A school district parent asked me about a recently-made decision to hire a construction manager. It seems that a former school superintendent had retired and then secured a job as a representative of a construction management firm. The district's criteria for selecting the construction manager - agent was written with the help of that person.
The parent had attended the school board meeting in which three proposals were submitted and discussed. The primary focus of discussion was on the percentage fee listed in the proposals. The parent stated that no board member asked about the "reimbursables" or any of the other duties of the construction manager. However, the superintendent made a point of noting that one of the nine points in the requests for proposal was that the cm - agent present letters of reference from "school districts where the firm had previously acted as construction manager." Two of the proposals were then downgraded because their letters of reference were from work as construction managers (at-risk) on private institutional work (non-public schools) and work as general contractors for public school systems.
The construction manager firm for which the retired superintendent worked was hired. To this parent, it seemed as if the former superintendent and the current district superintendent had manipulated the process; he felt like "the fix was in."
This example is one of the issues that ultimately hurts the school district. Patrons of the district are now suspicious of the superintendent's motives and the school board's decision-making. These concerns will simmer until questions of conflict of interest, collusion and impropriety become rampant. When the time comes for an increase in the operating levy or another bond issue, some patrons may organize to defeat additional money for the district.
The parent had attended the school board meeting in which three proposals were submitted and discussed. The primary focus of discussion was on the percentage fee listed in the proposals. The parent stated that no board member asked about the "reimbursables" or any of the other duties of the construction manager. However, the superintendent made a point of noting that one of the nine points in the requests for proposal was that the cm - agent present letters of reference from "school districts where the firm had previously acted as construction manager." Two of the proposals were then downgraded because their letters of reference were from work as construction managers (at-risk) on private institutional work (non-public schools) and work as general contractors for public school systems.
The construction manager firm for which the retired superintendent worked was hired. To this parent, it seemed as if the former superintendent and the current district superintendent had manipulated the process; he felt like "the fix was in."
This example is one of the issues that ultimately hurts the school district. Patrons of the district are now suspicious of the superintendent's motives and the school board's decision-making. These concerns will simmer until questions of conflict of interest, collusion and impropriety become rampant. When the time comes for an increase in the operating levy or another bond issue, some patrons may organize to defeat additional money for the district.
