Showing posts with label Gloucester County Public Schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gloucester County Public Schools. Show all posts

Friday, March 21, 2014

Charles Records, Gloucester, VA School Board Responds

While I generally do not respond to anonymous writers, I feel it is important to address the accusations made in the story submitted by “Watching in Plain Sight”.  I ran for a seat on the School Board for several different reasons.  I have grown up in Gloucester and graduated from Gloucester High School in 1993.   I have two children that attend Gloucester County Public Schools and I have always had an interest in being involved within my community.  I also have an interest in strengthening programs and policy within the School System.  Additionally, I want to ensure that our operational and capital expenses are being spent as efficiently as possible.  Prior to becoming a School Board member in January 2014, I was actively involved as a citizen in trying to recommend ways the School System could save money, most notably with respect to the construction of the new Middle School.      

It is also important to note, that the accusations made in the referenced story are false.  There are several facts that need to be clarified for the writer.

As I mentioned on many occasions prior to being elected to the School Board, I am a Civil Engineer and I am a Partner in a Local Development and Construction Company here in the County.   Our Company is actively developing a mixed use community in Hayes and building custom homes throughout the County.  My company has filed plans with the Planning Department for the redevelopment of the American Legion property located at Canon Way.  We began working on this project at the beginning of 2012.  The American Legion Property is the project Mr. Meredith referenced my involvement with on March 18th.  These plans were filed with the Planning Department in October 2013 and all of this information is public record.

I am not developing, nor have any other involvement in, the 400 acre property owned by Mr. Corr at the intersection of TC Walker Road and Route 17, or any other property owned by Mr. Corr.

With respect to the Old Page Middle School site, it has not yet been determined what will be done with the property.   I am not “a staunch supporter of selling it”.  I have advocated for looking at all the alternatives that may exist which include public use, private use or a combination of both.  Additionally, I have no personal or business interests in the Old Page Middle School site or any of the property the School Board owns. 

While you are free to have any opinion of me that you would like, I have worked hard to build my reputation and my integrity over the last 20 years.  I am not corrupt and I do not take this accusation lightly.

I would be glad to meet with you, your group or any other citizen of Gloucester County, as I have always made myself available to discuss any issues pertaining to Gloucester County Public Schools.     

Charles Records
                                                                                                            

Our Notes:  We already sent a response to Mr Records about his comments.  We explained to him that we are not the author, nor part of the group, that shared the information on this site and that we were asked to share the information with both the Board of Supervisors as well as the entire school board.  We thanked Mr Records for taking the time to respond and share his side of the story and welcomed him to provide any further information he deems appropriate.  

  We decided to go back to a joint meeting between the Gloucester BoS and the School Board and look at what was said by both boards and Mr Records for his defense.  Please see the video below.


  
Now we find it interesting that Mr Records states that he is "NOT" a staunch supporter of selling the old Page Middle School site, however, there seems to be some questions there when we view the video above as to whether or not that is true.  Mr Records sure seems to know a great deal about all the land use of that entire section of the county.  On the other hand, being an engineer, he should.  So Mr Records is dealing with what we call a double edged sword.  If you take his statements, they can be used for his defense and against him as prosecution in our own view.

  But here is what really caught our attention when we watched the video very closely.  Mr Records was not hiding anything from what we could tell.  He seemed very open and honest.  What you have to look at is Mr Hutson next to Mr Records.  He was clearly very agitated.  Why?  Mr Hutson already stated his position on selling that property very clear.  It was also very clear that Mr Chriscoe equally wants that property sold.  Both seem to have some kind of hidden agenda possibly to get that property sold as soon as possible for some special reason.

  In light of what we have seen coming from the one group and Mr Records response to that group, it is our own opinion that Mr Records deserves a pass on any kind of wrong doing or hidden agendas unless some form of concrete evidence can be made.  We can see why the group has made it's references the way in which they did, however, it looks as though the attention may have been focused on the wrong individual with regards to Mr Records.  But that would also seem to focus the spotlights on to both Mr Chriscoe and Mr Hutson.  Why is it that they both want that property sold so badly and to whom?

  We are going to post below, yesterday's comments so that everyone can stay on the same page.  No direct accusations seem to have been made against Mr Records, only that an appearance sure seems to exist and we can see why the connection was made, but do not particularly agree with it at this time.

