001Hello everyone. My name is Nathan Jaros, the chair of the Legal and Contracts Committee. This is starting at 4:34 officially. I am joined by our vice chair, Phil Montgomery, and board member Summer Hall. Also joining us is Dr. Molnar and and member Reverend Harrison. We also have Mr. Sapusik and Superintendent Mary Autley. So, the first thing is just the approval of the previous minutes. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. >> All in favor, indicate by saying I. I. I. All opposed. The minutes are approved. Is there anyone here for public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to our first agenda agenda item, which is regarding the IDEA Part B non-public position, Director Freimar. Is Freimyer, excuse me. Hello, Director. Hi. Thank you. Sorry, Dr. Lash grabbed me real quick. >> That's all
002right. Whenever we can see each other. All right. Good morning or evening, members of the board, member Jaros, member Montgomery, member Hall, member Molnar. You all came out to see me. And member Harrison. Thank you so much for allowing me to circle back with the presentation on the consultant position that was >> put the microphone closer? Thank you. >> Sure. Is that better? Okay. So, this is the position that was at the board meeting that was asked to come to Legal Contracts. I know there was quite a bit of confusion around the position, so I just wanted to walk through what that looks like. Oh, it's not letting me advance. I can scroll. Okay. So, the first thing is it just lives in our four cornerstones. Specifically, our cornerstone four for our partnerships, family and
003community engagement is primarily what I'm going to talk about today. I just wanted to give a real quick brief overview of the Office of Special Education and what lives in the Office of Special Education. So, we have our gifted program. We have our 504 program, and then we have our special education components. Within that, we have special education, our related service providers, our non-public auxiliary services, and then also our early learning program. I did put some information in there around the law that governs each of those areas, as well as our funding source, whether it's federal or state and local funds. Today, what I'm bringing forth is information around our non-public auxiliary services, so I popped that out in the slide. >> [clears throat] >> On the next slide is the proposal. So, the Office
004of Special Education is recommending to hire one FTE non-public special education consultant. That is AEA job code 050. This is not a new position. It's not a new position in the Office of Special Education, either. So, an example of what this looks like in our office is we have a Medicaid consultant. The Medicaid consultant consults with our HBS billing program and the individuals that bill that for us, and then also works with the Department of Medicaid for the Medicaid School Program, which I'm going to boast here for a minute, brings in $2.8 million typically on a yearly basis back into the district, back into general fund. So, that's an example of the consultant position. So, what this consultant position will do will satisfy our service provisions that were mandated to serve our students on an
005IEP in our non-public programs. We have specific earmarked Part B federal dollars that have to go to serving our non-public students. So, in the next couple of slides, I'm going to go through um that the services for our students. So, the rationale for this position is because we've had a considerable increase in the number of APS students with IEPs accessing our non-public services. IDEA Part B funds for non-public auxiliary are specifically earmarked for providing those non-public services. So again, just the rationale because of the increase in the demand, we also need that full FTE to support that. So, in this next slide, you'll see the IDEA allocation. So, in 2023-24, our Part B IDEA non-public dollars were specifically allocated for non-public was $447,000 approximately. For 2025-26, we are at $4,777,000. That's Part B federal dollars
006based on the service provisions that we need to make. So, this slide shows our non-public student increase. It's it's color-coded here, but overall in 2023-24, we had 932 students accessing non-public programs on an IEP with the federal earmarked dollars. That $447,000 is earmarked to serve those students. And then this year, 2025-26 so far, we are at 1,109 students with the specific earmarked dollars of the $477,000. The color-coding for that is just shows that increase and where that's coming from. So, scholarship is in yellow. Those are students that are accessing our Autism Jon Peterson Scholarship Program. The red orange color there is our non-public parochial students, so students that are accessing our parochial schools or non-public non-charter options. And then the blue are students that are court-placed either out of the district or open enrolled out
007of the district on an IEP. Again, these are all students on an IEP. So, that just shows you the significant increase. This also represents 58 58 non-public parochial districts or scholarship providers that we service. So again, just back to the request of the board to consider hiring a non-public special mandate of service provisions for students on an IEP within our non-public, expending those specifically earmarked dollars as part of our Part B funds. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Yes, go ahead, member Hall. Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation. Um So, for this non-public position, will they be working down here at 10 North Main? And um I'll just ask another question. Is there anyone already here in our building that can do this work, such as people that have been working
