“Thank you for two minutes of your time. I hope that is less than the time you will spend deliberating the contracts before you tonite. Can I see a show of hands from any of you who still don’t know how you’ll vote? Not seeing any, I’ll be even more brief.

I understand that panel members received more extensive briefing materials than were made available to the public. But some of us have been given a look-see at what you were provided, so I believe we’re on the same page, even if singing a different tune.

It is stupefying that the Board of Education, under the revised Mayoral Control law nominally giving you significant fiduciary oversight powers, could vote on contract awards without such basic information at hand as:
a) The DOE’s cost estimate for the fair value of each contract type; and
b) The dollar amount budgeted against which these monies will be spent, and whether those budget lines are Tweed’s or schools’ budgets.

In short, an analysis that any given vendor was “best of show” is not enough to bark over. Fair awarding of contracts is but one element of financial prudence.

Last, we note that the $100k cap for exceptions to the bid process does not seem to be a rule consistently applied, let alone highlighted on the pdf provided to the public. In this one kit alone, of such contracts per the file you were provided, the first five on both lists, there is a contract that exceeds that amount in one year, and another that greatly exceeds it in total. It seems there exceptions to the exceptions rule, that DOE is using to push the envelope so as to award more no-bid contracts.

On behalf of a number of parent leaders, and in the independent and clear-thinking spirit of Patrick Sullivan who cannot be here tonite, I urge you to vote to TABLE this package until the above information can be provided to you and the public, and the exceptions rule clarified.”

Note that there were 32 contract types, some with NUMEROUS vendors within type.

And not one member complained of being SANDBAGGED?