at 430 and even at length seven trustee Donaldson there. He said that he's going to be here in just a few minutes
we
have a lot to cover, so we're just gonna go ahead and dive right on into it. So the first one is to review the correspondence on the document submitted to CDE requested specific conditions due May 31. And determine expect and I am the person listed on that but,
Superintendent Do you want to go to?
Yes, for sure. So, as was required, we provided the documentation by June 30. To see the that same day they did respond to us that there was deficiencies within those policies. I will say that after that happened, then we did have a conversation with legal counsel because although the staff did help produce them, it also was evaluated by legal counsel and so in my estimation, legal counsel was the one that should have caught the deficiencies. I within several days of that I also received an email from CDE. And so then I met with them personally on last Friday, and asked them for technical assistance with this next revision of board policies. And so they agreed to do that. So on Wednesday of this week, so we engage with legal counsel as legal counsel to make those corrections. And they did and then he provided those to us by Wednesday. They were then provided to CDE and then today I engaged with CDE. They have no requested revisions and so I believe at this point, what we are going to be reviewing has now been reviewed by legal counsel and has the needed corrections and CD has found in their preliminary they did say it was a preliminary review, but in their polymerase Larry review, they have found no deficiencies at this point. And so I feel confident that we can engage with these policies and look at these policies. My suggestion is because they have been both seen by legal counsel I now see D that we are very cautious with making any additional changes to them. Because then they could alter their their ability to be approved. By CB but we did step in quickly and I believe that we now have the ability, that board policy committee approves it then I believe it should go to the board on the 25th and be approved and then we will meet the July 31 requirements.
We'll start with the review of the board policies and administrative regulations on procurement the DPS a Rs 3233 partisanship and Joanne Do you want to go ahead
30 to 30
as well what we've added
support board policy 330 When the state so items that we added in there. One is for when the state and federal requirement differs the most stringent requirement applies. So right here we added the district is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of federal awards through the application of sound management practice by administrating funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreement, program objectives and the terms and conditions of a federal award. We've also added that there is a federal procurement process that we adhere to, for title two we have the coast of federal regulation. And then when the state and federally defers the district is required to follow more of a strategic requirement when the district the paints funds from state as a sub Rixon of the state it must follow procurement standard for title two of the Code of Federal regulation. So I'm not sure if it would be easier if we went to.
Part Eight on our agenda it shows what are titled to close a regulation by the federal regulations. They have a different codes that we have to adhere to when it comes to federal funding. Different codes that we have and each one I can give you a brief description of.
So for 200.3 17 For Camaguey, states, we're preparing property and services under a federal or a state must follow the same policy procedure that uses non federal so whatever our state if we're doing it out by state, if we're going to buy a procedure by an aquatic in and milk and the data, we still need to hear to what our procurements are. So our procedures, so what I'm going to do is read these down and kind of tell you where they are we put them into the new policies. Are they early in our packet here are not the ones by the description by there. Okay, so I can send it to you. I have it because I had to go get them down real quick and put them into the cheat sheet for me because it's really, when you go on to a website, you can search for it, but there's a lot of places I put on a cheat sheet to explain what the procurement guidelines for federal and those are the ones here listed 200.317 Yes. So he listed it we listed on there but I'm giving you preferred more but description of what those items are and then how they fall into each of these different Ford policies.
Is there any way you can email us that information so so we have it while we're discussing it? It's really pretty laid out.
Do you have anything to bet and then she put up there?
In order to feel comfortable with taking these two boards though, would you after this overview Would you still like to go through each one. So go through each one and either read or allow you to have time to read the blue line of each one and ask any questions around that. And then we could check it off and say okay, we have no more questions about this. We can now upload this to board. That sounds good. So you can do an overview like an overview of what you were doing. And then I think after that then it so that they just felt comfortable that they actually reviewed it I think it's an I don't know that they have to be read to it. We can give you time to look at say which one we're looking at and then give you a moment to read it. And then we'll give you a preliminary overview of what we changed in it and why and then you can ask any questions. That sounds good
223 18 General procurement standard, the non federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures consistent with state, local and tribal and regulation and the standard of the section for the acquisition of property or services under a federal
award of the board.
