School Bus Contract Review Sparks Outcry From Owner/Operators And Supporters

By Eliza Hallabeck

A standing-room-crowd gathered at the Board of Education meeting April 7, dominating an hour of public participation to an agenda item warning possible action on a student transportation contract that was recently put out to bid.

Before opening the meeting for the first public participation, school board Vice Chair Lillian Bittman said she wanted to make it clear that, “what the board is considering concerning the busing issue is the MTM contract only. We are not looking at the entire busing system. That has never been part of this situation. The MTM contract was due to go out to bid.”

Ms Bittman also said the board could withhold any decisions on the award and deliberate further, which ended up being the outcome.

“We are in no way looking at any kind of action or vote to do away with the existing owner/operator contract,” Ms Bittman said.

During two opportunities to hear public feedback, drivers for the district’s current contract provider MTM Transportation and members of the public all stood to support the locally owned company that supplies buses for special education students and events, as well as local owner/operators, who provide most of the rest of Newtown’s school bus services.

“This bid was necessary, because it is a $1.7 million package,” Dr Robinson said. “It would be irresponsible for the Board of Education to not bid this and find the lowest bidder.”

MTM, a local fleet operator, provides transportation to students in all three tiers — the divided runs between the schools — of the bus routes, to private schools and special needs students. The company also provides transportation to out-of-district locations and during the summer.

The owner/operators provide transportation for students in the public schools to all three tiers, and are contracted individually.

“I think it’s a shame that this administration decided to meet with MTM to discuss this contract late in the day today,” said owner/operator Phil Carroll during the first public participation, “and I think it’s a shame that they did not give anyone a chance to discuss this with the board or with the administration.”

He said to meet with MTM late in the day, hours before the discussion was to be brought before the Board of Education, was ridiculous. Mr Carroll added that as soon as the administration heard people planned to attend the meeting, a mass email was sent out saying the owner/operators are not part of the current situation.

“I’m sorry,” he said, “this is something we’re all integrated with. When one of their buses go down, an owner/operator picks up those kids. When of the owner/operator buses go down, MTM buses pick up those kids. What are you going to do if you decide to go out to another company? Do you think I’m going to donate my time to a competitor who’s going to try to put me out of business? I don’t think so.”

Sue Asetta said as a mother of a child who attends St Rose of Lima School she has had nothing but positive experience with MTM, and she hoped the board would listen to the public.

 Diana Paproski said she attended the meeting because as a community member she is concerned about the safety of the children. She said she rallied her neighborhood to attend the school board meeting, despite her children no longer being in the school system in Newtown.

“But because an email was sent to them saying that this really not an issue, my neighbors decided not to come,” said Ms Paproski.

 Owner/operator Carey Schierloh announced that the owner/operators met after a meeting with the school district and unanimously decided not to take an increase in pay for the coming year.

“We thought it would be in the best interest of the school district to do that,” Ms Schierloh said. “By not taking an increase, I figured that we were saving the district $55,654. Along with the three furlough days that were taken for next year, it’s an additional $42,000 and change, for a total of almost $98,000.”

Ms Schierloh said the MTM owners still have their own contracted buses.

“It has been suggested to us that when this contract is awarded, whoever gets this contract will begin to take owner/operator contracts over.”

That practice, she said, could start in June when some people are likely retiring. Ms Schierloh said it was suggested that their contracts would go to the new company, and that would continue “until our contract will go out to bid, and there may not be any owner/operators after that.”

Michelle Voight, co-owner of MTM, said earlier on Tuesday that MTM was told that any new contract, for instance when someone retires, “that contract will be given to the company who stays in Newtown. That means phasing out the owner/operator system. It might not mean getting rid of them right now, but it’s starting the phase out.”

Ms Bittman clarified that every contract that would come up would be brought before the Board of Education, and only the school board can decide on contracts.

The email that was sent out to parents in the district before the meeting clarified that MTM’s contact was the only contract up for bid, and that the results of the bids were to be discussed at the school board meeting.

“I have absolutely no personal involvement, nor do I know the owners of any of these companies, other than MTM,” said Dr Robinson, as a personal disclaimer before starting the topic of the bids for MTM’s contract.

She added that some of the companies have won bids in districts in which she has previously worked.

“The conversation [Director of Business Ronald Bienkowski] had with MTM was about actually splitting the bids,” said Dr Robinson, “because the lowest cost solution for the district would be to use the low ‘Base In District’ quote from All-Star [Transportation], and the low components from MTM, which as you see at the bottom would be a cost of $10,260,959 with a savings to the district of $362,827.”

Although another company, First Student, had the lowest bid for the “Summer In District” category, Dr Robinson said, Mr Bienkowski did not want to divide the bids between three different companies.

The bids for MTM’s contact were broken into four categories. According to the Bus Proposals 2009-10 Summary, MTM came in as the lowest bidder on two of the packages. All-Star Transportation came in as the lowest bidder for the largest package, the “Base In District” package, which is the cost for the majority of the routes.

Mark Walsh, as an outside consultant with Transportation Advisory Services, also suggested the board split the award between MTM and All-Star Transportation.

“I’m concerned about All-Star,” said Board of Education member Anna Wiedemann, “because when New Milford contracted with them, they went back to ask for more money.”

She said the company is getting a 7.5 percent increase there, as compared to the owner/operators’ under 3 percent. Ms Wiedemann said she is also concerned that All-Star Transportation may not be able to deliver what it has on paper.

In the event the contract would go to a bus company other than MTM, Dr Robinson said that company would “want to hire our drivers.”

But Ms Wiedemann asked if there was a backup plan if drivers in town would not want to drive for that company.

No action was made regarding awarding the contract by the end of the school board meeting, and further conversation between the owner/operators and the school district is possible.

During the second portion of public participation for the evening, Rich Paltauf said some of the other bus companies have less than proven track records.

“MTM and the owner/operators in this town have an excellent track record,” he said, “and you guys need to consider that. And it’s not just about the bottom line with the dollars.”

Owner/operator Carey Schierloh said the choice should be for best for the overall system. In recent weeks, Ms Schierloh and other volunteers have been working to clarify areas of additional savings the district might apply to the overall transportation budget.

She said those savings were already reviewed with the district. The identified areas of possible additional savings include a voluntary wage freeze, which has been offered by the owner/operators.

When accounting for reduced costs for fuel and buses from furlough days, the district can already realize more than $100,000 in additional savings. Ms Schierloh has also identified other areas, which in total, could generate nearly a quarter million dollars in savings to the district.

In other news, the school board heard about another $300,000 windfall coming from anticipated electrical utility savings. (See related story in this week’s Bee.)