Dr. Hatrick's response to Small Town Schools' Audit Request - email #152

[Stinger]

Dear Dr. Hatrick,   

      This is in response to your December 1, 2010 letter to the School Board regarding our November 9, 2010 Audit Request.   Your letter references my numerous emails over the last 3 years to Mr. Byard.  Yes I have submitted several questions and requests for information, however I assure you several of those emails were merely "Thank you".   You reference my "multiple requests for the same documents" and how my requests are "extremely vague".  It is not my responsibility when LCPS staff is unable/unwilling to provide documents after receiving my initial specific requests.  The most recent example being my request for the 2009 Wheatland Farm hydrogeologic study which was met by Mr. Byard's responses of "it doesn't exist" and later "Dr. Adamo and I looked at your earlier FOIA response and find that we already gave it to you".  Both of which were false. Although it took numerous emails for me to finally get a copy of the September 2009 Wheatland Final Hydrogeologic Study, I suspect it wasn't hard for Mr. Cangiano to get his copy.  He not only benefitted from LCPS' decision to continue that study but also benefitted from LCPS' decision to improve his wells (including a well that wasn't even on land under LCPS contract).  The fact that LCPS had thousands of dollars for continued study of Mr. Cangiano’s land after Supervisors rejected it for schools, yet LCPS had no funds available to study the Lovettsville area McDonough Assemblage last year; and further had to ask Supervisors for even more funds for site studies this year, is beyond Irregular. 

      Our Audit Request made no accusations whatsoever, although you are free to interpret it as you wish.  We just want answers to our questions.  If LCPS simply answered our questions, beginning with the abbreviated list provided below, much trust could be restored.   However, your letter indicates LCPS' continued avoidance of even one of these very specific and reasonable questions.  Instead you "invite" me to seek an investigation by the commonwealth's attorney and infer I am somehow harrassing LCPS for public information. 

      We believe it is unfortunate that LCPS works so hard and wastes so much of staff's time trying to deny access to public records.  On 18 December I submitted a request to have access to original project files for MS-10, HS-10 and ES-25.  I provided a $500 deposit and a hard drive to facilitate LCPS' response to that and my other requests.  However, Mr DeVita and Mr. Byard insist several staff from various departments must first attend a meeting with me and other citizens to clarify our requests.  I have called Mr. Byard and Mr. DeVita to discuss this, but they won't talk with me about LCPS' inability to understand my requests.  As I indicated by email and phone to both of them, I remain available to meet with LCPS staff.  Until whoever it is LCPS believes needs to meet with me is able to do so, as a first step, I asked Mr. DeVita today for access to LCPS' original project files for MS-10, HS-10 and ES-25.  I believe that to be a very specific, clear request and my deposit should allow LCPS to proceed with a partial response.  And it is my understanding the law requires LCPS do so immediately.  Of course, If LCPS staff were willing to provide answers to our Audit questions during the (as yet unscheduled) meeting, our need for reviewing files could be completely eliminated.

      We would be very interested in seeing the KMPG Audit, including the portions evaluating LCPS' Department of Planning each year.  Perhaps you can post that on LCPS' website.  It would be interesting if KMPG evaluated the issues identified in our questions. 

    Please understand that until answers are provided by LCPS or via our review of more LCPS records, we (that is myself, the 18 citizens who stood behind me on November 9 and others who support our request), maintain that Irregularities do indeed exist (see supporting documents attached).  And, with LCPS' continued dismissal of each and every one of our questions, we remain very concerned these Irregularities will continue without ongoing and thorough citizen vigilance.

Sincerely,
Sarah Stinger, Small Town Schools

 

Abbreviated list of Audit Questions:

 

1.     Of the dozens of available wells on the 170 acres under contract last year, why was Mr. Cangiano’s private well selected as a school water-supply well (and taxpayer funds spent to upgrade Mr. Cangiano’s private well) when that well and the surrounding land was not in the purchase contract?  Did LCPS plan to pay Mr. Cangiano for the schools’ water, in perpetuity?  Or purchase additional land from Mr. Cangiano to control that well?

 

2.     Standard procurement policy dictates that when a Request for Proposals is advertised, only responders may be considered.  Mr. Cangiano did not submit a formal RFP response but was considered (and selected), while another formal responder was rejected.  How does LCPS justify their non-standard land acquisition RFP procurement?

 

3.     Why did LCPS pay thousands of dollars for preparing the September 2009 Wheatland Farm Final Hydrogeologic Study after Supervisors rejected that site; and, why were those funds not made available to study the Lovettsville area McDonough Assemblage?

 

4.     Why did LCPS ignore the potential conflict of interest of Mr. Cangiano’s former attorney representing Loudoun citizens during negotiation of the 2009 Wheatland contract with Mr. Cangiano?  

 

5.     Why did LCPS ignore the clear conflict of interest of hiring Mr. Cangiano’s contractor to conduct the hydrogeologic study, instead of hiring an independent contractor?  What sole source justification was prepared to allow that contractor be hired non-competitively?

 

6.     A June2010 LCPS memo regarding a site contiguous with Hillsboro Elementary stated,"Staff believed it would be more prudent to let the contract expire."  What specific benefits does that strategy provide to Loudoun children and taxpayers?  Can LCPS show good faith efforts were made to negotiate with that landowner directly?

7.     Why did LCPS reject offers ranging from $29k/acre to $32k/acre for the Miller's 155-acre property  (located in feasible range of Lovettsville public utilities) while simultaneously offering $40k/acre and  $57k/acre for Wheatland properties where standalone water and wastewater treatment systems would be required?  And likewise, why were 2009 contracts for ~$67k/acre in Wheatland advanced while those near Lovettsville for $54k/acre were rejected?. 

8.     Why was VDOT not included as a referral agency before Wheatland site acquisition contracts are advanced?

 

9.     Are costs for site and road improvements estimated for all prospective school sites?  If so, what costs were estimated last year for road upgrades and site work/treatment systems envisioned for the Wheatland Farm three-school complex?

 

10.  Why did LCPS staff conceal drawings (during their 2008 presentation in Lovettsville), drawings prepared by LCPS' consultant showing the VDOT recommended road alignment for accessing schools on Lovettsville Park (a circle at Loudoun street) and then go on to falsely assert to the public at that presentation that access to schools on Lovettsville Park would require condemnation of a citizen's home?