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 21^st 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.