                                                                                                                                  


Continued Corruption in Gloucester CountyVirginia
Gloucester CountyVirginia’s track record of not having many persons interested in serving on the School Board continues to make it easy for the Gloucester County Public School System to be used as a tool to fulfill the interests of a select few with little regard to the effect on the education process.  The Gloucester County School Board has a newly elected member who turns out to be a developer who is involved in the creation of a mixed use development (MUD) at the intersection of T.C. Walker Road and Route 17.  It is about 400 acres of property that is mostly farm fields next to the old Page Middle School and current bus garage property.  Examples of MUD are New Town and High Street inWilliamsburg and City Center in Newport News.  The concept of a MUD like these is to provide a place for people to live, work and play. Successful MUDs are supported by people intense hubs like colleges, universities, high volume tourism, multiple large commercial or industrial businesses, etc.  In essence, the hub of a successful MUD is something that establishes and maintains a constant high volume of people. Gloucester County does not possess such a hub.
According to tax records and School Board meeting minutes; one day prior to the School Board’s December 13, 2011 vote to rebuild PageMiddle School on property known as Tax Map #39-198, Harry Corr purchased all Route 17 road frontage property that connects to the new Page property.  These parcels of land are known as Tax Map #39-198A, Tax Map #39-198B and Tax Map # 39-199.  Tax records reflect that Mr. Corr purchased the three properties for $630,000 which is more than six times the current assessed value.  The value of the property Mr. Corr purchased will substantially increase and the cost to develop it will greatly decrease as a result of improvements to the Route 17 and T.C. Walker intersection and the extension of public water service to that side of Route 17.  These improvements and extensions are part of the Page project and are funded by GCPS and VDOT. (TAX DOLLARS)  This should be raising alarm bells because it appears Mr. Corr possessed insider or advance knowledge of what the outcome of the School Board’s vote was going to be.
Mr. Corr also owns and controls about 400 acres of land that is fronted by Route 17, connects to the old Page Middle School land and connecting Gloucester Public School’s transportation complex, connects to Hickory Fork Road and will greatly benefit from the signalization of the T.C. Walker Road and Route 17 intersection.  This is the property that Douglas S. Meredith, Director of the Gloucester Economic Development Authority pointed out as the location of a currently conceived MUD during his presentation to the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2014. Mr. Meredith also shared that Charles Records was the developer and elaborated on the value of the old Page and bus complex properties to the MUD.  He also shared that various surveys have been done on Mr. Corr’s property and provided general information on the results.
Charles Records ran uncontested and was elected to the School Board in November 2011.  The same Charles Records who continually asserts how valuable the old Page and bus complex properties are and is a staunch supporter of selling it.  Selling it would mean building a new bus complex at a different location and tearing down the existing and usable buildings. So far this MUD has consumed what would have been a 30 plus million dollar school complex that would have cost the tax payers 10 million dollars.  All that had to be done was follow the insurance company recommendations after the 2011 tornado.  Now Gloucester County tax payers are not only faced with a 20 million dollar lose but also 20 million dollars in unnecessary debt to build the new Page Middle School.  
How much more money are the tax payers of Gloucester County supposed to watch get burned up in Harry Corr’s, Charles Records’ and a select few others’ trash barrel.  What do almost all of the residents of Gloucester get out of what Harry Corr, Charles Records and a few others are doing? Nothing.  Nothing at all.  They just get to watch millions of their tax dollars go towards making a very small number of people rich.  They get to pay unnecessary taxes and fees.  They get to watch their public education system degrade.  They get to watch valuable infrastructure fall apart.  They get to watch and absorb excessive and unnecessary borrowing.  They get to continue to distrust those responsible for operating the County and Public School System.
The high level of corruption that exists within the Gloucester County Public Education System is crystal clear and Charles Records appears to be a willing participant in that corruption and should resign his position on the Gloucester County School Board immediately.
Submitted by:
“Watching Them In Plain Sight”
“Watching Them In Plain Sight” is a non-political citizen based group focusing on identifying and exposing local government corruption, waste and misuse.  We encourage anyone with knowledge of corruption, waste or misuse within Gloucester County’s government or the Gloucester County Public School System to contact us at WatchingThemInPlainSight@gmail.com.  Your identity will not be publicly disclosed without your written permission. 


