What was Red Whiddon; an auditor or an analyst?

I dunno.

Neither do you.

But let's assume that Red knows more about what he's doing than Dr Lewis. Red is the one who says he's (only) an analyst. What sorts of things could an analyst tell us about the 2004 Bond projects, and the money spent? (Not that every dollar spent is accounted for -- that WOULD be a job for an auditor. ) But just in general, what kind of thing might he be able to tell us, that we would like to know?

Well, what would you like to know?

Speaking for myself, I'd like to know about the bidding process.

According to the LISD Board of Director's minutes, even a well-run and fair bidding process does NOT mean that we got the lowest cost projects. Higher bidders could --and might even be expected to -- win the awarded contract. From the minutes November 12, 2003 (Page 1 )


Gallagher staff discussed the RFP process from going out for bids to opening bids and recommending a company to the Superintendent. Gallagher staff discussed that bids are opened in a public meeting -- not a Board Meeting. After reviewing the bids, Gallagher staff reviews the proposals, including the history of the companies and makes recommendation(s) to the Superintendent. Gallagher shared that sometimes the low bidder is not always the company recommended. In that scenario, Gallagher prepares a memorandum to the Superintendent stating why they believe the low bidder is not the best company. The
Superintendent then reviews the recommendation(s) from Gallagher and brings the best company to the Board to present and be approved. Discussions evolved about bringing several companies to present to just being presented with the best company. Dr.Lewis shared, as Superintendent his responsibility is to review all recommendations and
bring — the "best“ to Lancaster.




Okay, so I wish Mr Whiddon had told us of some hundreds of proposed jobs, how many were awarded to OTHER than the low bidder. If the number of jobs is J and the number of higher bids awarded is H, what's the percentage of H / J?

10% ?

30% ?

90% ?

I dunno.

Neither do you.

*sshhh* It's a secret. The District doesn't want you to know. Or so it seems.

Why?

Another question: How many of the High Winning Bids were from contractors closely associated with Gallagher Construction? Gallagher, as a company, is not only the project manager and in position to recommend awards, but was, after all, a bidder itself?

How many of the lower-but-losing bids were from minority-owned companies? Or woman-owned, or locally owned small businesses?

Was most of the Bond 2004 money diverted to rich corporation white guys from outside Lancaster? Or was it shared with Black, Hispanic and local small business?

I dunno.

Neither do you.

Red Whiddon, our analyst, didn't tell us.

I DO know that one local businessman who tried to bid on the project says the rules changed in the middle of the process.

Also from Lancaster IDS Board of Trustees minutes November 1, 2004 (Page 2 )


Citizen’s Communication Larry Jefferson, Sr., 507 Martindale, Lancaster, Texas

Mr. Jefferson also shared his concern about awarding of contracts, he stated that he bid on 2 jobs and felt the rules on bids changed.


I bet he said a lot more than wound up in the minutes, too.

Was the bidding fair? Were a significant fraction of the projects awarded to local contractors? Did the taxpayer get good value on the projects, as evidenced by the low bidders being awarded most contracts? Aren't these things you want to know?

Wouldn’t having such answers help you make up your mind about trusting the district with another $215 MILLION? ( Or is it $211 Million, and what’s a mere $4 Million discrepancy when it’s only taxpayers’ money we’re playing with?)


I sure wish some independent outsider could take a look at the overall 2004 bond projects and tell us how fairly it was spent.

That is, I wish some such person would do more than shake my hand, look me squarely in the eye, and recite the district’s script as written.

Now Herb Booth of the Dallas Morning News has weighed in. According to Herb, the bond proposal is for $215 Million.

Steve Synder, you recall, reports it was "only" a $211 Million bond.

Anyhow. $211 Million or or $215 Million, it's BIG.

And fuzzy.

I was there. I think Herb is correct. I think Steve is carrying over a number from about 21st of August, before The School Business Group (of "scope creep" fame) added in buses, cop cars, and other vehicles to the bond package on the 28th of August. Or maybe some other $4 million dollar item was added to the wish list when Steve wasn't looking.

Gotta watch that creep. It sneaks up on you.

It'll be interesting to see what the good folks at Focus think the number should be.

Well, the TODAY newspaper for 31 August is out. Top banner, front page: "Schools' $211 bond election on ballot".

But, you read it here first.