And then based on what we have in front of us like Where Where should we be looking at to match
that's why I think it's a little bit challenging but okay, so that would be third so that would be 2330. So if you look at the one that says 2330 Everybody go to that one that is the one in which there are four major changes to 3230. So we as was already stated, when you look at the blue line, what they what they did is they made sure that four things were changed in it that were non compliant prior one that we adhere to the most stringent requirements federal or state whichever one is more stringent. We have to do to this exact code that was just mentioned to 200.317 the procurements by state and then three general procurement standards and then adherence to cost principles. And that's basically the mumbo jumbo or the the regulations that were omitted the first time and so knowing that those are the four if it's okay if you would like the board I at least that's how I work best not having people read it to me but reading it, if we can do it by page if you want to read the first page of 3230 and then the blue in particular isn't the new and then we'll answer any staff can answer any questions if you have any wonderings about what some of the means or why we put it in there and does that is that helpful? Okay, so we'll give each other time to read it
Anyway, questions about the first page and then I mean, we can do the second I can wait and do the second one but
questions for staff.
So the language was just added that is and so the actions that come with that, the the sections at the end of the sentences, the information that's referred to as what the actions
Yeah, so you're referring to the administrative regulations, which is the next set. So we'll get to that next set. So this is the board policy, and then this is the administrative regulations that you're referring to, which is what what is the policy or the procedures behind the policy?
I guess point of feedback I would have is just I guess I was hoping that there would be more spelled out because it's very easy to just be like follow this guideline and it's like done, but we already don't have people that follow guidelines and now to ask people to look up the code and then read it and then follow it is an extra step versus like actually spelling out what sections blah blah, say in the bylaws. I mean, I know that'd be a lot longer timeline, but this is like the kind of the SparkNotes version of actually doing the bylaws. I think the way the public would probably want them spelled out.
Well, I think once we get to a Rs 2030 to 30 You'll see more of that it's spelled out here. Okay. Yeah. So that staff in general, focuses on the administrative regulations, not as much on the board policy. I mean, obviously, the Ministry of regulations is born off of this, but I think this is in pretty plain language. So when we get to the next section, it's the exact same section but this is the administrative regulation or the like how it is how do we implement it is in here. Okay, it's in the ARS. Yeah, what we call a RS Yeah. So when you
see a board policy, you see a VP AR gives you how we're going to how it's supposed to be done. So when you see VP that's the board policy, and then that relates to the HR it's on what the procedures we do. How
I don't know if you've had a chance to ask them about the process that we have on board that I spoke to you about the payment process and did it change? Did it add did it
when you're saying who was staff or what CD
before? Tony? When I told you that Janet Yarbro gave you a procurement process during her time when she was here. And it was a whole process she mentioned and I don't know what happened with that. Is that That's what was given from Janet report. Okay, that's what I was talking about. So do we have a copy of that? Is that anywhere in this process before?
It didn't happen to that it's it we still use the process. It's in our says it's on the website for the sites to look for it and understand Federal
President purchasing. No, this is actually a posting it's not on our webpage. It was actually taken off our web page back in February or January, February 2021 to 22 in prior administration. So this, the detail up here and looking at what they're asking for what we would provide and a federal program monitoring. We will provide this information which will also demonstrate what the A Rs are. And so when we're looking at that we you can see that it does talk about methods of procurement which is what our AR is talking about. It brings into detail on what are small micro purchases, what the competition is conflict of interest and so forth. So what we're doing is we are how now making sure that our administrative regulation mirrors what this does say. So, therefore, we will no longer have an issue of like an internal document. It is our board policy, administrative regulation.
And then I was able to get a copy of that.
Yeah. So what we're planning to do is put this all together as a business guideline, and that will be available on the website. We're gonna put it under the business section so that sites can hold to it when they need to do it. So we're taking the purchasing procedures and those school design guideline exceptions and marrying them together, put them together. So then one, one business booklet for on the whole on what purchasing two AP to human resource table all in one package on here.
Present versus referring to the letter talks about we're not referencing that manual that procedural manner that's why I've requested a copy of it as because we're not we haven't. We're not addressing that in here and that there is those things in place. So I think that's, it's not going to be ready by the 31st.