                                                                                                                                  






Now we went to the section of the latest meeting that has the information where it seems to us that the Watching Them In Plain Sight group is referring to.  Please watch the video above.  We watched it very closely and found where the guy from the GEDA made a reference that could easily associate Charles Records with potential questionable connections, but under very careful examination, it is our own opinion that Slick Willy there was careless about explaining issues.  It is interesting to note that Mr Records wife is in charge of the local Chamber of Commerce.  We are not saying anything is wrong with that, however, it does give him an added advantage in the business sector.

  What really concerned us here is Slick Willy and the GEDA has not done a very good job of representing Gloucester County at all.  In fact, we have talked to numerous people on this subject and the consensus is unanimous that this guy needs to go.   If you ask us what one of the issues about coming to Gloucester County for doing business is?  We would say dealing with anyone from the Golden Triangle.  In our opinion, the Gloucester Main Street Association, the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust and the Cook foundation, the three units that comprise the Golden Triangle, are an issue.

  If you are a Mason then maybe you would want to deal with these folks as they appear to speak that language.  Baal is well represented by the Golden Triangle.  Why these folks are not contacting Masons is a very good question except that the Masonic Decree is that you do not solicit.  You wait to be asked.  Exactly what Slick Willy practices as he has just told us that.  So this guy sits around most of the day doing nothing but waiting to be contacted while taking our tax money?  It has that appearance.

  Another thing that really bothers us about Slick Willy here is that out of over 200 thousand dollars the GEDA receives from "WE THE TAXPAYERS", only one thousand dollars is spent on actively pursuing outside businesses.  That's kind of like saying free drinks on the house and putting out one beer and that's all everyone gets as the free drinks.  One beer to be shared by everyone who shows up, not one beer each.

  Get rid of Slick Willy and take the Golden Triangle out of the mix and then maybe we can start to attract new businesses instead of loosing them.  That's just our opinion.  The Golden Triangle are part of the product we simply can not afford to hang on to.




  On a final note, we must commend the Board of Supervisors for an outstanding job of asking a lot of the right questions and not taking anything at face value.  It turned up a lot of issues and answered a number of questions.  We will even commend Mr Hutson for telling Slick Willy to stop sending out brochures that make the county look bad.  We even pay attention of when things are done right.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting February, 2014 Video




There seems to be a number of issues lately with these videos coming from the county.  They just do not stream properly.  In the smaller modes given some time to load, then they start to stream a little better after several minutes.  If this persists into the future, we will simply download copies from the site and re upload them unto YouTube so that people will be able to watch them properly.

  We have not had the opportunity to go over the entire video as of yet so we are holding off on any comments.  What we have seen so far however is looking much better than it has in the past.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Gloucester, VA Public School Officials Speak Out - Corruption At Highest Levels?



A Gloucester, Virginia Links and News Exclusive Report:


Greetings Board Members:
As many of you may know; I submitted the following FOIA request on January 21, 2014.
1)     Please provide all emails pertaining to GloucesterCountyGloucester County Public Schools and or PageMiddle School between Ben Kiser and RRMM Architects, their Principles, Officers representatives or employees for the period of April 11, 2011 thru May 31, 2011.  Please include messages stored in Mr. Kiser’skiserben@gmail.com account, hkiser1@cox.net account and any other private email accounts that Mr. Kiser may use.
2)     On June 28, 2011 at 4:43PM an email conversation from bkiser@gc.k12.va.us was sent tokiserben@gmail.com.  Subject of the email is Page Committee.  Please provide said email as received in thekiserben@gmail.com email account along with all sent, forwarded, carbon copied and received versions of said email.
3)     On July 17, 2011 at 9:49AM an email was sent fromdgamache@gc.k12.va.us to kiserben@gmail.com.  The subject of the email is Fw: committees & proposals. Please provide said email as received in thekiserben@gmail.com email account along with all sent, forwarded, carbon copied and received versions of said email.
4)     On July 17, 2011 at 10:02AM an email message frombkiser@gc.k12.va.us was sent to kiserben@gmail.comand to hkiser1@cox.net.  The subject is Fw: Powerpoint for Monday.  Please provide said email as received in thekiserben@gmail.com email account and thehkiser1@cox.net email account along with all sent, forwarded, carbon copied and received versions of said email.
On January 28, 2014 I received the following response.

