Fw: LCPS response to SmallTownSchools' Audit Request

[Stinger]

Mr. DeVita,

I am in receipt of your attached letter.  In your letter you state that our "November 9, 2010 submission did not disclose any evidence of irregularities..."  Frankly we don't see how all the questions can be summarily dismissed by LCPS' legal counsel without any specific explanation, whatsoever.  There were approximately 20 Loudoun County citizens that stood in front of the School Board in support of the Audit Request presented on November 9, 2010.  Contrary to your letter, our Audit Request did include significant supporting documentation (see pages 6-40 of the Audit Request and attached to this email), which in all cases was documentation obtained from LCPS by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

 

It comes as no surprise that LCPS audits have not disclosed any irregularites similar to our concerns because it is our understanding that the objective of MGT independent audits is to improve operational efficiency and do not even consider specific land acquisition decisions as identified in our Audit Request.  Please clarify if there are other independent audits or if our understanding is incomplete.

 

We understand our Audit Request has a very long list of questions which would take quite some time for LCPS staff to answer.  Therefore, if LCPS stands by their prior actions, it would seem reasonable for LCPS to demonstrate some interest in addressing specific citizens concerns by providing straightforward responses to a reduced list of 15 questions, taken from the Audit Request and listed below, which we remain deeply concerned about.    

 

Criminal activity was never stated or alleged in our Audit Request; therefore, we do not understand why LCPS representatives such as you and School Board member Mr. Reed make those statements.   Our questions are related to ethics and professional conduct for civil servants and/or simply relate to LCPS' policies and procedures.  As I'm sure you and Mr. Reed know, law enforcement authorities never take action on such non-criminal matters.  As I stated to Mr. Reed, the suggestion that we submit our questions to the Commonwealth Attorney is not only irrelevant but appears to be a countermeasure deployed by LCPS to avoid answering these very reasonable questions.  We sincerely hope that this interpretation is inaccurate and that LCPS will instead choose to demonstrate to concerned Loudoun citizens that there are very good reasons for LCPS' land acquisition decisions/activities.

Thank you,

Sarah Stinger, Small Town Schools

 

**************************

1. d. Why were detailed costs presented for McDonough Assemblage-associated traffic improvements but no equivalent cost estimates were shared with the public for infrastructure and mitigating measures anticipated for the Wheatland Farm school complex?  Were any cost estimates for road and site work improvements for LCPS' 2009 Wheatland Farm proposal prepared by LCPS and/or their consultants?

 

1. h. Staff from State and County Transportation Departments (VDOT and Loudoun) were consulted during evaluation of HS-3 sites. Therefore, why were these agencies not consulted during analysis of HS-10 sites?

1. i. Other co-located schools in the County share a single access road (e.g., Dominion and Woodgrove High schools are co-located with other schools with single access roads). Why did LCPS assume, and present costs for, separate access roads serving MS/HS-10 on the McDonough Assemblage?

2. b. What is the sole source (non-competitive) justification for LCPS to hire Mr. Cangiano’s consultant, EGGI to conduct the hydrogeologic study, particularly considering the land purchase contract between Mr. Cangiano and LCPS was specifically contingent on the favorable results of that study?

2. c. What is the justification for EGGI's proposal to have one of the school water supply wells located on land that was not even under LCPS contract for purchase (Well WLS-16 on attached)?  How did LCPS plan to legally control that well and acquire water from that well?

3. b. What evidence exists that Mr Cangiano submitted a proposal to LCPS between June 19 and July 3, 2008 to support LCPS including his land in the list of RFP responses? and further, to support the actual award of the contract to Mr. Cangiano under that RFP procurement?

4. b. When did LCPS staff first advise the School Board that a RFP response was received for a site contiguous to Hillsboro Elementary school (i.e., the Moler/Crim property)?  Why were Supervisors not informed of that RFP response?

4. i/j. The June 2010 LCPS memo (attached) stated, “Staff believed it would be more prudent to let the contract expire, and then negotiate directly with the landowner” What correspondence exists between LCPS and the owner of the Moler property in Hillsboro property to support LCPS' intent? What are the specific benefits to Loudoun school children and taxpayers for allowing land contracts to expire?

4. m. How does LCPS reconcile the discrepancy between their June 2010 assertion that the Moler site “can not support an elementary school” while the consultant’s report stated the soil could accommodate 20,000-30,000 gallons per day (gpd), which exceeds the Virginia Health Department’s guidance for an 875 student elementary school (i.e., 9,650 gpd)?

5. a. During the May 2008 community presentation, why did LCPS withhold drawings prepared by their consultant showing numerous road access alignments (attached), and instead choose to present only the options that would require condemnation of a family’s home, and specifically report to the public that site access required condemnation?

6. a. Did anyone at LCPS, including their legal counsel, consultants or agents, have any contact whatsoever (implied or documented) with Mr. Cangiano or his representatives regarding LCPS’ possible interest in Wheatland Farm prior to Mr. Cangiano initiating his acquisition of that property?

6. g. Were all School Board members consulted prior to LCPS staff's rejection of a LCPS contract signed by both Mr. and Mrs Miller on April 7, 2006 offering their 155-acre Lovettsville property for $31,730 per acre, which was submitted to LCPS by the Miller’s attorney (attached)?

6. h. How does LCPS justify repeated rejection of Mr. and Mrs. Miller’s multiple offers, ranging from $29k-32k/acre for their farm, (a site that offered potential access to Town-supplied water/sewer) at the same time that LCPS simultaneously submitted offers of $57k/acre for Wheatland Farm and $40k/acre for the Grubb Farm where stand-alone water/wastewater treatment systems (with drainfields) would be needed?

6. i. Does LCPS have any documentation to support the statement made in their June 2006 letter that the value of Mr. Miller’s land was $25k/acre, instead of the $32k/acre value documented in the Miller’s February 2006 appraisal?

8. What is LCPS’ rationale against taping School Board Executive Sessions involving real estate so incoming School Board representatives can objectively understand past decisions?

***********************