Posted May 18, 2012
Goffstown Superintendent Stacy Buckley replied to the Right to Know request we submitted in relation to the controversy surrounding the search for a consultant to assess the situation at Mountain View Middle School. We’ve posted our response to the superintendent’s reply to make sure we understand what she’s written and to get what she didn’t provide. Add your voice to the chorus, let us know what you think.
As I stated in my message to you, it has been an extremely busy week and I have not been in the office to take your phone calls. I have responded to your request below. In addition, I have added a response to your request to Dian McCarthy as outlined in your email below that I have pasted to this email.
Your request to Dian in an email dated May 16, 2012 at 4:18:
Because of this and because I’ve yet to receive a reply to my last email or to several phone calls, I believe I have no other choice than to request that you provide any and all communications you’ve had with any school district personnel or fellow board members regarding the solicitation of bids for an RFP that doesn’t appear to have been proposed by the administration, approved by the board, or posted to the public.
> This request is made under New Hampshire RSA 91-A, the Right to Know Law.
I am not aware of any correspondences between Dian and Stacy or board members regarding the MVMS study and the solicitation of bids
In an attempt to locate a Request for Proposal for the consulting services sought for Mountain View Middle School, I reviewed the attached minutes of the Goffstown School Board’s meetings. I have also searched the district’s Web site in search of an RFP. And, as you know, I’ve left two messages for you in the past two days without a return call. As a result, I am sending this Right to Know request under New Hampshire RSA 91-A for the following information:
1) An action of the School Board approving and authorizing the RFP which was apparently used to solicit bids from the three companies listed in the attached minutes.
The School Board discussed the proposal at their meeting of 4/16/12. Minutes can be found on the Goffstown school district website. If you would like a hard copy of those minutes, please let me know and we can make them available. A consensus of the board was ascertained in moving forward with the study at that meeting. Phone discussions and proposals were offered by the companies in order to gain a better understanding of the depth and possibility, along with cost, of this project.
After this board meeting, the administration met with a variety of vendors to ascertain the level of ability of organizations to do this study, obtain more accurate cost estimates, and gain a better understanding of the proposal moving forward.
2) A complete list of any and all public notices posted to advertise this RFP for public consumption. There were no public notices posted. .
3) A complete list, including any and all communications, of companies directly solicited for consulting services involving Mountain View Middle School, as noted in the attached minutes.
As noted, Consulting Partners Inc., West Ed, and SERESC were spoken with regarding the process. Their proposals are not public documents at this time- they are exempt from a 91-a request based on paragraph IV.
4) Any and all communication between you and members of the school board, especially Dian McCarthy, regarding the solicitation of these consulting services. There have been no communications outside of the board meeting regarding any specific solicitations with any potential vendors.
Note well:The absence of a formal RFP, approval to develop or authorization to issue does not render null or void the requested information. It does, however, necessitate that you provide whatever information used to solicit services, advertise that the services were being sought, and the timeline in which they were to be submitted.
RSA 91-A:4 in section IV states, in part: Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such governmental record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release. If a public body or agency is unable to make a governmental record available for immediate inspection and copying, it shall, within 5 business days of request, make such record available, deny the request in writing with reasons, or furnish written acknowledgment of the receipt of the request and a statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request shall be granted or denied.
This material may either be emailed to me at this address or may be faxed to 1-866-491-2003 as per the section of the law stated above. Of course, I will gladly discuss my investigation with you, either on air or off. My cell is 674-0392.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please know that I’d rather it not have come to a RTK request.
Very truly yours,
Richard H. Girard