008with um our students with um disabilities and things like that? Is there someone currently that could take that position versus hiring out? So, the first question is yes, it would be primarily be housed here, but those 58 other districts, they would go to those. An example of that is if we have a student that is open enrolled to Cuyahoga Falls, they have an IEP meeting for that, that individual, that person would attend that meeting. Our scholarship meetings at places like IDEA House and some of the other facilities that have that, as well as St. Vincent, Hoban, they participate in those meetings. So, they they hop around to those 58 districts. The other part of the question is, which is what I got super confusing the last time when we presented this at the board. We
009have had a hodgepodge of people picking up and trying to cover this position. So, I have a person that is doing some of this work part-time, but I really need a full FTE position. So, I took some of Dr. Molnar's advice last time when she said, "Not the person. Don't talk about the person, talk about the position. So, that's what this is. I need one person, one position, not person, one position to fulfill this demand with these specifically earmarked dollars. That that the money is for specifically working with the students on an IEP through the set-aside dollars that are earmarked out of the federal funds. So, just to follow up with that. So, we already have people that go to different meetings outside of APS and things like that. So, that's this position would be
010like when you first explained like you would need somebody to go to these different schools and go to those meetings. I think a lot of our administrators may go to other meetings and things like that. So, that wouldn't really be a a clutch for hiring somebody already within using those funds versus hiring somebody who out. Because how much is this position for? Well, this is this is an AEA position. This is a >> No, I wasn't saying that even an admin, someone that's already been doing the work here currently at APS. Would we be able to hire That's I guess that was my first question. Would we be able to hire somebody internally that's already been doing the work versus hiring someone outside to do the work. So, do we have anyone here already in
011APS, maybe at 10 North Main or someone that maybe wants to you know, come up or not come up, but be promoted from maybe the schools to the district that could do this job versus it being a non-public position. I think I understand, but please clarify if I if I don't get it right, clarify for me. So, it is not bringing somebody from like non-public, like hiring somebody from outside of these non-public places and bringing them in. It is an internal position bringing somebody up through to fill that need. Okay, that's what I was clarifying. >> yes. So, that means there's I'm sorry. Go ahead. So, that means there's somebody already internally that is being identified for this position? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. >> Understood. Thank you. >> But they will serve the non-public,
012the 58 non-public facilities, but it is internal, correct. Okay, thank you. Member Montgomery. Thank you, Chair. Uh just so we're clear, so this is these are students that reside in Akron that have an IEP, but don't go to Akron Public Schools. >> Correct. >> 1,109. Thank you. >> students on an IEP. Any members of the board? Yep, Member Harrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I remember this position vaguely. So, I I I do want to talk about the person, not the position. So, it and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Um this position when it first came up, someone who was already doing the work, we were going to put that person in this position. I I think Stop me if I'm wrong. I don't I don't want to go too far if I'm
013wrong. Well, I don't want to I just don't want to interrupt you. I didn't >> Okay. Okay, well, if if I'm wrong, then then my question becomes mute. Okay. We're taking someone that was doing the work and now we're going to create a position and put that person in the position. So, part of serving this, we had multiple people doing some of this work. An individual that was doing some of this work part-time as part of the position had applied and yes, was the one that was recommended to come to board for the full-time position. Okay. It So, my question becomes because I think that was what we were trying to discern. In doing that, were we violating the union's contract? I would have to defer to Mr. HR. I'm not sure how >> I
014would have thought that question could be answered now. I I don't know how it would be a violation because it is it's adding a job a member to AEA where before it was not. My takeaway from previous was there was a question similar to Member Hall's that we were hiring somebody from outside contracting with them to come in and do this consultant position and that is that is not the case. >> Okay, so before we vote on this um during the general meeting, if we can get that answered. That that would be to if we're violating the contract or not. If we can before we vote on that, if we can get a clarification on that and that um Thank you. Right, cuz you mentioned this is an AEA position. So, is is AEA approving
015of this? Well, it's It's it's a position in in [clears throat] the contract that and the example I gave, it is a position that we have through like Medicaid, but it's not I'm not asking for a new creation of a position outside of AEA. Okay, what's the compensation for the position? I'm not sure what would what was offered or would be offered. We can get that information. >> Okay. And then this is expected to be a full-time position and indefinitely. Is this for just the life cycle of the the grant or the program? It would be indefinitely. It is our special education Part B dollars that go with IDEA. So, it just it's a continual. It's not a year-to-year contract. Okay. Yes, Dr. Molnar. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this information. I I