So when we talked to the ECB, we had told them, I told them, we also submitted our procedures and they said that it was going to be a domino effect. So they understand that. So I asked them to send back the procedures because we're going to have to add this all in there together. Because the federal was not in the procedures when we sent it off. So now, we talked to CB on Friday, I told him that I said that because of this policy is in the news to me like a domino effect. So they said they understand that now we have to update this board.
Yeah, what is due on July 31 Is the board policies and then the board policies they trickle down to the ARS which then trickled down to procedural applications or forms but obviously, if what was which is I mean, I wasn't hearing that time, but why it was probably taken down is because it doesn't have all the things that were noted in either the grand jury or these new regulations. And so it probably is some simple fixes. But I'm assuming we're gonna have to make some modifications to those documents to make sure that we have every single piece in here in those documents.
Yeah, I don't ever remember as board, which I was here during that time being informed that that was going to be removed, and that's what I was talking to you about where that was presented. And then what was in turn returned was a one pager which got us in a situation in first place. So that's what I was trying to explain to you on why we needed more time and
well, I mean, the good part is is I think, what is due on the 31st is is the board policy. So I think if we focus on the board policies and the ers then they are very aware and they've been used that word the trickle down, then the other documents can come we don't have urgency to have to have the I mean, we have urgency but not from the CVE to have those documents right if I
hadn't even reviewed the procedure yet, because that was due on June 13. So they haven't even looked at
it. Well because they knew that there is no reason to because these were inaccurate. So these are an accurate, likely those are inaccurate.
Make sure I understand the booklet that you're showing. So we have our AR that we're going to look at based on our policy. revisions, we're going to look at the AR But from the AR there were these documents created. So I'm kind of thinking of like this is a lot of legal legalese. Right. And so maybe that was created from this so that it was more easily to read more understandable,
or so. But these policies or the procedures and the bed guidelines and exceptions is more on. It's less than the legal ease and it also allows for us to have what is our day to day practice and for us to be able to when there's a question or like, I want to purchase this, what do I need to do? Here's our here's our procedure manual, and you go to this section, and we'll provide that guidance to whoever's needing to partake of that that requirement
to a our three policy
procedure step by step like Pac Man
What's the timeline for when you're expecting to manual online? Is one.
What's the timeline for getting it done since at the end of the day, we can update this and then the document that everyone follows is out of date. What's the point so
this one will be updated? The sections are being updated online, the CD because TV has to review this so we don't want to put anything out there on the CD. So after we go through these policy, and we bring them back and CD proves these, then we're focused on getting this into place and then once they review
it, what's the timeline for that?
When the CDE would have given the timeline, I don't know whatever gave me a timeline.
What's your timeline for like submitting it to see
my plan is probably like in the next two months to get this done, because I need to put procedures in place. But I want to ensure these are set in place, then we can get this set in place and then that will be put on like I don't wanna put anything online that's not approved by the CD, if they haven't reviewed it.
So the timeline says here like anything that's remaining deficiencies by July 31 And this included in that or that later, later this AR is in the BPS and let's do on the on the 31st Okay.
Okay, any questions on the first page?
Second page,
which is that one blurb is similar to it, but this time it's about contractors.
This was just based on one of the findings that we had contracts that were people were companies or agencies did not do what they said within their contracts. So this just specifically lines that out. Do we
have anything on here and saying what we as a district will do a contract or a search provider doesn't follow through with our contract?
And yeah, so that would be in a ours. So there was quite a few revisions. Yeah, so there were 10 required revisions within the ARS. Do we want to go now to the AR so that was BP 2330. And now we'll look at a ar 2330. And in that case, there were 10 revisions, you're saying? 2330.
But the AR I mean 30
to 30 I'm sorry. I really don't 30 to 30. And so in that case, there were 10 required revisions so what was submitted did not fit the statutory requirement in 10 areas. So general procurement, eliminating unfair competitive advantage. informal versus formal methods. of procurement, contracting with small and minority businesses, women's businesses and labor surplus area firms. Domestic preferences for procurement, procurement of recovered materials required contract costs and price analysis, bonding requirements, and then this is where it comes in required contract provisions. So meaning that within the provision of the contract if they fail to provide that service, we have to within the club will have within the contract what our remedy is, whether it's being credited back having warranties, what is that? And then the last one is conflict of interest requirements was also updated. So there's quite a bit of updating that occurred.
