EBRP School Board approves contract

Advocate staff photo by PATRICK DENNIS East Baton Rouge Parish School Board member Evelyn Ware-Jackson, left, discusses renewing the contract for the district's construction management company at a meeting Thursday as board Vice President Tarvald Smith, right, listens.

After 90 minutes of debate, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board on Thursday narrowly voted to renew a five-year contract with CSRS/Garrard Program Management to manage school construction through the end of 2018.

The School Board voted 6-5 in favor of the renewal, opting not to seek proposals from other construction management firms, which those on the losing side were pushing.

School Board member Barbara Freiberg had abstained when the board deadlocked on the contract renewal on Feb. 7. On Thursday, she ended up voting yes.

After the meeting, she said her main concern was to research assertions that CSRS had earned unwarranted money through change orders to contracts. She said she was satisfied that change orders awarded were within bounds, that some actually benefited the school system, and that CSRS did not enrich itself in granting them.

On Thursday, the board also voted unanimously to spend about $8.1 million to use Valley Park Alternative School as the temporary home for Lee High School while that school is rebuilt. Part of that money, about $3.7 million, would go to move displaced Valley Park students to vacant space at Town South Shopping Center at 1919 Staring Lane. The school system use to lease space in the shopping center for its alternative school.

In November, the board agreed to rebuild the old, rundown Lee High campus at 1105 Lee Drive, requiring a two-year relocation until construction finishes in summer 2015 at an estimated cost of $58.5 million. The old school is set to be demolished this summer.

CSRS/Garrard Program is managing the Lee High rebuilding as it has almost all school system construction since 1999. The joint partnership was hired soon after voters in 1998 first approved a 1-cent sales tax, of which 40 percent is earmarked for school construction. Its current five-year contract expires at the end of 2013. Thursday vote will spark negotiations for the new contract.

The school system had a committee evaluate the firm’s work in December and the review was generally favorable.

Voting in favor of renewing CSRS’s program manager contract were Connie Bernard, Jill Dyason, Freiberg, Craig Freeman, David Tatman and Evelyn Ware-Jackson.

Voting against renewal were Jerry Arbour, Randy Lamana, Vereta Lee, Kenyetta Nelson-Smith and Tarvald Smith.

Now, Superintendent Bernard Taylor and board President Tatman will negotiate a new contract. The current five-year contract, last renewed in 2008, calls for CSRS to be paid $6.6 million to manage hundreds of millions of dollars in construction work.

Taylor, who took over as superintendent in June, did not take a stance on whether to renew CSRS’s contract.

Ware-Jackson persuaded the supporters of the renewal to direct Taylor and Tatman to work new provisions into the contract. They include incentives for the firm to increase the percentage of minority and women-owned businesses used on school construction, to find ways to save the school system money overall, and to include other unspecified measures of accountability to give the contract “teeth,” she said.

The bulk of the discussion Thursday was dominated by opponents of the CSRS renewal.

Echoing other opponents, board Vice President Tarvald Smith said he thinks CSRS has done good work, but that seeking other proposals would save taxpayer’s money.

“Cream rises to the top,” he said.

Arbour made a similar point.

“We’re not dealing with our money,” Arbour said. “We’re not going into our wallets. We’re going into the taxpayer’s wallets.”

Lee was the most vocal opponent. She said that the school system can’t afford to spend money it doesn’t need to, noting that teachers haven’t gotten a pay raise in years and that board members like herself “have had to cut back on their travel.”

“We’ve gone out for (request for proposals) for everything else?” she said. “Why not the program manager’s contract?”

Bernard pointed out that the board hasn’t always sought outside bids, noting how in October 2011 it renewed earlier than it needed to Aramark’s much bigger $26.1 million contract for school maintenance, custodial and groundskeeping services.

Freeman also said that going out for proposals won’t necessarily yield a better deal.

Freeman, who took office in 2011, reminded the board of the controversy in 2010 when the board picked Mobile, Ala.-based Volkert to serve as the program manager for $19.1 million school repairs even though three other firms, including CSRS, asked for significantly lower fees.

Freeman’s comments prompted angry responses from Lee and Lamana, both on the board in 2010, who said the comments did not accurately reflect what happened then.

Nelson-Smith argued that the CSRS contract renewal runs counter to the school system’s strategic plan, which has been in draft form for 14 months and awaits the board’s approval.