016need a a little bit of brushing up. Can you let me know is this on already set for an agenda for the board to vote? Is this on Monday's agenda or an upcoming agenda? It is not. >> Not yet on an agenda. Okay, that is helpful perspective. So, yes, I would agree with everything that everyone has said is as it comes through, give us that other information. I also appreciate the context that you provided about the last few years and not just the increase of number of students that this would serve, but the amount of money that we're receiving to serve them because if we do a little math there, we might be reminded that um the federal government was giving us $480 a student approximately and now we're only getting about $430 a student
017approximately. And so, um we are we are receiving more money, but proportionately less money. Um it's it's not within our control how much we're receiving, but it's also within our control what we are communicating. So, I know Dr. Lash we talked about this conversations with these are the types of things I think would be really important for our instructional policy committee is our efforts and our spends to our non-public students. So, thank you. Yes, Member Hall. Thank you. You stated that there's 1,109 non-public students that will be getting the service. How many students do we have in APS that will be receiving the the service also? Uh none of the 1,109 are in APS. Right. So, do we have any APS students that will be receiving the same service or is this position strictly for
018non-public? Strictly for non-public. This is specifically earmarked dollars through our IDEA Part B special education grants. This is auxiliary dollars that are earmarked specifically for us to serve non-public students. So, just one more. Thank you for that. So, it's not coming out of general fund, which is amazing. Do we have someone in this position in APS that serves our students? Like not not this particular position, but do we have someone that does the same type of work? Yes, so we >> I saw all the hands, now I'm like, wait, what? Yes. >> Yes, so we we have about 4,500 students on IEPs in district that we service. And then this 1,000 We have about 20% of our student population, 20 to 22% of our student population are students on IEPs that we service. Okay, thank
019you. Yes, Member Harrison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I I I recall two positions um on the budget, the reductions. Will one of those persons fill this role? No, those were vacant positions. There were not individuals in those positions. >> Okay, thank you. Any further questions or comments? What were you hoping the next steps would be? So, my next step was and I I had that in here is that recommendation for this to go to the next committee, onto the board agenda, whatever that next step is to move forward with hiring this position to fulfill the requirement to meet the needs. And how does the committee feel about if the information is gathered that was asked at this meeting? So, like the details on compensation and so and confirming about the position itself with AEA
020to have it on the agenda coming through this committee. I don't know if I don't know if the committee wants to have a recommendation voted on and approved or just pending that information. >> I I mean, I would make a recommendation to send it to the Rules Committee pending the information being gathered. So, then >> [clears throat] >> at the Rules Committee, we can determine that the information was received and then the Rules Committee could act to move it to the full board. >> Okay. So, we'll go ahead and call for that motion. Go ahead and you can if you want to phrase it and then Well, I want to just state um before we get the motion. Um I'm okay with it moving to Rules Committee, too, but I would like uh Reverend Harrison's
021question to be answered. So, I don't know if it can be answered through email or whatever it is, but if we move it, maybe it can be answered in the Rules Committee cuz it's moving committee to committee. Okay. So, the question is to uh move this item to the Rules Committee pending quite the answers to Member Harrison's questions, among others. And so, there's a motion. So moved. Is there a second? All in favor? I. All opposed? Unanimous. Thank you so much, Director. I appreciate it. >> Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. You're welcome. So, the next agenda item is going over the 12-month contract renewal expiration report. And I always want to say thank you so much to the administration for organizing that. I don't know if Mr. Saposnik, did you want to
022briefly describe kind of what was accomplished? Thank you, Chair. Um so, the charge from the committee was to have the administration compile a monthly spreadsheet of upcoming contracts that will be coming to the board in various months throughout the coming year and we're also started to work on 2026-2027. So, there's been a lot of help and assistance from a lot of people that don't want to take too much time to name and identify. But, thank you to everyone in the administration who's provided help and input on the project. Um so, we're at the wrapping up the beta phase of the formatting and we'll be able to release that for the board to have then access to view the upcoming contracts on a monthly basis. Yes, Member Montgomery. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is comment more
