Council Balks On Bus Resolution

By John Voket

Efforts to pass a Legislative Council resolution August 17 tied to the ongoing school transportation contract process were temporarily halted after officials heard from Board of Education representatives and several members of the council who were concerned such action might violate the local Ethics Code and possibly expose the town to legal action.

Councilman James Belden even suggested that initiating a resolution could jeopardize a future contract if it was awarded to Newtown’s owner-operators, saying the council’s action could give competing bidders the impression the town’s leading legislative board was unduly attempting to influence the school board’s choice for student busing services.

Nearly three hours of deliberation on the subject was preceded by the swearing-in and seating of Republican Dan Wiedemann, a council candidate on the November ballot, who was selected to complete the term of Richard Woycik, who resigned his council seat earlier this month. While Mr Wiedemann primarily listened throughout the meeting, he at one point questioned why the regular student transportation bid was not bundled with separate contracts for sports team and special education transportation.

He then joined in voting to authorize several financial transfers, along with supporting the final decision to seek legal counsel regarding resolutions on the school transportation issue. The council, with Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob, Robert Merola, and Jan Andras absent, was joined by Kevin Fitzgerald, who was away on vacation but who participated in the meeting via teleconference.

Councilman Daniel Amaral was also present, but could not participate in any discussions or action related to the transportation issue because several bus owner-operators are clients of his auto repair and storage lot in town.

The meeting began with a reading of the proposed draft of a resolution that was tendered by Mr Capeci based on input he received at a previous council meeting, where council member Kathryn Fetchick introduced the idea about the panel taking an official stand supporting local owner-operators.

The school board and administration is in the process of evaluating several competing bids solicited from private school bus companies vying to replace the independent owner-operators who have been providing student transportation in town for nearly 80 years.

According to the school district, the local drivers’ collective bid for a five-year contract was more than $1.7 million higher than the lowest offer from All-Star Transportation, which bid just over $10.2 million.

Not Just About Cost

While school board officials on hand Wednesday reaffirmed that cost was not the sole criteria for choosing whether a transportation company or the owner-operators would get the contract, two other companies — DATTCO and First Student — also tendered bids lower than that of the local drivers.

In speaking to the original motion, Ms Fetchick said it was the council’s right and responsibility to respond to the “political pulse” of the community, stating that she had been approached by countless residents and constituents saying overwhelming public support to keep the owner-operators was apparently falling on deaf ears at the school board.

Ms Fetchick and Ms Jacob, at a previous meeting, both said the process was unfair to the local drivers whose operation was substantially different than that of a private bus company. Both council members also complained about the appearance that school officials, particularly school board Chairman William Hart, Superintendent Janet Robinson, and Business Manager Ronald Bienkowski, had been advocating to replace the owner-operators with a single private company.

“I don’t believe it’s been a fair process,” Ms Fetchick said. “The owner-operators are a different animal than a bus company — they’re not the same.”

But Mr Hart and fellow school board member Andrew Buzzi both defended the process, expressing dismay about any impressions in the community that the board or any district staffers were supporting replacing the owner-operators.

It was Mr Fitzgerald who first introduced the concern that any type of resolution related to the busing matter could be interpreted as a violation of the local ethics code, saying the draft “pressures the Board of Education.”

“This is not the council’s purview,” Mr Fitzgerald said. “I believe this resolution violates state statutes and the local charter.”

Mr Hart went on to say that while per-pupil expenditures in Newtown are below both other school systems in a district reference group (DRG) and state averages, transportation costs are 40 percent higher. The school board chairman also argued that by introducing or supporting a resolution, it creates a special status among numerous vendors and bargaining groups serving the town, and it could compromise the school district’s ability to solicit or negotiate future bids for other services.

Prior to the August 17 meeting, the council developed more than two dozen specific questions members were hoping to have answered by district officials, but Mr Hart said he did not prepare specific answers, instead choosing to respond to any or all questions off the cuff.

After asking several of the proposed questions in turn, it appeared that council members abandoned the list, turning instead to focusing on the perceptions that a resolution would be damaging or possibly compromise the current bid evaluation process. Both Mr Hart and Mr Buzzi encouraged concerned citizens and town officials to come to a question-and-answer session scheduled for Saturday, August 20, at 10 am, at the Newtown High School cafetorium.

Negotiating In Process

Mr Buzzi and Mr Hart did, however, address interpretations by some council officials that the bid language prohibits the district from negotiating with specific bidders in process, suggesting they could give the owner-operators a chance to adjust their offer to be more competitive. Mr Buzzi said that once a contract was awarded, the district could attempt to negotiate on certain points of the bid.

But, he said, when you have multiple bidders, you can’t ask one to tweak its offer without offering the same opportunity to all bidders. Both Mr Hart and Mr Buzzi also admitted that the district could award the contract to a higher bidder with the hope of negotiating better rates after the fact, but such a practice, according to Mr Hart, “doesn’t protect the integrity of the process.”

Under questioning by Councilman Gary Davis, Mr Hart said that safety was the top priority in evaluating a future provider, but cost was also a concern, including the collateral savings the district could enjoy by “off loading as much of the [transportation] administration as possible.”

The school board chairman noted that a pending complaint against the district to the State Labor Relations Board regarding their status as either contractors or district employees that was flagged by a district consultant “causes problems” with the owner-operators’ role in the bidding process. Mr Hart said because of the pending legal action, it prevented anyone from the school board to speak directly with any owner-operators or their representatives.

Mr Nanavaty pointed out that in formulating their bid, the owner-operators could have easily referenced and matched a per bus/per day figure based on a similar contract awarded to the Newtown-based MTM transportation company for student busing in 2010.

Councilman George Ferguson said he was happy to see the school board bidding out the contract, but hoped school officials would evidently weigh things like the peace of mind afforded to parents because their children are being transported by neighbors and local business people who have a longstanding investment in the community.

“That value translates into a positive reputation for our community, and enhances our ability to sell real estate,” Mr Ferguson said. “If you wrote a bid based on what we have already, you wouldn’t have gotten any bidders.”

Mr Ferguson added that taxpayers deserved a thorough economic analysis of switching to an out-of-town bus provider, seeing that 70 percent of taxpayer funding gets allocated back to the school system.

After a break to transact several administrative transfers, the council reconvened with Benjamin Spragg suggesting an alternative resolution that attempted to assuage the various concerns and conflicts addressed by school officials and fellow council members. His brief proposal removed any reference to the owner-operators, instead suggesting the district use “its discretion in multiple factors in awarding the bus contract.”

Mr Spragg said based on the fact that a previous resolution was already made known to the public, the alternative would still send a message to school officials without putting the council on record favoring any specific outcome. But Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Davis, and Mr Belden still opposed supporting any resolution, prompting Ms Fetchick to suggest tabling the matter until the council could get clarification on any legal or ethics exposures resulting from the action.

Council Chairman Jeff Capeci supported the suggestion, saying: “This is a legal issue and the council needs to be sure we’re not causing legal harm.” Mr Capeci did acknowledge that any delay in getting the legal advice might delay council action past the point when the district awards the transportation contract.