“I urge my fellow board members to listen to their own words” Nelson-Smith said.

Comments

1) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 22/02/2013

@tsans: Yes, you are correct, my experiences with the two people I mentioned from the Chamber and from BRAF are quite different. I got to watch them lie and use every trick in the book to accomplish their nefarious ends. Adam Knapp instituted a "scorched earth" policy against the EBR school system during the last campaign, and when I confronted him with his lies and deceit, he basically said the ends justified the means. He hasn't even read his organization's White Papers on Education, of, if he has, he doesn't get it. As for John Spain, he has been a part of every failed exercise in privatization in Baton Rouge, from the lies and deceit of Advance Baton Rouge to his newest boondoggle, the Baton Rouche Achievement Zone. He has made miliions in the last few years while totally operating behind the scenes in formerly smoke-filled rooms, orchestrating the downfall of public education while helping his friends make big bucks off the public weal. Please note I did not say that other members of each organization are not doing wonderful things... but with these two. watch your pocketbook and make copies of everything they say, it will change from one day to the next.

2) Comment by tsans - 22/02/2013

One more caveat: I have a lot of respect for the people at BRAC and BRAF. I do not think everyone in both of those organizations is the big, bad wolf. This is because I am working from a different set of experiences than Noel, but I have always found Adam to be very real and truthful when I have had one on one conversations, and, though John Spain and I rarely have the chance to interact, I do know that he is a good man with a big heart. None of us is perfect, I have things in my past that don't define who I am now. Please come to the "table" ready to give everyone a chance to play fair. And, because transparency is important, any problem or ethical consideration should be brought to light through the appropriate avenues. Some posters are credible on one issue and not another. The persistent rumor that BRAC controls the EBRPSS school board is particularly amusing to me. We want our chamber to try to work with our school system, yet if they even have coffee together we cry foul. Transparency. Transparency. Transparency. (example: I met to have coffee with my fellow board member John Doe and we ended up getting in a discussion about whether or not (Insert specific issue here) was still a good idea now that (insert issue here) has changed. Let's bring up at next public meeting and get feedback, in the meantime we can each do our own research to learn more.)

3) Comment by NCC-1764 - 22/02/2013

Noel hit the nail on the head. Previous Advocate articles............... Nothing happens and nothing will. We no longer have elected officials that serve the public--we have royalty that is to be served--from local to national.

4) Comment by tsans - 22/02/2013

phil, there WAS a bid process and CSRS won that bid process. The school board renews that contract when it comes up for renewal or at that time they can terminate the relationship. (the current CSRS contract was just renewed in December and was supposed to be up for renewal again in December 2013). In the interest of full disclosure, my dad is a contractor (not anything with schools) but I couldn’t identify or even name one person who works at CSRS, but I have been asking and the overwhelming response I get is that CSRS is doing a good job with the taxpayers' money, coming in on or under budget, and, more importantly in a school situation, ON TIME. Seems to me that people drew attention to some already existing issues to try to nullify the contract because they and/or theirs are not personally benefiting from the situation, and they COULD if they could get another contractor. If CSRS is that good, then I guess they weren’t just giving work to friends or friends of board members. Or campaign supporters. And, as in all aspects of life, some people will try to use every connection to be able to keep one's hand in the proverbial cookie jar. We MUST be vigilant and watch for this sort of issues with huge amounts of money at stake. Not to mention every future generation. The way large government bodies conduct business is counterintuitive by no fault of many of those who are part of it. But it will be OUR fault if we let things stay this way for our kids. We, as community members, are part of the checks and balances. We have to ask the questions that silently fill the room with elephants (though many feel that would be a career killer). We need people to care! We need Noel to question things. We need intelligent discourse. These processes seem to all be corrupted by design, with no guide and no checks and balances/accountability. Oh, the irony! I don’t even fault some people--they have no choice in the matter, stuck between a rock and hard place and a need to keep their job. But some people just keep taking personal advantages everywhere they can. I’m ready for a change. Transparency. Debate. Open meetings with people actually showing up to get involved. And we have to agree to disagree, conflict is productive. Conflict resolution and problem identification are the things we need in elected officials. I welcome those with different ideas or viewpoints. Maybe one of us has information the other one doesn’t have. Of course this board has communication problems. Don’t we all? I hope we start holding people accountable. I hate Louisiana back room politics. I hate that that is the way things get done. It’s depressing. I think about moving somewhere where people don’t have so much hate for “others” of all sorts. But I am from here and I’m compelled to stay involved and stomp my feet and ask what we can do to make the schools a support system for kids, a place for them to go and feel challenged and successful and mentored by someone who has a life plan. We are raising the next generation to inherit this mess, and, though we have been chipping away at this, ‘the work is not done’ (noel’s quote). There HAVE been good changes and we have some people who take being on the board so seriously that they do their “homework” and get up to speed on the issues.

5) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 22/02/2013

Phil, in general I lean towards opening competition, but, and a big but here... there are times whern you can look at recent bods for similar work and resp[onsibilities and realize that you are better off with what you have. Just as in the Volkert controversy, we got a company with some suspicious ties, and they have not done work of the same quality and value to the citizens as CSRS. Sometimes it is a matter of actually looking at the record. Again, when Volkert got the contract, pushed vociferously by certain board members even though it was more expensive, we need to be concerned. As for your comment about people hating those of us with institutional memory and inquisitive minds, you couldn't be more correct. Ask Adam Knapp, John Spain, and numerous others. They hate that some of us remember their deceits.

6) Comment by phil - 22/02/2013

Noel Hammatt: Thanks for the refresher of the facts Actually I do remember the Volkert situation, and I have solved some of my own memory problem by actually keeping files on things that happen in BR. I am about to run out of space to keep the files because a lot happens around here to keep track of. Perhaps we need to do a study of the air or something around here and how it affects taxpayer's memories. One thing I do remember though - some people in BR do not seem to like people who actually have good memories.

7) Comment by phil - 22/02/2013

I personally believe with no competition the costs will go up and certainly probably will never go down. I think it is a big mistake not to have competitive bids for things like this especially when the contracts are for such a long time. It seems to possibly open the doors for corruption to enter into the process when contracts are handed out with no competition. Can I make it any clearer?

8) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 22/02/2013

Sometimes it seems we have very short memories. Lamana, Arbour, Lee voted back when I was on the board to give the contract for new services to Volkert, even though their bid was much higher than that of two other firms, including CSRS. Now, it seems to me that any self-serving claims of "saving the taxpayers money" from these characters should include reference to the fact that they voted for the higher cost of the Volkert contract way back when. You might also remember there were LOTS of really crazy things connected to that controversy. Lee, Lamana and Arbour all received money from Volkert, and had other enticements to support Volkert as well, again, even though it was NOT close to being the low bidder. I suspect an investigative journalist or a federal prosecutor could find evidence of collusion here. Lamana, you may remember, was not going to run again, and then Jerry Arbour put him on the committee to evaluate the proposals, something not usually done at that time. Jerry Arbour, you may remember, orchestrated the coup-d'etat that brought W. T. Winfield onto the Board (Arbour was W.T. Winfield's friend and attorney) and guaranteed Arbour his votes as President of the Board. (Full disclosure, it also then guaranteed I would not move up to the Presidency, and was even removed as vice-president, all in votes that were clearly predetermined and orchestrated in a backroom, and his constant voting companions were W.T. Winfield, Lee, and Lamana). Now some things you may not know. W.T. Winfield has an engineering company, and sought to get work with the existing firm handling EBR construction and renovations. To my knowledge, he was not able to get any of the business (and I think it would be a conflict of interest as well, but that does not appear to be of concern to many in office today) from the board, and I wonder if that fueled the search for another firm. At any rate, do you think that W.T. Winfield, represented by Arbour, and now 2 years out of office (there is a two year restriction from doing business with the school system once you get off the Board) is looking to do business and perhaps use the advantage of having a few Board Members ready to do his bidding? (Remember, one is PAID to do his bidding.) Almost forgot to mention (as did the Superintendent at the time) that the key Volkert person who would be the manager of operations here in BR was also a friend of the Superintendent who followed the Superintendent to a new job. At any rate, the Superintendent resigned, but Arbour did not accept the resignation, and he later withdrew the resignation. Just recently it was reported in The Advocate by Charles Lussier that CSRS has continued to do all of the work on-time and under-budget, and it was also clear that Volkert could not make the same claim. It seems that everywhere they are working they are seeking to increase the work they are over, as in Baker. At any rate, follow the money. The people of Baton Rouge deserve better. And I know everyone out there is concerned that Vereta Lee is not getting enough travel money. Check who voted with her on the travel perks just for Board Members.