I wanted to provide my thoughts after reading and digesting the findings of the Inspector General. As always, I encourage folks to read the entire document for themselves. It is, at times, dense and technical by necessity but also very informative. Click here for the report.
Within minutes of the report being released, the district released a response from the superintendent and the board chairman.
These responses are as troubling as the SIG’s findings. Superintendent Witherspoon went no further than acknowledging “misunderstandings” in the process. And for his part, Chairman Bishop praised the report for not finding any criminal or fraudulent conduct. That is an unacceptably low bar and it doesn’t inspire confidence that we will address the significant deficiencies in the report.
Findings
You would never know from the district’s response that the SIG concluded that based on numerous failures and deficiencies the district had
(1) engaged in an “unauthorized or illegal procurement” and
(2) that “the District violated state law and local county ordinance by commencing construction without a building permit from the SCDE. In addition, the District commenced work on phase two of the project without prior approval of the Board. In doing so, the District exposed itself to wasteful expenditures, contractual liabilities, costs associated with project delays, reputation damage, and insurance issues.”
Unauthorized or Illegal Procurement
In arriving at these rather damning conclusions, the SIG found, among other things, that the District had:
- failed to enact the legally required procurement code (P. 14)
- failed to follow the applicable laws governing procurement (P. 14)
- awarded the same project to two different companies, something the Division of Procurement Services officials had never encountered and which placed the two companies in an “unworkable situation.” (P. 15)
“The failure to comply with the prescribed process and, hence, the procurement statutes resulted in what the regulation categorizes as an unauthorized or illegal procurement. The CCI CM-R contract was void ab initio because the procurement process was defective.” (P. 15)
The SIG further concluded that “by awarding an unauthorized procurement, the District mismanaged the $31 million allocated by the Board for the ‘Early Childhood Center LR’ on 12/13/22. The District must now resolve the situation by following the process required by South Carolina (SC) Code of Regulations, §19-445.2015 ‘Unauthorized or Illegal Procurements.'” (P. 15)
Construction
As for the actual construction itself, the SIG “determined that the District’s mismanagement of the VFELC construction project resulted in the Stop Work Order being issued by the Richland County building official.” Furthermore, “the District violated state law and local county ordinance by commencing construction without a building permit from the SCDE. In addition, the District commenced work on phase two of the project without prior approval of the Board. In doing so, the District exposed itself to wasteful expenditures, contractual liabilities, costs associated with project delays, reputation damage, and insurance issues.” (P. 22)
File Retention
Even more troubling was the below anecdote regarding the district’s failure to effectively retain records and its attempt to blame a former employee. Here is the SIG’s description and finding in full (at P. 15):
The SIG requested all procurement-related documents regarding the solicitation and selection of CM-R services regarding the VFELC from the District via subpoena on 1/21/24. Initially, the District informed the SIG that some components of the bid file were missing. Two senior District officials initially told the SIG that a former employee unlawfully removed the procurement file from the District’s office when s/he resigned, in violation of the SC Code of Laws, §30-1-30.
The records that were allegedly taken included the scored evaluations for all bidders. The SC Code of Regulations, Chapter 12 §902.21 states that records of each bid submitted by vendors selling goods and/ or services to the school district must be retained for three years before being destroyed.
The SIG determined that the former employee did not unlawfully remove the records from the District’s office [SIG Emphasis added]. In actuality, the District failed to properly maintain the records in a manner that was accessible and trackable. Due to poor record retention procedures, the records were misplaced after the former employee departed the District. District officials were unable to locate the records for more than two months after the SIG initially requested their production.
Obviously, this is troubling because the district is not maintaining records as required by law and was unable to respond to a subpoena in a timely fashion. But the instinct of the district to blame someone else is especially problematic. First, that exposes us to a potential lawsuit. More importantly, it reveals our unwillingness to admit mistakes even when it is clear where the blame lies.
Conclusion
I have often heard school districts compare themselves to a large corporation with the superintendent as the CEO. While this is not a perfect analogy, I believe it fits well enough, especially in this circumstance. Can you imagine a board receiving this sort of report about the corporation for which it provides oversight? Is there any world in which the board would simply say, “at least no one was arrested.”? Surely, our expectations have to be higher than that. Indeed, not for a minute did I ever believe the SIG report would necessitate criminal referrals. I’m surprised that anyone is breathing that particular sigh of relief. If the board refuses to provide real, substantive oversight, we will continue to find ourselves on the wrong end of reports like this.