Board rejects $649,000 rapid financial review contract; asks superintendent to return with alternatives

The Prince George's County Board of Education on May 8 rejected a proposed $649,000 contract with Alvarez & Marsal for a "rapid financial assessment and improvement support engagement," and asked Superintendent House to return with alternative vendors, clearer deliverables and comparative cost analyses.

Board members debated whether spending for an external financial review was appropriate while schools face cuts. "This is a contract in the amount of $649,000," Board Member Dr. Moss said. "I think this work makes a lot of sense in terms of what we need to do with finances. I don't think this is the right time." Board Member Boozer Struthers pushed the opposite view, saying the district's reporting and systems must improve and that now is the time to invest.

The vote on agenda item 15.8 failed in a roll call after discussion. The board recorded one affirmative vote and eight negative votes; board members voting no included Dr. Andifel, Mr. Briggs, Mrs. Brown, Ms. Goins McCants, Dr. Moss, Ms. Alabo, Ms. Walker and Chair Jackson. Following the failed motion, Board Member Wendy Walker moved — and the board adopted without objection — a directive for the superintendent to return at a future meeting with alternate vendors, a robust set of deliverables and a comparative analysis that includes the four financial buckets described in the original proposal.

Supporters of the Alvarez & Marsal engagement, including Board Member Boozer Struthers, argued the district needs stronger systems to comply with the new blueprint funding and to better tell the district's story to state legislators. Opponents said the timing and price were insensitive given large school-level cuts; Dr. Moss recounted visits to schools reporting reductions that included cuts to math and reading teachers.

Superintendent House had described the work in his superintendent's report earlier in the meeting, saying the district engaged Alvarez & Marsal to address manual financial processes, backlogs and operational risk. Board members asked for additional documentation about alternatives, client histories and clear evidence of return on investment before approving a contract of this size.

Next steps: the superintendent will return with alternatives, cost options and a comparative analysis for the board to review before any new contract is presented for a vote.