Can we also ask that if they are found to be through a process that they're no longer eligible to provide services to us?
I will find out from legal counsel. Do you guys know if we're able to do that? I know it can. It can affect some points. It's that
point that we believe that a vendor does that we can pretty much block them from doing business with them. I mean,
they're good. I mean, we can make it part of the rubric that they aren't deemed credible anymore. Yeah.
I think the question is, though, is does that go in the ers? Or would it just be within the procedures probably just within the procedures
of Federal Regulations, there is the parts where they're not adhering to it and depending on the severity of what the non compliance is, it could require a result in them being barred from any federal competition.
I think it's what
listings are that we do have to, to confirm we're using
Yeah, we would have to find that they're irresponsible. The term go through that. Those steps to find that you're responsible. And then we remove them from our vendor layers are pretty cool. So different than that. That's what we'd like to find.
Yeah. So if we can, irresponsible and knowingly entering into a contract with an unethical or illegal process as well. So I still want it to be included. That is not only irresponsible in this but if they originally entered into a contract illegally, or unethically that they are also not to be brought. They also to be barred.
Okay, and Dr. Rodriguez that was on webpage again. So that sorry, I don't know I wear glasses. I still can't see this is really small.
To the blue underneath. It talks about the breach. So it's actually the first section that you asked where it was. So it's down here. It's talking about including remedies for breach termination. These are things within the contract that we have to have. That was where it was added. So breach, termination for cause and consequences. So that would be the section. So Tony, can you just make a note and then we'll we'll work with legal counsel on that. I just want to make sure that we are legally can exclude what is our legal ability to exclude?
Yeah, I'll notate that also where every trigger whether it's here, whether it's procedures, whether it's
procedures, but I just wanted to make sure so that we don't wind up in litigation of red that we legally can can do exclusions or what are the legal things that we can do? It's
a process.
The second page is all specific to CFR 200327 It's on that bat it'll probably give me more specifics. Of that.
Can you explain what sealed sealed bidding is
put out a bid or RFP? advertisement, whatever. So when they respond to those, they turn in, like mail and or hand deliver. They're sealed bids. So they're sealed. In a completely sealed in a box or support package. So that's their bid. And we keep them sealed. We date them and timestamp them and initial when we receive them because they have to be in by certain date and time. So that was that part of the making sure that everybody got their goods on time. And they're not open until the time, the date or time of the art FP opening, which is public. And so that's really the sealed package from seeing what this looks
like in between they can't be told, oh, you should have added this and then add it because it feels so no one can get excited. So, you know, it's so more confidential. way of being able to ensure impartiality.
So for some of these, do we have an idea of how many of these policies were reading followed but just weren't in here or weren't being followed at all? Do we have an idea about that?
As far as since I've been hearing and I'm concerned, I haven't found come across anything that has been not followed? I can speak to beforehand or what have you but all PRs department and I changed the system when I got here so that I can look at and review all PRs appeals that come through, because we were having when I first landed here. So I said, Hey, I'll try not to come through me and the workload and our system so that I can review all of them. And I do. And so that's
anything else on the outside of your department? Yeah, I mean, like, how about
so I would say the best way of knowing that would be through the FPM. So the federal program monitoring because specifically what was missing in here was the federal requirements. So just because we're a large school district, so it's pretty common we get FPM or federal program monitored every year. It is a just like with all audited dipstick. Right, but generally F PMS are fairly rigorous. So I don't know Tiffany, I hate to put you on the spot. But I would say if we had findings from F PMS past F PMS, that would be an indication of how well we either were doing or weren't doing because of those F PMS because they look at financials pretty heavily. And so you know, in the last set of FPM, so we're gonna have another set coming up. But in the last set, so it's a yearly thing. The last set, how many fine needs did we have or did we have findings
so we did have findings but it had nothing to do with the procurement process. So our procurement we were able to demonstrate that we've met federal procurement requirements. When we had a, a finding it was we just didn't have time to be able to provide the evidence at the time of the short window. That's usually a couple of days that they come in and they do their final for us to be able to respond back. So we just were not able to do that. So at the end of that deadline, that's when they issue out this is what you're finding is and so we have a time for corrective action. And we've been able to clear all of the findings,
okay, and like more have been more broadly. I mean, these bylaws are covering more than just procurement today. I'm sorry, like more broadly, besides just the procurement procedures like were there any findings?
