiently and to establish
some guidelines around spending that are based on industry standards. She will
accept Harris’ friendly amendment to only place the caps on local funds as
those are paid for by our local taxes. She wants to make sure we are doing
right by everyone at home.
Mickens-Murray asks how five
members of a committee can have the power to bring a recommendation that
automatically becomes a motion. It seems that administration’s proposal should
be considered first. This doesn’t make sense to me. She hasn’t seen any evidence
that supports Ahmed’s amendments.
Williams notes the board does not
have all the information the motion maker had when making the amendments, and
the CEO is not in agreement with the amendments. So there is a conflict and it’s
not clear how to proceed.
Boozer-Strother comments that she
thought this process of presenting the amendments was outside of policy. It was
sent 24 hours before the meeting, and she did not vote to approve it in committee.
Valentine notes the board is under
a deadline as the CIP has to be approved by 10/4. We have recommendations from
the CEO which requires a 2/3 vote to overrule. He appreciates the work of his
colleague but suggests the board take a vote on the CIP to meet the deadline and
consider the recommendations separately as an amendment.
Shelton thinks it’s questionable
whether this can even be considered a committee recommendation because he now
realizes after hearing from Boozer-Strother that this did not pass unanimously.
He thinks Valentine’s suggestion makes good sense.
Burroughs asks Matlock about the
contingency fund and what it is designed to do, and a CIP staff member, Shayla
Taylor, responds that the school system has used the contingency fund to do a
lot of work, for example at the Bowie HS annex. She believes this is a good
tool, particularly when the system has $3 BILLION in deferred maintenance. Burroughs
then goes on to state that in his opinion, the change orders are astronomical
and are blindsiding the board. The CIP staff member and Dr. Goldson refute his
assertion and state that PGCPS has a low change order rate. When you already
have contractors in the building, you can get more work done at a competitive
cost. The school system is in a high need situation. If we leave money on the
table, it doesn’t go into a savings account; this is money raised by bond sales.
You are missing an opportunity. Burroughs then responds that there may need to
be audits. Shayla Taylor replies that you have done that and you are welcome to
look at them. He then asks about the issue with tickets and projects that are
not finished because contractors walked away and didn’t do all of the work.
Burroughs clarifies after she asks what a ticket is, that perhaps a better word
is a punchlist. She explains that once you have a building occupied that is the
legal definition of completed; after that you have a punch list, etc. There are
certainly projects where outstanding issues have lingered but that is not
common.
Shelton is recognized and explains
that he believes if the board votes on the motion made by Ahmed, they are
essentially nullifying Goldson’s proposal and it will require a 2/3 vote. If
you think you can get a 2/3 vote, go for it, but he doesn’t see the board will
have the votes to support Ahmed’s motion.
Miller states it is now 10:00. She
would like the board to agree to vote on the CIP as recommended by the CEO and
a second vote on approving the amendments by board member Ahmed. Valentine asks
if that amendment contradicts Goldson’s recommendation. Shelton believes that
is the case.
Murray is confused about the
2/3 requirement. Shelton states Valentine noted this would require a 2/3 vote.
Murray says I have HB 1107 before me.
Miller interjects that Goldson has
made a recommendation. We are to vote on that recommendation. To overturn that
recommendation, it would take a 2/3 vote. There is no motion on the floor to
approve that recommendation yet. Murray states a point of order: if the ruling
of the chair is that a 2/3 vote is needed, can we overrule the chair? Shelton
states it’s my understanding this is a matter of policy. This is following the
policy, statute.
Adams-Stafford asks for clarity - are
we voting on the committee recommendations as presented by Ahmed on the CIP?
Miller states Goldson introduced item 6.1, the CIP program. We are to vote on
her recommendations when we have a motion. There is no motion out there yet. Adams-Stafford
continues, we are voting on a budget, and Board Member Ahmed has made
amendments to that budget.
There continues to be discussion
as to whether or not there is a motion on the floor and which motion is being voted
on.
Thomas states there is a clear
disagreement among the board members and whether this requires a majority vote
or 2/3 vote. We will not be able to come to any clear decisions until we have
board legal counsel. We do need to move forward in taking the vote but it would
not be correct for any of us to say the motion clearly failed or passed.
The motion is made to approve the
CIP with amendments made by board member Ahmed.
Yes: Adams-Stafford, Ahmed,
Burroughs, Harris, Murray, Queen, and Thomas
No: Boozer-Strother, Mickens-Murray,
Monteiro, Valentine, Williams, and Miller
Miller states the motion fails.
Thomas asks to proceed forward
with an acknowledgement that there needs to be a clear ruling on the majority
vote vs. 2/3 vote rule. The minutes should not reflect this motion passed or
failed until a ruling has been made. Miller replies it is duly noted.
Williams moves to approve the
FY23-28 CIP, and Mickens-Murray seconds.
Yes: Boozer-Strother,
Mickens-Murray, Monteiro, Queen, Valentine, Williams, Miller
No: Ahmed, Harris, Murray, Thomas
Abstain: Adams-Stafford, Burroughs
The CEO’s CIP plan has passed.
Thomas requests an opinion from
the Attorney General on the vote that just took place. Miller agrees to make
that request.
Zoom knocked everyone out of the
meeting, so a new meeting is started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnENH4sni7Q
Discussion on the request to the
Attorney General continues, including the time sensitivity of the matter. Burroughs
notes they really need a ruling on this 2/3 vote so they don’t have to continue
having this discussion. Miller gives Thomas the last speaking
opportunity on the AG letter topic. He states that with all due respect, Shelton
is not the board’s legal counsel. That’s why Thomas made the motion to send
this to the AG. All we can conclude is that the first motion had 7 aye votes,
and so did the second motion. Which motion stands? And we need it in a timely
manner. Let’s move forward. I am just concerned we are moving forward based on
the recommendation of our parliamentarian. Shelton responds that several times
you said “with all due respect” but sometimes that comes off the wrong way. I
have said repeatedly, I am not telling you WHAT to do. This is just my advice.
I take issue with being presented as some sort of doddering fool. I am old but
I am no doddering fool. Thomas apologizes. There is further discussion but
Miller closes discussion. She will follow up with getting an opinion from the
Attorney General.
Item 7.1, the 2022 Comprehensive
Maintenance Plan, introduced by Goldson,
is unanimously accepted as a first reader.
The actions taken in executive
session are also confirmed unanimously.
Meeting adjourns.