|
Home
UpOld
Home Page2
Sleazy and ImmoralOld
Home Page2
| |
Letters to the Editor - Red Plan
(Rebutting Supt. Dixon and Board Chair Nilson's comments in the Reader
Weekly)
As a former School Board member who voted to close schools, I appreciate your willingness to print the "other side", allowing the Superintendent and the School Board Chair to offer their take on the Red Plan and the surrounding controversy. However, you should investigate their statements and show where they stray from certain facts or gloss over others.
Take for instance the contract signed with Johnson Controls. I don't begrudge their being paid. I do begrudge the way in which they were hired. The issuance of an RFP (Request for Proposal) which produced their contract came only after the insistence of the School Board. (Check the December 2005 Board minutes.)
I also take issue with the description of the amount of money being paid to Johnson Controls.
The Superintendent claims in the Weekly Reader that the project fee is 2%, no more, no
less. He also claims, referring to a later section of the contract with JCI, that other monies are "flow through dollars" and adds: "If bids come in below budget, the district, not JCI, keeps the difference."
There are several problems here.
First, the characterization of the additional dollars involved in this project as "flow through dollars" is questionable. The Superintendent claims the additional percentages noted near the end of the contract are not for JCI to keep, but rather are given to JCI for them to pay out to different bidders (groups providing services, such as architects, engineers, etc.). But why not pay the different bidders directly? After all, they are submitting bids to the District.
I have shown the contract to four unconnected lawyers throughout the state, and they all concur. The contract says that "For Basic Services ...Johnson Controls' COMPENSATION shall be computed as follows", and then lists COMPENSATION for Program Management (the
of the total Construction Cost alluded to by the Superintendent) PLUS COMPENSATION (in varying amounts) for Architectural Services PLUS COMPENSATION (in varying amounts) for Engineering Services PLUS COMPENSATION for related Commissioning Construction Cost (2.5%) PLUS ... (the capitals are mine, for emphasis). In other words, JCI receives much more than the 2% alluded to by the Superintendent.
This language does not say the extra dollars get handed over to the different providers of service. So, is this shoddy contract writing or misrepresentation of a contract? Check the contract. Better yet, print it and let everyone see for themselves.
Further, even if one buys the claim that these additional percentages only flow "through" JCI, the tape of the June 19, 2007, School Board meeting shows the Superintendent clearly stating that if Johnson Controls goes "under" (i.e., "below") the fee structure, they make money. (Check the tape.) His statement nine months ago meant that JCI would keep the difference, not the District. Yet now he tells us the District would keep the money. Which is it?
After you start checking, then start asking serious questions about whether or not there is fudging going on, and whether or not the answers vary from one moment in time to another, and whether or not there is a less expensive and less intrusive way to reduce the number of school buildings and deal with space issues such as insufficient science labs.
Also of concern is the Board Chair's statement in the Weekly Reader that JCI was the best choice because they brought depth of experience and talent, such as architects and engineers. If this is the case, why are they bidding out these services? Will their own architects and engineers win the job, thus providing even more dollars for the same one company? Is this a case of someone with an inside edge receiving special privilege? Why did their response to the RFP (which asked for a planner) insist that if they were hired to plan, they also had to be hired to manage construction? (Check their RFP) Which brings us full circle to the beginning, when the Superintendent appeared prepared to move forward with JCI without bids.
Finally, glaring by its omission in the discussion with the Weekly Reader is any firm commitment to rectify the segregationist nature of the Red Plan. Check the seeming promise by the Superintendent at the June 19, 2007, Board meeting, to adjust the boundaries. And while you're at it, ask the Desegregation Committee if they approved the gutting of the magnet schools, which occurs under the Red Plan.
Eileen Zeitz Hudelson Duluth, Minn. |