They review, time accounting, and time accounting will typically it's when, when they review, an employee will have to do a monthly activity report. And during the review of the monthly Activity Report, and then also the interview process. There have been times that it's been deemed that the percentage that the employee is charging or that we're charging for federal versus non federal is and so we've had to make an adjustment. The last EP pm that we were reviewed with, we were able to work with the department and the California Department of Education to go back and relook and we were able to negotiate what those activities were. And typically what happens is that when an interview is happening, people are are nervous and they immediately go back to like one of the last activities they did. So that's all that they talked about. It's not really the whole scope of what their job is. So what we did as we pulled their calendars of activity, we color coded and identify the activities that were federal and ones that were not and so we were able to make that adjustment. Okay.
I mean, I guess probably my like, my comment comes from we're adding a bunch of new things. And if we were already doing them, then they would already be in the handbook, but they're not in the handbook, which is why we have to modify it again. So the
more they are
in this handbook a lot of these already. And
so what we're doing is we're making this now robust to match this it just happened to do that during a previous administration, that it went from this document to a one pager. And so we're now in a new administration. We're in a new era where we're moving forward and we're looking at going back and double checking to see what type of possible changes in federal code and have it aligned with our administrative regulations. But we are in the bright process of working from the administer the board policy and administrative regulation and then coming down and bringing that legalese and to layman's terms or workable terms for our employees to have a full grasp of the requirements.
You also have to do that for state plates to
Yes, sorry. We're just talking. So when you say a new administration, are you talking about administrators are you talking about board that would take that down?
No, I'm talking about the superintendent
the superintendent, okay, that's who would have made that choice to pull that okay,
I'm sorry, well got converted to one page, the book or these things?
Okay. So it was summarized in bullet points. So there was the one pager it did include referencing of federal but it wasn't so specifically detail that would have met the federal program requirements of getting to this approach. So in 2122, we went through a federal program monitoring. We were able to in October, November, December, when we presented this and it was reviewed by the the auditor. It was approved it met the guidelines and met the requirements. And it was since that period of time in the new 22. calendar year. That's when it changed from that document to a one pager.
Okay, so what was the disconnect between like you guys working on that and like following all the federal guidelines and everything, but then not seeing that those things aren't reflected in the Bible in the board policy or the ARS? And that not being addressed like well at a time like this stuff's already in there. You know, it's not in here. So why wasn't that fix that?
Notch? Sure. We have to during our the evidence that we provide, we provide the VP, the board policy and also administrative regulation, which is specifically this one for purchasing and then the federal grants. We provided both documents they may have said, hey, we'd have both information that is meeting what those line items are that we're looking at for evidence. Other than that, I can't speak to what they were why they didn't say Hey, you didn't line item, this particular piece but we provided that document and also our VP and AR.
So you lifted my audit. It says that there was about 60 Something inaccuracies in our processes. So that there was quite a bit at
be kind. I hear what you're saying. And moving forward. New Leadership, new board leadership in now accountability we just want to make sure that there was some folks here during that time, who did not follow the process because of the heavy hand that was above them. And so that's how we ended up here today.
So we're trying to put place procedures in place. Yeah, back in order so we don't fall into this again. And that's why we're making sure this is approved. And then okay, this and then it'll be on and then this is where basically we have raised like five we'll do we'll go to this when they ever have questions or reach out to a
woman looking at, you know, these the three documents, the procedures, the or policy and the AR and you're looking at it, it looks good enough, but when you get a fit Mac coming in and they're looking at a microscope, you're starting you're getting a closer look instead of a helicopter view. You're getting a closer look. So it's gonna get more scrutinized, which means that it can't only be in there. It needs to be in here too.
Okay. Okay, any question on the AR? Moving on. We're now moving on to so as always,
under my girlfriend's decision that the superintendent could do it without competitive quotations, as long as they think it's reasonable. That's always been the case.
I don't know what was done here. That is the case in the other four school districts where I have either been superintendent or CIO, that it's code. So that is what has happened in other school districts. So I'm I'm not sure if what happened
here. That is what happens to other districts.
And so here has the the, quote maintain evidence of this reason listen to records I guess.