023than a question. That that piece is going to be critical as we look to get into the proper cadence of meetings and getting things in a timely manner. So, for example, when you know, items that start here at Legal and Contracts that then move to Rules that then move to the full board. So, you've got the third Wednesday for the committee, the first Monday for Rules, and the second Monday for the board. So, you're talking about a 4-week window. So, as we look to get into that cadence having that report will be helpful so we're not scrambling at the last minute to get agenda items on. So, I appreciate the effort for that. Thank you. Any comments or questions from any other members? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to the next item, which is just
024discussing any items or contracts that will be up in April. And so, according to the spreadsheet, there appear to be seven. There is one from the athletic and in each tab here, it's some sort of board uh option that we have to be involved in. Do we want to go through what those seven are and what the board's responsibility will be for those seven contracts coming up in April? Member Saposnik. Thank you. I would ask Deborah Folk if she's available to provide status update on those agreements. Good evening, uh Chairman Jerousek. Sorry, and members of the committee, along with the superintendent and other members of the board. We are in the process of actually Excuse me. Obviously, I've been outside in the weather today. Uh please forgive me. We are in the process as we
025helped uh Mr. Saposnik put this together to list all those in contacting those leads over those contracts right now to go ahead and get them into the cadence that we need to. Yes, they do expire in April, but we do rely on those leads to contact and put it through the process and we're teaching them the cadence as well. So, that's where we are at this point. Very good, thank you. Cuz I did notice that some of the items here on the list might have an end date that's not of that month, but I'm assuming the tab implies that there is some board action that needs to be taken. And it sounds like we're still working through that communication process. That is correct. So, as an example, you might see an ending tab that says
026it expires June 30th, which is usually how we align our contracts to the fiscal year, if at all possible. And but we want to make sure that if it is needed board action in April or May, depending on when it gets out for bid and we get quotes back, things like that, we've got time to have that approval so we do not lapse services as it expires June 30th, but it needs to be actionable on July 1st. Excellent, thank you. Thank you. And then the next item we'll be moving on to is 4.03, which is the request for van driver contract update. So, I don't know Superintendent, who you wanted to communicate what the district plans on how the district plans on moving forward. Thank you, Chair Jerousek. At this time, the administration would like
027to make the following recommendation. We recommend not non-renewing either van transportation agreements for the 2026-2027 school year. Our trans reason being um continuing to rely on our current agreements would not support a fiscally responsible approach or align with future needs. We have prepared a resolution for the board to consider. What we would like to do is reassess our transportation strategy his holistically to ensure continuity of service, fiscal responsibility, and alignment with current operational requirements. We would like to recommend entering into a new RFP process. Please note that this non-renewal is not based solely on the district's need to assess its transportation strategy. I'm sorry, is based on the district's need to reassess its transportation strategy holistically to ensure continuity of service based on the conclusion of the current contracts and support fiscal responsibility and is
028not based on the performance, ranking, or status of any vendor. Thank you. Any questions or comments by the committee? Yes, Member Hall. Thank you, Superintendent Atley. So, I'm sorry. Did you say not renewing either one? Correct. At this time, the board um would need to make a decision and we're recommending that both be non-renewed so that we can enter into a new RFP process. The current companies could certainly enter that RFP process as well. We just want to make sure due to the rise in our cost that we have an opportunity to holistically revisit the process and um make a decision. Okay. Thank you for that. Um cuz the reason why I'm asking is that was the same reason why we did an RFP in 2024 that I can remember because of the cost and
029not having the manpower. And then 2025, it was kind of the same thing. So, we're just reinventing the wheel again and is it that we want to maybe with an RFP like redo the cost to make it more effective? >> Correct. It is based on the fact that our treasurer brought to our attention that we are over cost in our budget and we would like the opportunity to revisit You follow? Thank you. So, is this something that we plan to do every year? Is an RFP? Is this going to be normal practice every year, every school year? Uh the committee did not discuss if this would be a normal practice, but depending on the rise in cost, we may want to consider that as we move forward. Okay. Okay, thank you. Member Harrison. Thank you,
030Mr. Chair. Um I I I want to first state that I am adamantly opposed to a new RFP. And I want to go historically what happened here. Um the board made a vote. The board was very clear with their vote. And if we had as a district stuck to the vote of the board, we would not be in this financial situation. One of the companies we forced to be a company. We forced them to be a company. We had drivers who was driving our students at $135. That was the rate. And we forced them to be a student based on a law that wasn't a law. It is unfair to both companies to send this thing back out when we do have the option of first renegotiating with the two companies. We have that option.