A few selected quotes from Steve Snyder's article, (Links tomorrow, when the on-line edition comes out.)

"... the bond committee was sold on the bond ... by an outside consultant, Phillip 'Red' Whiddon of The School Business Group."

"...Lewis then found Whiddon doing custodial and other out-sourcing work at the Keller School District..."

Right.

Allow me to provide some on what Mr Whiddon was doing to Keller ISD.

Now a new company that trustees hired to move the maintenance department under district control says it expects the district to pay $285,170, almost twice as much as the $164,000 that the company and district officials originally agreed to.

Trustees learned of the cost overruns Feb. 10 in an informal report. The overruns were never mentioned in periodic maintenance reports that were shared with the school board.

According to the original contract, The School Business Group was to receive $84,000 for temporarily overseeing the maintenance department, which includes custodians, and grounds and maintenance workers. It was also to receive $80,000 for a comprehensive review of the maintenance department, including a plan for long-term improvements.

So far, the district has paid more than $154,000 to The School Business Group, largely for supervising maintenance. Company executive Philip "Red" Whiddon estimated that about 10 percent of the work on the comprehensive review has been completed. The district has received more bills, but has not paid them yet, Stone said.

Dr Lewis says "We had an outside entity" -- Mr Whiddon -- "audit Gallagher, the Lancaster School District, Corgan and Associates..."

Right.

Mr Whiddon presented a power-point slide to the board reporting he had been hired to "analyze" the district's '04 bond project.

I am not a financial expert, but it seems to me that analysts are somewhat different than auditors. Analysts are the guys on the business news TV shows telling us to buy Enron. Auditors are the guys from the Security and Exchange Commission digging thru the remains trying to find out who pocketed the stolen money from Enron.

Mr Whiddon, as far as I know, is not an accountant. He's no doubt qualified, even over-qualified, to be run a school custodian's office. I'm not so confident he can figure out where the 2004 Bond money (some $110 million dollars) all went.

However that may be, Mr Whiddon reported to the Lancaster Board of Trustees that work left undone from the 2004 bond projects were the result of "the scope of work expanding". I heard Mr Whiddon introduce the expression "scope creep" to the board. (This is how a $65 Million dollar high school and stadium wind up costing $72 Million, or was it $74 Million, or was it...?)

Scope creep. Yes sir. We gotta watch that creep.

Mr Whiddon also presented a slide to Trustees claiming he had "facilitated" four meetings of the Bond Advisory Committtee.

He was including the Monday, 28 August Board of Trustees meeting among the four. Those of us on the committee might have counted him "facilitating" one committee meeting and attending two more. But who's counting? We already know Mr Whiddon is not hired to be picky about school districts' and their numbers.

Mr Whiddon says "Thank goodness the board didn't sink $4 Million into West Main and Pleasant Run, and instead held the money back."

Right.

Exactly where, in whose pocket, and for what, is that money being "held back", I wonder? If it even exists any more. Board member Carolyn Morris doesn't seem to think even one million of the original $110 is left, after the district has paid points to secure their "AAA" bond rating. But an auditor ( I mean analyst) like Mr Whiddon surely speaks truly and carefully about hold backs ...

Dr Lewis says he accepted the judgement of the (May) taxpayers. One trusts the November voters' opinions are equally welcome.

Dr Lewis tells us the that the "demographic" * of Lancaster is such that our students and citizens are not very computer literate. He proposes to remedy that problem by assigning each student in the school district a laptop computer.

Well, maybe he's right about the kids (and even the adults) in Lancaster, Texas. There's probably not a whole lot of people who have computers, or e-mail accounts, or picture cell phones, I-pods, Palm PDAs or Blackberrries. Be lucky to have a pager, y'think?

Not.

Me, I'm thinkin' a whole lot of people 'round here have all that kind of tech tools. Blogs, even. So, let's see. How many people are interested to come make a little noise about the school district, and much money they spend, and how their test scores look, and what we ought to do about getting good classrooms and sharp teachers for all the kids?

If there's a bunch of folks talking about it, making a racket here, we'll know that the laptop-in-schools thing is just a thing.

And if we hear the crickets chirping, well, we'll know that too.


( * "Demographics" which are more than just the race or the income level or the home value or the age of the Lancaster population, but exactly what we are, that the word means, the good doctor does not exactly specify. )