Yeah, yes, we have to maintain those is typically three quotes that we do. And we have to keep that documentation when we submit our purchase requisition also references a PR it is required as backup. And as we move forward with the processes, we have to ensure that the attachments are there so when I'm reviewing items that are coming through my queue for purchasing, I will then check the attachments look to see does it meet the requirements and then move forward, which then purchasing has the final authority and the support in making sure that it meets the requirements before contract or execution of the purchase order?
Okay, okay. Any
other questions?
Any questions? On page three?
Four.
Hello.
Hey,
The first paragraph on page five.
Yeah, so that basically we can have a contract or draft the specs or any language in the contract and then be able to bid on it. Okay, so we've got to keep that separates, otherwise no. unfair advantage. You know, they put together so keeping those two separate, so sometimes we'll do that. With and yeah, so that's what it is.
Any questions on page five?
One liner?
Seven Seven is just Well, someone hasn't been some vendor says they haven't been paid because there are different routes for them to go besides going to some jurisdiction like going to straight to OSU. Like the vendor hasn't been paid yet. And it's not being paid. What do you have any other process of approaching the district besides going to some federal or state authority to complain?
You pay your bills. At times when there's an inquiry about an invoice or we need clarification. We do have some lag time. From when an invoice comes in from they'll be sent out to maybe the school site and then gets transferred over to our accounts payable. As far as just like non payment that hasn't been an issue
I can see in our experience
we pay
our bills so
it wasn't fine. We would take we would work with them and it becomes to being a slave because there shouldn't have been a name that we were did their services and procedures.
Okay, and then but from there and like them, they have nothing to do but go to legal, like their own legal team.
Know that we haven't paid them in a timely manner or in there. We haven't paid them according to what our contract or purchase orders has indicated. Then they will seek their own legal services.
And of course, there's there's conversations before that like, internally as they look at the contract she would you know what are you doing for so many cookies and let's try to figure it out. internally first, of course. Have a conversation. Looking back hopefully everything's gonna be answered in the contract documented in the terms and conditions. And hopefully that should answer a lot of questions. You been able to talk through it worked out with our vendors. Okay, so you don't
have any vendor that wasn't paid in the contact with the district and I believe the district had to issue a check within the same day and you guys had a driver and deliver the check to the company.
Okay, for right now, you don't believe there's any outstanding payments or anything, like long term disputes that you're not negotiating right now? Like you don't think there's anything like that right now?
None that I'm aware of.
I think we can make a question.
So we're trying to go a little bit quicker through them because we have we have quite a few. So the next one is, is pretty quick. So it's 3311 and in that case, it was two things that were addressed. The first on the first page within blue, which is in regards to using the most stringent requirements apply. So you're gonna hear some the same verbiage coming out and then if you skip I don't know why there's a blank page but if you go to page three, then it's about the second item, which is abiding against utilizing piggybacking for contracts with federal funds. Which are you looking at 3311. So business and non instructional operation 3311 to 33. Can I just go into that if I didn't go in the order? There we go. That would be great. That 33. So that that two items
what you'll see is it's a lot of the same policies that were not included in multiple areas. So non stringent. most stringent. And then also in this case, they're just different but it's about Jackie.
So is that something like we're a vendor or contractor comes with recommendations or work done with other school districts? Then they can use that information with the other ones for us to push them through.
No, explain piggyback no
oh no. Yeah. So piggyback contracts are? No If you can't, if a contractor did something that another school state or another district, say I've done this over there, just let's just use what I did over there and their pricing. No, it's going to go through a competitive process. It could be a co op like a JPA or C match the state of California has also done their own competitive procurement that we're able to piggyback off of. So it's not kind of off the head type of thing. But yes, it just so so what happened in the 80s There's the state of California and throughout the nation set. Why is every school district going out to for the same thing, right? So we're all going out for school supplies, or web construction or wherever they need nutrition services
is a big one, a huge
one. So instead of doing that, why don't we put together one that goes out competitive it was fair and goes through the RFP or bidding process and then they can all use it. Rather than we go out and load it goes out la goes out, you know, for the same exact procurement because it is bidding an RFP processes. It's a lengthy process. So that's what the piggyback
telling you're saying. Piggybacking is basically off the state of California contract or a county contract, and where you
can be or consortium
or other coops like LA County, they're huge. They, they put together their procurement to go do RFPs and bids and they distribute those out for other districts to piggyback off, but you have to follow exactly what you can't change it. And also a lot of vendors. They get awarded those piggyback contracts like Southwest Office Depot, Home Depot, so a lot of these vendors that we work with, we utilize piggyback contracts to get better pricing to get better discounts
all the time. So that's gone through the competitive process, fulfilled all the guidelines, public contract code. And that becomes available for all districts to be able to use all public agencies actually to use them.