031It's unfair to both companies to open this thing back up because the transportation cost is a transportation cost. And if we made a mistake on our end, then we need to fix it on our end, but we don't need to penalize drivers who have been driving for us for 30 something years. So we forced them to organize a company to to continue to drive. And so now we're going to open this thing back up. And now any and everybody can come and bid on it. It's unfair. If we made the mistake, if we didn't negotiate a contract like we should have, we still have the option to fix that. I was very clear with the motion I made. I was very clear. We will use company A until their capacity is exhausted. And then we
032will go to company B. So now we are looking at our cost because we didn't do the district did not do what the board directed them to do. And we're going to send this back out for an RFP. And we forced them to organize and to be a company. That's how our cost went up. So I would ask the members on the board to go back and research this thing over the last 3 years. This has occurred over the last 3 years. This is not something that just happened last year. This process started over the last 3 years. And it's wrong. We need to fix this internally. We have two companies. We renegotiate. If we can't renegotiate with them, then we go out. But it's wrong for the companies that we have. It's wrong for
033the drivers who have served us, some of them 30, 40 years. It's wrong. Thank you, member Jerouse. Member Montgomery. Thank you, chair. I guess I'm I'm going to throw out a couple questions because I wasn't here when this went down. And I've read the emails. I've read the different things. I've looked at where things are. And I'm a numbers guy. I look at the numbers. And I'm going to get to my question about the current contracts that we have. But we are over budget. We are over cost. We also picked the fourth and fifth vendor on the list, not the first three, which were cheaper. And I don't know why. I'd have to go back and look. Or have someone tell me because again I wasn't here. So when I just look at the numbers,
034like things just aren't kind of lining up. And I think it's if we can renegotiate, great. I don't know what's in our contract. So that's my first question is what are our options if we're going to say renegotiate or non-renew. Are both of those allowable in our current contract? Like what was the term of the contract? What are the options for renewal? I don't know that all of that information has been clearly provided for us to kind of make that decision. So I know some of this stuff is time sensitive. So I hope we can get some answers today in this conversation. But just not being here and purely looking at it from a financial perspective, it doesn't kind of line up for me. So we ought to do something. What that something is, I
035need more information to be able to make that decision. So I don't know, superintendent, who that gets directed at. But what is the current structure of the contracts? What are our options other than just non-renewal? You know, as member Harrison has said, if we have the right to negotiate, is that in the contract? Or contracts? Attorney Sefusta, could you go with the first one and then I can take from there. Thank you. So in the draft resolution, in the second whereas paragraph, it references the dates and times as far as when board action would be required regarding renewal of the agreements. So for example, Buckeye, if they wanted to renew the agreement, it's a 90-day in advance in writing from the board to the vendor to let them know that you would be renewing that
036agreement for the coming school year. For Templeton, it's a different date. The Templeton contract renewal date goes all the way up to the end of June. So June 30th would require affirmative board action by June 30th to renew the Templeton agreement. Okay, but that wasn't my question. That was part of it. So I mean I saw the renewals in there. Is there an option in there to renegotiate? There isn't any specific language in the agreements regarding renegotiation. So we at this point we either have to renew or not renew. How do we How do we renegotiate? That's the first step is is you these timelines are coming up and the board needs to make a consideration of what direction it wants to go. Whether it's going to renew or not renew. Then again, renegotiation because
037transportation is not a required category under the state statutes to post RFPs. So it's not a mandatory process for these types of agreements when it comes to transportation. So that's part of another, you know, answer to your question. So renegotiation could be an option. And I, you know, legal advice I keep that's attorney-client privilege. But that is an option for the board to consider as far as renegotiation with as Mr. Member Harrison had mentioned. Member Montgomery. >> So So in order to So if we choose to non-renew, which I think has to happen to even renegotiate. So is it we vote to non-renew and then we either pick renegotiation or pick putting an RFP on the street? That would That could be a path. But it sounds like we have to non-renew to get to
038be able to renegotiate to member Harrison's point about renegotiating. You could reach out. Again, I'm not providing legal advice at this point. But You're our You're our attorney. Well, yeah, but there's a privilege that's involved when I provide legal advice. Okay. amongst the board. So again, that is a pathway that could be considered as I said. Member Hall. Thank you. So it sounds to me that we don't know if we can renegotiate. And it sounds [snorts] as if you're we're just getting options to have to renew or deny. Um I I totally agree with member Harrison about the past 3 years we've been doing with the company that's been serving our students for now I think 53 years. Um and since it's coming to the board and I'm only one board member, I probably would
