The Mysterious Saga of the Concession Stand

[State High Vision]

State High Vision Update

Monday, May 5, 2008

 

Meeting tonight!  The SCASD board will hold their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 in the Board Room at 131 W. Nittany Ave.   Please try to attend! Tonight’s meeting is likely to be one of the most interesting in months as we try to get to the bottom of

 

The Mysterious Saga of the South Track

Concession Stand/Rest Room

 

"Curiouser and curiouser"

Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland  Lewis Carroll

 

Listed under the Action Items for tonight’s School Board Agenda is a topic described as Bids for the High School South Track Restroom/Concession Facility.  While on the face of it, this doesn’t sound to be a particularly contentious issue, the more one digs into the matter, a very strange and potentially troubling saga unfolds.

 

 Here is what we know about this project:

 

• In February 2007, the first mention of the concession stand is made at a board meeting.  Conversations about recent upgrades to the track facility (including the controversial artificial turf) have included specific references to donations made by Centre Soccer Association and Northwest Savings Bank for upgrades of bleachers, press box, timing clock, etc. 
• On July 23, 2007, after much discussion, the Board authorizes design work on the concession building but does not give authorization to go to bid.  Sue Werner, Lou Ann Evans and Gowen Roper stated that they couldn't authorize bidding without knowing more about what the project entailed.
• In August 15, 2007, L Robert Kimball and Associates wrote to Ed Poprik, the Director of Physical Plant, offering to provide Architectural and Engineering (A&E) services for the construction of a rest room/concession facility at the South Building track.  Poprik later stated that he thought a continuing relationship with L. Robert Kimball on the high school track facility made sense since they had designed the turf upgrades and other track facility projects. 
• In a subsequent letter dated September 26, 2007 Kimball advised that their fee for providing A&E services would normally be $58,500 for this “small but complex building” but in the spirit of the generosity of the donor, they were prepared to do the job for $29,250.  Poprik signed and returned this letter on October 2^nd indicating acceptance of Kimball’s “generous proposal”.
• Poprik reported to the Board a summary of upgrades to the high school at the February 25, 2008 meeting and estimated that the cost of construction of the concession stand plus contingency would be in the range of $250,000 to $300,000. 
• Without Board approval, the project was advertised and put out for bid. Physical Plant Director Poprik reported to the Board at the March 24, 2008 meeting that the actual bids on construction plus contingency ranged from $203,000 through $320,000.  It was recommended that the board accept the second lowest bid as the lowest bidder had made a mathematical error and had retracted the bid.
• Discussions about the “anonymous donor” who had contributed $150,000 toward this project continued at the 3/24/08 meeting.  Bids at $258,000 meant that taxpayers – using SCASD funds – would contribute the remaining $100,000 (assuming no increases related to change orders during construction).  References are made to this donation being accepted “3-4 years ago” by the sitting board.  Note: that would have coincided with the timing of plans to raze the South Building for Athletic facilities and the plans to expand the North Building to 537,000 square feet.
• At the March 24, 2008 meeting, new Board Members questioned the need for this project and the wisdom of spending $100,000 to $150,000 of additional public funds on a concession stand given other priorities in the School District and prior to the inception of the District Wide Master Plan.  Design features, environmentally friendly characteristics, location, stakeholder input (i.e. coaches and booster parents) as well as timing were all raised as concerns by the public. At the meeting, Board Member Donna Queeney recommended approval of the project so as not to “alienate the donor.”  A lengthy discussion about anonymous donations and who has access to the identify of anonymous donors was reviewed; outspoken members of the CAC for private fundraising vehemently insisted that the board’s access to donor information would limit the ability for the committee to raise money.  Members of the public asked how it makes sense for elected officials who oversee to be prevented from having full disclosure on identity of donors. In a question directed to Dr. Best, she clearly and emphatically stated that only she, Business Manager Dennis Younkin and Director of Physical Plant were aware of the identify of the donor.  When directly asked, Dr. Best admitted that not reporting the identity of anonymous donors to the board was “practice” not “policy.” In an 8-1 vote, the board supported tabling the discussion until May 5, 2008.  
• April 14, 2008. Board Member Donna Queeney reads an emotional statement in which she identified herself as the mysterious donor and indicated that the funds had been raised to build the facility in memory of her late husband.

