School Board Receives Transportation Bids

By Eliza Hallabeck

Nearly every person who came to address the Board of Education at its meeting on Tuesday, July 12, spoke in favor of Newtown’s owner-operator system.

Tuesday was the first time the Board of Education formally learned of the transportation bids.

“This bid provides the Board of Education and the town with a significant opportunity to reverse the increases in transportation costs over the next five year,” said school district Business Manager Ronald Bienkowski.

Both owner-operators, Newtown’s individually contracted drivers, and drivers for MTM Transportation Inc, a Newtown-based fleet operator that provides transportation for special education students and more, transport Newtown students.

The local owner-operators’ contracts to provide general student transportation to Newtown’s public schools expires on June 30, 2012, and the school district has gone out to bid for a better rate for those services. Those bids were opened June 24, with a consortium of owner-operators bidding $11,728,895 to hold onto their jobs. The lowest bid, however, was tendered by MTM Transportation, which agreed to provide comparative services for $9,957,902. Three other bus companies also tendered bids lower than the owner-operators, with Dattco bidding $11,405,584, First Student bidding $11,049,663, and All-Star bidding $10,207,896.

MTM Transportation’s contract is separate from the owner-operators’ contract.

Mr Bienkowski listed the seven bidders on the contract, from lowest to highest, during the meeting as MTM Transportation, All-Star Transportation, First Student, Dattco, the owner-operators, Durham School Services, and Baumann and Sons. The full report he presented on the transportation bid is available on the school district’s website, www.newtown.k12.ct.us.

“The transportation needs that were addressed in this bid exceed over $11.6 million over the next five years,” said Mr Bienkowski, “and this dollar value certainly warrants a high degree of scrutiny and consideration to ensure the Board of Education is effectively executing its fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of the taxpayers of Newtown.”

He said there are very few areas in the budget that can be effectively reviewed for savings.

The bids were put together, Mr Bienkowski continued, based on the number of vehicles currently being used and asked for midday costs and more.

“A comprehensive checklist was developed to analyze the bids received, and to discover the companies that included or omitted information pertinent to our decisionmaking process,” said Mr Bienkowski. “We completed a bidders checklist matrix that included all the information that was in the bids.”

During the meeting, Mr Bienkowski also explained an interview committee — comprising Mr Bienkowski, school board member Keith Alexander, Education Connection Transportation Manager Bert Hughes, Newtown’s Director of Pupil Personnel Michael Regan, and Town Finance Director Robert Tait — met with the four lowest bidders on the contract. No information from the meetings was revealed to the school board during the meeting, and Mr Bienkowski said it can only be released after a selection of a company is made.

Following the meeting, Mr Bienkowski specified the interview committee is continuing an evaluation of the bidders and will present the information to the Board of Education when completed.

“It’s obvious when you look at the numbers that there are significant differences,” said Mr Bienkowski, adding that all of the bidders are capable of fulfilling the contract. The decision, he said, will ultimately be made by the school board.

During the meeting, Board of Education Chair William Hart made it clear the final evaluation of the bids will be presented to the school board to review during its next scheduled meeting in August.

“It’s certainly an emotional issue for the town,” Mr Hart said after the meeting. “The drivers have been there doing a good job for a long time. Hopefully it boils down to it has been a nice system and it has been a nice luxury, and can we continue to afford that?”

Public Comments

Former Board of Education and former Board of Selectman member Paul Mangiafico said once the decision to switch to a bus company is made it would be irreversible.

“The owner-operators are dedicated people,” said Mr Mangiafico, who also said he spoke as a grandparent and taxpayer.

Former first selectman Joe Borst also spoke during the meeting, and said one advantage to having the owner-operator system is the buses are stored in separate locations. This, he said, makes the buses less susceptible to vandalism.

“I think the important thing is people want peace of mind when they put their children on the bus,” said Mr Borst.

Multiple speakers said they feel connected to the owner-operators because they also live and work in Newtown, and, as one speaker said, have children that attend school together.

James Gaston, who is the Borough of Newtown warden and vice chair of the Board of Finance, submitted a letter to the school board reiterating his support for the owner-operator system, and calling on the board to scrutinize the safety record of companies bidding for the Newtown contract, as well as the records of those companies’ drivers. He explained to The Bee that ultimately hiring the company with the best safety record could provide a financial advantage if there is ever an accident where a bus driver and its operating company is sued.

“What has not been raised... is the fact that not only do we speak about a long history of owner-operator safety, success, and satisfaction, but also considered must be the potential liability and financial costs to the town and/or Board of Education should the owner-operators not be selected,” Mr Gaston wrote. “I speak as to an increase in potential financial risk as a result of injury or risk of injury to our school children.”

Normally, Mr Gaston continued, a municipality and its board members maintain a qualified immunity from liability. (See, CGS Section 52-557n) But, he added, the General Assembly has made it clear that such immunity does not exist as to the transportation of school children. (CGS Section 52-557.)

“In short, the choice of a bus company without the safety record of the owner-operators exposes the town and board to increased potential future liability,” Mr Gaston concluded. “Hopefully, the board will require an extensive and exhaustive disclosure of employee driver reprimands, terminations, accidents, student injuries, complaints, moving traffic violations, and drug testing results over the past ten years from each considered bidding company. We know the record of the owner-operators; we need to know the complete records of the others. The failure to fully disclose should disqualify them from consideration. The risks to our children (plus financial risks) are too great.”

Mr Gaston later said that in his career, he has worked on seven cases involving personal injury claims against school bus carriers, and knows from experience that if the town is found to have exposed any school bus accident victims to potential harm because of a lack of diligence in hiring a company with a poor safety record, the exposure to the town in the event of any related lawsuits could be financially devastating.

“The state exemption makes it clear that nobody has immunity if a town or district hires a company with a poor safety record,” Mr Gaston added.

Superintendent Evaluation

The Board of Education went into an executive session at the end of the evening to discuss the superintendent’s evaluation. Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson, as explained by Mr Hart, has a three-year rolling contract that is renewed yearly. Once a year the board evaluates the superintendent and renews the contract for another three years. If the school board were to do nothing to the contract, it would still remain in tact for the remainder of the three years.

This year, Mr Hart and Dr Robinson said the school board is using both the Board of Education’s policy on how to evaluate the superintendent and a policy prepared by used by the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents.

Dr Robinson said combining the evaluations adds more analysis to the process.

“I think it really guides our conversation around the goals of the district,” Dr Robinson said on Wednesday, July 13.

Mr Hart clarified the change in practice to evaluate the superintendent is not a reflection the job being done. He said the new process was a better way to fairly and thoroughly review the superintendent.

“It’s important the board and the superintendent work as a team,” said Dr Robinson, who also said she supported the added evaluation, “and that only happens with ongoing communication.”

In other news, Mr Bienkowski reported the school district finished the fiscal year without need for the Board of Education to worry about remaining balances.