039recommend that um we speak to Buckeye and Templeton to see what we can come up before we have to before we decide to terminate the contracts. So I think a conversation with these two companies to see how we can get it within the budget and maybe save some money because to my knowledge um that we are using two companies at one school, meaning we're paying the full price to these two companies versus the discounted rate for an additional student to ride with one other company. So if company A is 200, company B is 200. But if they get an extra student or so, it's 150. But we're we're using that extra 50 to for the other company to come to the same school. So I don't know if we're not filling our vans to capacity
040for all the students, say hypothetically at North. If we have three students on Buckeye, one student on Templeton, we're not saving money right there because we're paying for the full dollar amount for both transportation companies. So I don't think we're doing a good job as to looking at how we can fill up one van versus having two different companies at one school. So I would request that we look at the numbers, see how we can talk to these companies and then come back to the board cuz I don't I I I don't I will deny um approving to renew or deny. And so just Oh yeah, guest member Molnar. Thank you, chair. Um I appreciate the comments, especially the request for information. This is supposed to be the contracts committee. And the fact that a
041resolution regarding two contracts came to the contracts committee and the board was not provided with either of the contracts, we can't keep doing this. We should have access to the If you're asking us to make a decision about contracts in a contract committee, we should have them in board docs. So the the board should have access to what the contracts say. So I completely agree. We we need to see what our options are. A timeline of what the options are would be most preferable. What do we need to do by when? I know that member Harrison is chair of the legal committee. And part of the conversation there is about RFPs and RFP processes. And so this timeline also might be affected by that shift in policy. So being prepared for all of these things
042is very important because what I still don't understand is how the RFP process how doing another RFP is going to change our results. I've also been here for 3 years. I have sat through this for 3 years. And doing another RFP, I want to make sure if a mistake was made that that mistake is not made again. You know, us not sticking to our budget, is that because the RFP was wrong? Is that because afterwards, as member Hall alluded to, we've been handling it not the most efficient way? Or did we budget it wrong to begin with? There are lots of things that could have happened, and the RFP might not be the solution that we think it is. And so, I would like to receive all of this information and the timeline, and how
043as you said, Superintendent, as we are exploring our systems, what is changing about our systems, and does that change what we need to do? So, I think there's a lot of information that the board would need before we saw a resolution. Thank you. Yes, member Harrison. I I just want to clear something up that that member Montgomery brought forward that you know, where they ranked at and why they were chosen. Some of those companies before them only had 10 vans. So, it was a capacity issue, and we we were trying to um transport 1,400 kids. And so, that's some of some that's what it was. Some of them was capacity issues, and so we dropped down to where most responsive. That's that's how we got there, three and four. Any Yes, member Hall. Thank you.
044Just one last question. Um with company A, which would have been Buckeye Logistics, and we had wanted to use them until they were exhausted. My understanding that they were never exhausted, but we did use company B, which would be Templeton to fill in. Um is there a reason why the first company that the board approved was never exhausted and used all of their drivers before bringing on Templeton? So, there was a converse Thank you for the question, if I may proceed, Chair. Yes. Thank [laughter] you. >> Yes, go ahead. There was a con a conversation that took place between the past the previous board president and um a representative from Buckeye, and there was an email where guidance was provided. And so, it would answer your question. Yes, member Harrison. And and I'll agree with
045that scenario, but but but I will add to that that it was a seven-member board that was very clear. And I was watching emails go back and forth interpreting what I said. Um And and no one asked me what I said, and and and it was on the um It was a televised meeting. It was a public meeting. And so, again, when we start changing and we when we start interpreting what the board specifically says, a resolution is a resolution. A vote is a vote. And a previous president, any one board member can't change that. And so, to as we move forward in this process, I think we need to respect a vote of a seven-member board and not change it. One person doesn't change that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other comments
046or questions? Yes, member Montgomery. I guess I just want to be clear because what is in the resolution says that we have to make a decision at least with one of the companies by April 1st. And it sounds like there's a lot of information that needs to be provided between now and There's only one board meeting between now and April 1st. So, I don't know how we're going to be able to make a recommendation or a decision without knowing what's in the contracts, what our options are, if we have to be in executive session to get legal advice, and then we need to schedule I mean, the what is the path forward to get this done between now and April 1st? I mean, are we going to have to call a special meeting? Like I
047don't know. It seems like we need time to talk to a bunch of people um to to fully understand. I don't I guess I'm to Dr. Molnar's point, like what is I know what's in the draft resolution, but now that we have all of this in front of us, what is the next step? Superintendent. Thank you. Um I think one, I just need to first make sure I capture the question so that we can get them back to you so that you can reflect on the responses. And then, we would need to stick within the timeline. So, that would probably tell the board if they would need to host a special meeting or not. Yes, member Hall. This may be my last question. I promise. I promise. Um I know in 2024 when we were