But we can't change them. We can't go oh, let me add this to it. And that's kind of the second part of the next page of saying, if you're gonna piggyback, make sure that it provides the service or the goods that you really do need, that you're okay with all the terms and conditions in that contract because you have to follow it to a tee. So
Okay, any questions
so then there's the administration administrative regulation that is built off of that. And luckily, these ones are not as bad as the first one. So this has three things, eliminating unfair competitive advantage, which was in the original document that we first looked at an explanation of state exemptions that do not apply to federal funds. And then also, again, the most stringent requirements apply. So that's the three key changes in the administrative regulation of this document. Of 3311.
Similar language changes on the page, or
the first time is, is on page four. Yeah, in a second.
Any questions.
The second to the last page.
So I'm understanding this to be we're not going to make any exceptions.
As I was reading in my mind, I'm thinking how we got into like the IQ contract. And so there was some exceptions and extra stuff. So we're not going to do that no more. That's basically what this is saying.
Yep. Okay, then apply the most challenging, strict.
So I'm assuming the like the parks where our bylaws, our local bylaws are less stringent than federal like those differences will be outlined I guess and Brooklyn.
Now we're saying that you're we're saying it in our our policy most stringent,
like the like the specifics.
Difference steps you would take? Yeah, that would be in our Congress. The
next one is 3314. And again, this is a fairly, fairly fast one, which is great. So this is just an update, just talking about us having to return federal funds, when we do an unallowable expenditure. So a, an example of that which we we now have rectified is we actually were in the process of losing over $6.4 million of extra funding because we allocated it to the to the contract and so during the conversation that we had on on Friday with CDE, we were actually able to recapture that money, and we were able to rectify it by providing an allowable expenditure, so the district was going to have to repay that money, as it stated here, and then I questioned it and asked how could we maintain that money? And the response was, Well, we have to have an allowable expenditure. So then, quickly, Joanne and her team, worked with the cov and we were able to recapture that money. So instead of having to return $6.4 million, we actually are now able to keep it and we were able to take what we paid for our general fund. We were able to now place it in eser. So in essence, we save $6.4 million of general fund with that conversation. So we are proud of ourselves on that but that actually speaks to exactly this and that it was deemed an unallowable expenditure, so we were gonna have to return the money. We now took that out of Esther and we showed them what an allowable expenditure was some allowable expenditures, and we were able to recapture that money,
but what's considered the allowable expense.
So for each Ester group that changed, it changed over time, so as her one was much more stringent and strict on what you could the parameters you could do it on to loosen Depp's thumb by quite a bit and three loosened all the way up, for the most part. And so what we did is there was for the most part, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the most part it was the health benefit or bonus, I guess, you guys.
Actually what we did was we took Chromebooks that we purchased that camp is allowable under SR one, and then we did some salary and benefits plus the 4% safety, safety that we were able to move that over to SR two two, so to declare that out.
Sorry, so Okay, so initially, the whatever 6 million was from a through one, the government's like, you can't do that. So take money out of your general and give it back to federal was the initial what we were supposed to be, but now we've taken money out of we've moved IQ to SR two, because that's more allowable. No, it's out. What does that mean? It's out,
meaning it's out of SR funding. It's no longer funded out of Aster,
so it's out of gentlemen,
please switch so.
Yeah, so what happened is it got switched to general like it had to and you just lost all that general funding. Right now. Now we were able to, and so we were going to have we basically in with that we actually lost $12
million. Like originally we're gonna lose 12 in a way
because you lot you took this 6 million and you made it into a general fund. And then now you also lost the 6 million so you lost 12 million off of that, but now what has happened is we had to put that that contract into general it is good there. We put those general expenditures now back into Esther, so we regain that $6 million.