I will be sending you a total of nine (9) emails in response to your FOIA request (as it appears below).
Specifically, I will send four (4) emails in response to Item # 1; one (1) email in response to Item #2; one (1) email in response to Item # 3; and three (3) emails in response to Item # 4; however, please be advised that I am unable to provide messages stored in kiserben@gmail.com or hkiser1@cox.net.
Diane Clements Gamache
Executive Associate to the Superintendent/
Clerk of the School Board
Gloucester County Public Schools
This response was followed by nine more emails.  The last of which arrived almost two hours later even though I did not ask for further clarification.
As a follow-up to my earlier email sent to you today regarding response to your 1-24-2014 FOIA request, here is additional clarification:
Please be advised that Dr. Kiser moved in the Spring of 2013, and subsequently closed his Cox email (hkiser1@cox.net) account.  He has reviewed that account and emails as requested were not available.
He also reviewed his gmail account (kiserben@gmail.com) and emails as requested were not available as well.
Thank you,
Diane Clements Gamache
Executive Associate to the Superintendent/
Clerk of the School Board
Gloucester County Public Schools
The response email attachments are all of emails stored within the school systems account.  Three of the emails are of a single email conversation with a power point presentation and are dated outside of the dates for which information was requested.  The bill for compiling this information was $80.00 which equates to four hours of processing time.  The specifics contained in my request narrowed the search parameters within limits that make this fee seem ridiculously elevated.  The same request was also sent to Christi Lewis, Gloucester Community Education Director, as item number one requested information from the County and the School System. Ms. Lewis responded within two days, provided four attachments to the single response email and made no mention of a fee for search time.  I received a total of 11 emails from Ms. Gamache. (All 13 email attachments received are attached to this email)  Nine emails contained one attachment each plus the two emails shown above.  Why is there such a difference?    
The email conversations I requested were all created prior to July 18, 2011 therefore they should have been retained until the end of year 2014.  On the other hand, it could be claimed the emails in question were courtesy or reference copies that Mr. Kiser sent to himself.  As you can see no such claim was made in either response.  Such a claim could be acceptable if there was only one private email account involved.  The fact that users of the school system’s email system are afforded continuous access just like private email accounts would make the courtesy or reference copies scenario hard to accept.  The inability to produce the requested emails further illuminates the apparent decisive efforts to control and limit involvement in the post tornado Page Middle School process.  This is one more element to add to the many other questionable occurrences during that process.
At this point, Gloucester County Public Schools does not appear to have control over security, accountability or use of information contained within or accessible by its email system.  The fact that the Schools Superintendent facilitates this lack of control through his own violations of record keeping laws and regulations is clearly confirmed by the responses to my FOIA request. Considering the apparent lack of control in this area; one cannot help but wonder how much confidential or proprietary information has been sent to private email accounts where the school system’s ability to control security, accountability and access is remarkably degraded or non-existent.
Taking time to review records management policies and practices and implementing necessary improvements will result in enhanced functionality, search ability, organization and less labor hours.  Establishment and implementation of responsible, ethical and transparency driven policies and guidelines that either incorporate or prohibit private email account use will enhance records management, security and accountability of government information.  It will also show the citizens of Gloucesterthat things are being done correctly.
I encourage each of you to review the supporting information below.
Respectfully:

For clarification purposes I have included the following information which is provided on the Library ofVirginia’s website at:  http://www.lva.lib.va.us/
Under Code of Virginia § 42.1-85, the Library of Virginia (LVA) has the authority to issue regulations governing the retention and disposition of state and local public records. In keeping with the Code's mandate, LVA has developed Records Retention & Disposition Schedules outlining the disposition of public records.
Under this policy, the LVA issues two types of schedules. General Schedules apply to the records of common functions performed by or for all localities and state agencies. Specific Schedules apply to records that are unique to an individual state agency.
General Schedule # GS-19 covers administrative County and Municipal Government records.  Series 010037 applies to Department or Division Heads.   This series of records consists of incoming and outgoing letters, memoranda, faxes, notes, and their attachments, in any format including, but not limited to, paper and e-mail.  These records must be retained for 3 years after the end of the calendar year.
The Library of Virginia provides the following guidance:
E-mail messages—both sent and received—that provide evidence of a government transaction are considered public records and are subject to the same legal requirements regarding access as other government records. Some examples of e-mail that are considered public records are policies and directives; correspondence or memos pertaining to the organization’s business; work schedules and assignments; documents circulated for approval or comment; and any message that initiates, authorizes, or completes a business transaction, final report, or recommendation. Some examples of e-mail that are not considered public records are personal messages or announcements, courtesy or reference copies, phone message reminders, routine chat on e-mail listservs, and announcements of social events.
E-mail is not a records series. It is a format or manner of delivering content. The content of an e-mail determines the retention requirements. Since e-mail is usually considered correspondence, refer to General Schedule 101 for administrative records of state agencies and General Schedule 19 for localities.
Not all e-mail is plain correspondence. For instance, work orders must be retained for three years, regardless if they are sent through e-mail, form, or memo. If you have determined that an e-mail is something other than correspondence, review the appropriate retention schedule to determine the applicable retention period. Just as with all other public records, e-mail must be maintained and accessible throughout the life span of the record.
Many factors contribute to the determination that documentary materials are public records. If the answer to any of the following questions is “yes,” the document is a public record.
-Did the agency require creation or submission and maintenance of the document?
-Was the document used to conduct or facilitate agency business?
-If the document is a draft or preliminary document created for back- ground or a similar purpose, does it contain unique information that explains formulation of significant program policies and decisions?
-Was the document distributed to other offices or agencies for formal approval or clearance?
-Is the document part of an electronic information system used to conduct government business?
Megan Rhyne, Executive Director, Virginia Coalition for Open Government, provided the following thoughts on the last FOIA response email I received.
“FOIA is a snapshot of the records that exist at the time of the request. If the records do not exist at that time, then FOIA cannot compel the creation (or recreation) of them.
From a records management standpoint, it is irresponsible to let public officials unilaterally delete records about public business from their personal email accounts. Unfortunately, there is no enforcement for failure to follow guidelines under the Public Records Act.
From a FOIA perspective, though, it is not a violation to delete records/accounts, so long as the records were not deleted (or accounts closed) AFTER the request was made.
Further, though you are definitely not the first one to express well-founded skepticism over an individual's self-review of his/her private emails, that's also not prohibited by FOIA. All records request have an element of self-selection in their review procedures. It's a leap of faith in every FOIA request, though the implications are far more stark when it comes to the review of one's own email/correspondence.
I would encourage the school division to develop better records management policies for non-government account use for public business.
Hope this helps,
Megan
A few examples of limiting involvement and questionable occurrences during the post tornado Page process.  (Emails referenced herein were obtained from multiple FOIA requests)
An email conversation dated June 15, 2011 from School Board member Ann Burruss to Mr. Kiser, the School Board and others starts out with Ms. Burruss providing an update on the WHRO Committee meeting she attended.  Ms. Burruss then writes:
“After speaking to Anita today, I feel that I was in error in not “announcing” that I had spoken to Dr. Kiser about serving on this Ad Hoc committee for Page at the same time it was determined that there would be one, which I believe was at the meeting giving the update on Page.  I am reasonably sure that something can get worked out before any final committee membership is determined by Dr. Kiser, as we did foist upon him the task of deciding the make-up of this body.”  
School Board member Starr Belvin then writes:
“Does this mean that the board will now have 3 representatives on the committee (you, Anita and Jean)?” 
Mr. Kiser then writes:
Only two board members can serve on this committee.  Ms. Parker and Dr. Pugh were the only ones to express their interest last night.  If the meetings are open to the public, then anyone can be in the audience.  If the Board wishes to give me further guidance on this matter then time can be set aside next week.  Thank you.” 
In an August 4, 2011 email from Mr. Kiser to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee; Mr. Kiser thanks the members for their two days hard work discussing ideas on what to do about Page Middle School.  Mr. Kiser goes on to say:
“Please consider this information confidential until it is presented to the School Board.  We will be saying to the School Board that the cost projections are still quite tentative.  I realize the danger in putting numbers out too soon, but Duane has done a good job in projecting costs based on general information, realizing that more refined projections will be made as we decide on the final solution.