048doing this in the RFP first came about and all of that, and um things weren't approved at the timeline, but would we be able to get a waiver to continue to have this discussion, meaning push it out? Because although it states April 1st, um if the board does not vote by April 1st, and like member um Phil Montgomery, sorry, I forgot your last name. [laughter] Um Montgomery stated, April 1st is right around the corner. So, um if we if the board requests to extend this out, how does that affect us? Is that breaking laws? Is that breaking policy or rules? Or, can we extend this out because we need more information? Mr. Supesic. If there's an interest from the board to extend a timeline, can reach out to the to the vendor, the party that's
049part of the agreement, and inquire as to their their position on an extension. So, that's a yes, we can? Okay. Thank you. Yes, member Montgomery. I guess I mean, with the tight timeline, it sounds like a meeting between interested members of the board and the companies would be in order, possibly, or whether I I you know, whether it's Director Folk and what we do in terms of how things are assigned to make sure what's operating is operating the way it's supposed to operate to be able to There's just not enough here to make a decision to renew or not renew, and looking at again, we're back to doing things on a tight timeline, and there just is not enough runway, and I think some of us that need more answers, like I can make myself
050available, but I just I would be hard-pressed to make a motion to look at this draft resolution without more information. I get the timeline. It's it's clear as day in front of us, but as this is all kind of worked out, I just don't know that there's enough here to make that call today. So, I Mr. Chair, I mean, I would think I I I would almost think tabling this this resolution pending more information, but then if information can be garnered between now and the 23rd or now and a potential special meeting, if we talk to President Sykes, like can we package that? I don't I don't know. Well, thank you, member Montgomery. I do think that as we are moving forward with this specific issue, that we need to remember that this is a
051business decision. And right now, we are in a financial crisis of trying to find reductions and ways of stabilizing our finances. Being three or four million dollars over budget is not where any of us want to be. And so, of course, I was not here a year ago or three years ago when these decisions were being start were being deliberated. Uh I have requested the contracts back in January. So, I did receive those, the actual contracts with the vendors. I feel that there needs to be some tightening of those contracts. We don't define what is a route. We don't define We have a primary and a secondary, and some of those can be limiting to what a district can operate and how they can proceed to find the most efficient route. One thing that was
052mentioned was, why would we get enter a contract with a vendor with fewer vehicles? Well, if we have five or 10 vehicles who are willing to do a route for 150 or 160, that saves a significant amount of money throughout the entire year. So, once that 10-van company is exhausted after 10 vans, then we move on to a company that has maybe more. So, I think we have to explore some creative thinking and how we want to go about this van issue because right now, the way that we're spending, I don't think is sustainable. I don't believe it's maybe we we need to look into it a little bit deeper. I understand that if we don't have the right information in front of us to make a decision now, whether to reaffirm and renew or
053whether to not renew, perhaps an adequate step would be to tabling this this item for the general membership meeting on the 23rd to allow time for questions to be answered and further discussion. Because again, if we decide that as a board or a collective, we want to renew the contract, we'd have to let them know before March 30th. And if we decide to not choose to renew, we can either just technically do nothing and let it auto expire, but then that means we have another contract that is technically still open for June 30th, I believe. And so, I think if we want to make a decision not to renew, we should make that decision sooner than later for both contractors if we want to enter RFP process, which would take more time to process. Member
054Harrison. I would just ask that And I suggest that in the meantime while we try to figure this out if we can reach out to the two companies to find out if they are willing to do an extension or wave a time period so we can better really take this apart. So that may be the first best option is extension. Okay. Do we believe that it is doable to communicate with both companies prior to March or yeah, March 23rd? Yes, chair. We can do that. Very good. Any other questions on this topic? Yes, go ahead member Hall. Thank you. Just a quick thing. Something that you said with um getting companies that have maybe 10 vehicles and saving money. Yes, it is about the money, but it's also about the quality of work and the
055report that has already been built with our students and our families. So having 10 companies 10 a company with 10 vehicles and another company with 20 that will get us back to the whole reason why the RFP was created in 2024 was because there was not enough people here to um do the work far as the checks and the communicating and all of that stuff. So that's why the RFP was created so that there could be businesses not individual people. So I just wanted to kind of bring that to light. So thank you. And I guess just with that question, I mean from the administration's perspective would having multiple businesses or contractors would that be a hassle? Okay, I'm seeing a headshake no. Okay, so administration would not see that as an issue. No. Okay.