So does that affect the district if the district can move forward, the district's ability to Sue is still
lost 6 million. Okay. So we're still able to I can't speak too much where I'm at but we're still able to work on that. But we wound up saving 6 million of general
penalty basically.
So that's what that's why this this provision is important. And then the AR. The AR link to that is the only additional is that this also talks about process and progress. payment requirements, which is Ben's first blue part
I'm sure that we do this because they require Contractors always want a piece of wire as they're moving on. They have to pay their people
any questions all.
Right, so 3315 addresses conflict of interest requirements. With vendors and again the most stringent requirements.
So we had a service provider who was also a district employee providing services for the district.
Probably wouldn't have been but is that still happening?
Do we still have full services?
That's why I did not. We did not push it through because I noticed that that employee that brought it forward is that person who brought aboard was an employee. I believe last year she wasn't but this year she was that's why we did not put that we did not allow them to use our they want to use this year but I didn't allow her because she is important but district she would bring her own company.
And did we let her know that that was a conflict of interest? Was there any reprimands? Is there any processes like since it did go through? There's probably no need for a reprimand but is that something where we got to start?
I'm not sure what the communication was back to them because I actually didn't deal with the vendor got brought to me and I said no we can't do that because she's an employee. I don't know what they had told her. Why she was not ideal. But we can have a standard letter that would say I mean, that's we're not going to give your employee here. We're not going to bring business here. That's just
we are we did rectify that for this upcoming year with YMCA SOA, they will open all pools, this company
the 700 formers
are board members covered under district employees
there is no ar that needed to be corrected on that one. And so now we're just going to 90 to 70. So 90 to 70 is the updating of that 700 form. And then also underscoring the standards of conduct that will be used to enforce requirements. And then similar to possibly what you were referring to before disciplinary action for violation. And so that is where you would find it. It's actually in our bylaws versus our board policies. So that's within this document.
The language that we're adding Now, are we are we we have to spit this out. Right? Accountability, right. So, going forward, this is what it is. We can't go back now. Like because we've had board members violate this code of ethics or this conflict of interest. And although it says here in the block language, there was we as a Board have not taken or district cups not taking any disciplinary action towards these board members aside from waiting for the grand jury and the DEA to investigate. So do we as a Board have any authority to do anything about them?
We can talk with you on that at some things. Might have a statute of limitations and it also depends if there was any interaction. There's you know, things something called Double Jeopardy so i don't i don't know but we can find out about rhetoric by right interactive. activity.
And then the statute of limitations I'm check into that because if it's still under investigation, and the grand jury found the conflict of interest as well and also named for members and then while I'm
sure it probably statute does not have limitations probably won't apply for this because we're still reasons. Yeah, I mean, usually statute of limitations is like 357 years. 10 years though. I don't think we've hit that yet. But I'm just I was just explaining the broad scope. But we can I can all talk to Doug.
Okay, moving on to page four.
So there any questions
and then the remaining document that you have, in terms of e 9270. Is means exhibit. E stands for as the exhibits. These are the different exhibits
and the main one is the main changes on chain is on page 547. There's just a few delineations and eight but the bulk of it of the change is actually on page five
any questions?
If there is a conflict with vendors. Like what's the what's the process for that? Like let's say there's some admin person who's doing something that has conflict of interest, it becomes void. Okay, and then is the like, is that public like what happened to that in terms of the other contracts void, but in terms of discipline for the person,
so that all that always becomes personnel record so you are always going to know exactly what happened with that. Person? In most in some cases, because it talks about dismissal, you would know because the person's not here anymore, but we wouldn't necessarily say that okay, but you would know by absence
what was six o'clock?
Yeah, I was excited. We're going to slip. We're on the last one lower. So the last one is a 3310. And this is again, just talking about state exemptions that don't apply to purchases made with federal funds. So the last one?
Questions
so the next steps will be like we did last time we don't have to go to a person second reading. We just go to because we did this thing when we make a board recommendation for
women, that's when we'll say we went over it line by item, we have community input. And we went over policy administrators. And we'll still we're still in process because we still got more updates that will be coming forward. So we're not completely done. But we are moving forward. Good stuff. All right. I will go ahead and call the meeting adjourned at 5pm