I will also forward to the School Board and the Board of Supervisors the proposals as soon as we refine this document.  It will be good for the two Boards to receive this information prior to the public during the open meeting on the 9th.  Thanks again for your assistance.”
On August 9, 2011 at 10:44AM Mr. Kiser sent an email to the School Board members, school staff, the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator and one of his personal email addresses.  In this email he presents the Page Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations, complete with a Power Point presentation.  The School Board meeting was on this date at 7:00PM.  On August 4, 2011the agenda packet for the August 9, 2011 monthly School Board meeting was posted on the Schools’ website without the supporting documentation from the Committee.  The Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations and supporting Power Point presentation were not available for the public to review until arriving at the August 9th meeting.
An email conversation between Mr. Kiser and Ad Hoc Committee member Mike Hagar, begins on June 30, 2011 with Mr. Hagar saying,
“Dr. Kiser, I received your voicemail request for volunteers to serve on a planning board that will address how best to recover from the destruction of Page Middle School.”
An email conversation between Mr. Kiser and Committee member Jay Napier begins with Mr. Napier’s request to be on the Committee and reminding Mr. Kiser of them previously playing golf at a Virginia Association of School Superintendents conference and of Mr. Kiser inviting him to the Abingdon Ruritan Club.
In an email conversation between Committee member Jennifer Latour and Mr. Kiser, Ms. Latour informs Mr. Kiser that she would be unable to attend the second of three meetings. Mr. Kiser responds:
“The second day will probably be a critical day in the committee’s deliberations but Mr. Daniel speaks highly of your involvement.   I am unsure at this point whether the third day will be needed but maybe we could communicate prior to the 27th in order to get you up to speed.  I have a committee of 17 people and something may prevent any of them from attending on a given day.  With that said, I look forward to your participation on the 18th and let’s see what will be needed from that point.  Take care.”  
Property records reflect that one day prior to the Gloucester School Board publicly voting to rebuild Page Middle School on property it received from the Pella P. Hundley Trust, Harry Corr purchased all 26.79 acres of Route 17 road frontage property that is connected to the Gloucester County property where the new school is being built.
An email conversation dated May 13, 2011 betweenGloucester’s Chief Purchasing Manager, Bill Lindsey and Ben Kiser pertaining to post tornado Page Middle Schoolcontains the following as written by Mr. Lindsey to Mr. Kiser:
“If I understand your needs, it appears that the resulting contract that you desire will encompass not only the development of a conceptual design and professional consulting services for your Board, but also a second phase that will include the development of plans and construction documents.
All of these services may be included in a proposal which I can develop for your review. For this development, I would need your staff to provide me with a Scope of Work and any other pertinent requirements that are envisioned for such an engagement. I must caution you that staff would need to be careful in establishing a business relationship with any engineering firm for the development of the work scope. I offer this caution because such a linkage could disqualify the firm from offering a proposal for the future services to rebuild the school. This prohibition is contained in §22-74 of the Code of Gloucester County.
Rather, I would encourage your staff to communicate with peers across the Commonwealth in the development of the work scope and requirements. Needless to say, I am available to work with your staff on this objective.”
In an email conversation between Mr. Kiser and Duane Harver with RRMM Architects dated June 29, 2011; Mr. Harver expresses concerns to Mr. Kiser about being able to participate in the bidding process to design the newPage Middle School if they commit to facilitating the Page Middle School Ad Hoc Committee.  Mr. Harver referenced a previous instance in which RRMM’s participation was excluded in Chesapeake because of their involvement in a study pertaining to the services contained in the Request for Proposals.  Mr. Kiser responded that RRMM’s work with the Committee would not preclude them from bidding and that he and Bill Lindsey, CPPO, CPM for the Gloucester Purchasing Office, had already spoken about it. 
Sec. 22-74. Participation in bid preparation; limitation on submitting bid for same procurement.
No person who, for compensation, prepares an invitation to bid or request for proposal for or on behalf of the county shall (i) submit a bid or proposal for that procurement or any portion thereof or (ii) disclose to any bidder or offeror information concerning the procurement which is not available to the public. However, the purchasing manager may permit such person to submit a bid or proposal for that procurement or any portion thereof if he/she determines that the exclusion of such a person would limit the number of potential qualified bidder or offerors in a manner contrary to the best interests of the county.
  It says no person shall (ii) disclose to any bidder or offeror information concerning the procurement which is not available to the public. 
From Mr. Kiser’s afore mentioned email dated August 4, 2011
“Please consider this information confidential until it is presented to the School Board”  “It will be good for the two Boards to receive this information prior to the public during the open meeting on the 9th.” 
On June 15, 2011 a Request for Professional Services to “review the potential for reconstructing Page Middle School was advertised.  Proposals for the June 15thRFP were received by July 11, 2011.  On August 9, 2011Duane Harver with RRMM presented the Ad Hoc committee’s recommendations to the School Board. Until August 9, 2011 RRMM possessed concerning information that was not available to the public, the School Board or to bidders competing for the June 15thRFP contract. 

Our Notes:  We will be posting PDF files in the very near future showing all of these communications in full detail.  What has been hidden from public view is slowly coming to light.  
Enhanced by Zemanta