 

Here’s what concerns us:

 

• Who gave authorization to go to bid on this project in the first place?  A review of minutes and tapes of Board meetings in 2007 does not show any such approval being granted through a board VOTE (specifically requested on July 23, 2007).  IN FACT, former SCASD president Sue Werner specifically asked that design/plans be brought back to the board for review.
• Without a District Wide Master Plan, how can we determine how this expenditure competes with other pressing needs in our district?  Have we done analysis of how many people/events will be impacted?  Are there needs at Community Field, in the elementary schools or in Music/Theatre that are of greater priority?
• Kimball’s fees for this project are excessive.  Benchmark data suggests 6.6% to 7.2% A&E lump sum payment is more appropriate.  Kimball's initial offering of $58,500 amounts to a whopping 24% Architectural and Engineering fee.  Even their discounted fee of $29,250 (offered in "the spirit of generosity") amounts to a 12% A&E charge, $11,353 over what the guidelines would suggest.  Where is this extra money going?  The optics here are terrible.
• Why are we still doing business with L. Kimball and Associates after their less-than-stellar performance on the High School Renovation Project?  We lost $5 million of our tax dollars on that plan – despite public outcry to STOP and let the public back in the discussion when expenditures were only at $700,000.
• How do design fees for a cinder block, 2 restroom concession stand exceed over 3 times what L. Robert Kimball and Associates charged for the several elaborate and multi-page option designs on Memorial Field upgrades (emergency status upgrades to a facility that the new architect contracted for the district has now contradicted?)
• Is Mr. Poprik allowed to sign these contracts?  Remember – State High Vision had pointed out that Mr. Poprik violated School Code when he signed both the contracts for the Construction Manager and L. Robert Kimball and Associates on the high school renovation.  Our question then necessitated the generation of new contracts which eventually were correctly signed by sitting board President Werner.
• Policies for anonymous donations are not listed on the district website and do not provide for circumventing of the school board.  Instead District policy 913.3.3 states:  The Board has the authority to accept such gifts and donations as may be made to the district or any school within the district. The Board also reserves the right to decline to accept any gift.  Additionally, Section 3. Authority   Paragraph 2.  (Major gifts $25,000 and up):  The Superintendent shall refer all major gifts....for consideration and decision by the Board."  
• How can a sitting Board Member secretly move that the School District spend $100,000+ of public funds to complete a memorial to her late husband?  District policy delineating board operations states that Any School Board member, who in the discharge of his/her official duties would be required to vote on a matter that would result in a conflict of interest shall abstain from voting and, prior to the vote being taken, publicly announce and disclose the nature of his/her interest as a public record in a written memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting at which the vote is taken. Dr. Queeney did not publicly identify herself as the mystery donor until the meeting AFTER the new board members suggested tabling the concession stand discussion.
• Who else knew the identify of the “mystery donor” and why was it kept under the cloak of secrecy?
• What are the ethical/legal implications of this series of events?

 

No one denies that this facility – and other renovations across the district – are sorely needed.  We are facing over $32 million in projected upgrades to our school facilities in the next 5 years.  However, we can all agree that the situation here is truly bizarre and would almost be funny if our tax dollars and the needs of our School District weren’t involved – and it didn’t come so closely on the heels of the bungled high school renovation.  The situation is symptomatic of a lack of professional oversight, selective adherence to written procedures, and the mismanagement of contractors.  These shenanigans can’t go on - they’re costing us money and distracting the Board from more important projects, like updating the District Wide Master Plan.

 

Please come to the meeting tonight and let your thoughts on this matter be heard for the record!