056Okay, so I would entertain a motion to table this item to the March 23rd meeting. Is there a motion? So moved. Okay, is there a second? >> Second. All in favor indicate by saying I. I. I. All opposed? Any abstentions? All right, hearing three eyes we will go ahead and push this to the next meeting. Next we'll move to 4.04. So this is the administrator renewal of administrator contracts update. So a brief recap here just so that we understand where we're at on this issue. So the March 1st deadline that was brought up last month that was discussed was basically to ensure that any administrator whose contract expires this year is informed 90 days before their deadline. So that has been met. The administration was able to send those notices out as uh in the
057month of February. Now director Canfield had organized the contracts, the correspondence, and additional information for the board's review. In addition with current Ohio law governing and the renewal and or non-renewal of administrative contracts provides that an administrator whose contract is coming to an end has the right to a meeting with the board in executive session. This right exists whether or not there is an intention to non-renew the contract. A meeting in the executive session will be scheduled for each administrator who requests it prior to the second board meeting in March, which would be March 23rd. So the purpose of the meeting would be to discuss the board's reasons for renewing or non-renewing the administrator's contract. Do we know if there has been any requests? I mean we have that individually, but any number of requests?
058Has any of those been made? Yeah. Superintendent or director Correct. Um I was going to let Mr. Canfield address this one. I do not believe so, but I will have Mr. Canfield address it. Thank you, director Canfield. Good evening. [snorts] Um to answer that question, the requests are supposed to come in directly to the treasurer. Okay. I have not been He has not told me whether any has come in. We do not So I therefore I do not believe any has been received so far, but they do have until the 23rd to submit that. All right, excellent. And the renewing contracts must take place and the board must vote by June 1st for any non-renewal decisions of the same date restriction. Yes. Okay, yeah. Uh Treasurer Bowers, do we know of any requests? No, okay.
059I see a headshake no. Okay. And so um some next steps on this issue would be due to the contracts involving personnel, the discussions about individuals should take place in the executive session under ORC 121.22G1. The important in the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official. What I would recommend is perhaps having a preliminary executive session item for either the first or second board meeting in April to discuss any concerns and additional requests for information and then following up with a recommended exec- executive session in the May month in order to make a decision. Uh any thoughts or comments from our committee? Anything from our board members? Okay. Any questions or does that sound like a doable process for this administrator contracts? Yes, it does. Thank you. All
060right, excellent. And of course if there's any information that the board and members need regarding a specific individual or administrator, they can direct those questions to the administration. Continuing on, we have the 5.01 purchase and service agreement for vendor client and Caval mech- uh mechanical Contractors Inc. Do we Is this a director Folk question or topic? Oh yes, member Harrison. Yes, I I um come I I just wanted to save time for the sake of time. I had a couple questions and so I didn't you know, uh director Folk will give you the whole historical outline. So I just got a couple questions. Um the um contract in question my my um question was was it an insurance claim filed? It is not an insurance claim because it was not damaged at this point and
061if it was it would not be covered in any kind of cost because the deductible is $100,000. Okay, well that's does away with my second question. Okay. Thank you. So director Folk, would like to give like a brief overview of the situation and then Uh this is a recommendation that was placed on the agenda for the 23rd's meeting. The individual units at Jennings were damaged due to the extremely cold weather. We needed to make this repair in order to put them back into service. We obtained three quotes. This is the lowest most responsible quote and we have a well first knowledge of Klein and Cavalli. We have uh we would like this re- sent on to the board for consideration and approval so that we can start that process of getting it repaired and uh
062as noted in the quote that is attached, um they are going to shut down and drain the heating coils, cut the removing pipe, remove old coils and haul away, furnish and install the following items, two heating and cooling direct replacement coils and it gives you an item type that needs to be done, reinsulate the piping as needed, fill and test the lines, and full freight. The total cost would be $47,418 and this would come out of the 034 funds, which is the building maintenance funds for the CLC. Okay, member Montgomery. Thank you, chair. I make a motion to put this on the consent agenda on the next regular meeting on March the 23rd. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion? Yes, member Hall. Um What has been the Has our school been out of
063heat? No, this isn't actual a unit that helps regulate the heat that we've already taken care of that, but it's really for your chiller that is going into the cooling season. Okay, wonderful. So our kids have not had any disruption. Wonderful. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Any other questions? I'll call for the vote. All in favor to recommend this item to the regular membership meeting on the 23rd indicate by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes. Thank you, director Folk. And with that, that's our last item on the agenda. So our next meeting is April 15th from 4:30 to 5:30 in the Reverend Curtis T. Walker Board Room. And is there a motion to adjourn? Is there a second? All in favor? I. Thank you, everyone. Have a good evening.