First, thank you for the comments. I will try to respond as fully as I can.The board presentation didn't do a thing to resolve the piano scam. The board members are easily fooled and have no idea how to craft an intelligent question on this topic. No one bothered to ask how Seattle Piano Gallery was selected. They just seem so transfixed by the "process" after the vendor was selected - they failed to investigate as to the nature of the relationship between the seller and the District's representative. Perhaps they need a refresher course in how the public sector works.
If you assume for a moment that what spews forth from Marla's mouth is true, the summary of events would lead the casual reader to believe that the District purchased the pianos for slightly less than full list price. However, the District apparently did not set out to buy all of these pianos. Or did they? Why would the District take pleasure in knowing they purchased more pianos than they needed for slightly less than full list price? Would I buy 14 cars for a fraction under sticker price? Would anyone? Of course, my expenditures would be made with private money and where I chose to park them would be a private problem.
Over the last seven years of service in the public sector, I have grown accustomed to obtaining assets for less than full list price. For instance, Business Interiors Northwest offers most of their cubicle parts and pieces at 70% less than full list price. Yes, 70% less than full list price. For the mathematically-impaired that would be a purchase price of 30% of full list price. Would Marla and the Board be happier paying 95% of list price for their cubicle parts and pieces?
It has become even more obvious, since the release of the board minutes, that Marla's plan from the very beginning was to buy more than a dozen pianos from her friend, Arnie Tucker. It must be nice to have such a large wallet and so many friends with things to sell.
5 comments:
Let me get this straight. Under the guise of a lease agreement, Marla purchased pianos from a sole source. The total cost of the pianos, under state law, required the contract go out for competitive bid. Instead she gave a tidy sum to a friend instead of getting the best price the market had to offer.
You bring up another good point. The district had no need for all of the pianos but went ahead and purchased them. I recall Tam saying, "I don't know where we are going to place them all".
Not only did Marla and company waste more money, they bypassed state bid law to line the pockets of a personal friend. Surely it's a conflict of interest, too!
BRAKE LAWS NO!
A LEADER IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BRAKE LAWS THAT CAN'T BE!
WELL, LET ME TELL YOU A STORY FRIENDS.LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN IN THIS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SOMETIME NOW. THE TIME IS COMING FOR SOME. JUST WATCH & LEARN WHAT A TRUE LEADER CAN DO!
How does Marla explain the fact that she didn't put out a bid for the piano's, which is District policy.
Marla doesn't have to follow district policy, at least I don't see her or the board doing that. But my oh my if a support person farts you are called into a meeting with your supervisor and union repre. What's that about? Is this what we call everyone being treated equally.
The district is trying to figure out how to have better relationships with the parents in our district system. How can they figure that out when they can't build quality relationships with the employees. If you walk your talk the relationships would follow if the walk is good, caring and real. All parents and employees get is lip service.
Post a Comment