Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Durham staff criticizes district contractor change at Wichita Falls ISD meeting
Summary
Two speakers who identified themselves as current or former Durham School Services employees told the Wichita Falls ISD board that Durham lost a contract renewal and that the change could reduce safety while saving only a few cents per student, a claim the speakers made during the board's public comment period.
Two people who identified themselves as current or former employees of Durham School Services spoke at the Wichita Falls ISD board of trustees meeting to object to the district's decision not to renew Durham's transportation contract.
Marie Burdesen, who introduced herself as the safety and training supervisor for Durham School Services in Wichita Falls, said Durham lost a bid to renew its contract in January and that the change will force long-time employees to find new work. "Change is a stressful anxiety-inducing event," she said, adding she has worked in the school busing industry for 22 years and 13 of those years were with Durham in Wichita Falls.
Robert Richards, who said he was once an employee of Wichita Falls ISD and now speaks on behalf of a group of contractors' employees, told the board that the district's recent contracting choices had not included input from bus drivers and mechanics. Richards asserted the district was poised to use a different contractor, which he named as Gold Star (also referenced as SDA in his remarks), and said that switching contractors would be justified only by a small cost difference. "I've been told the difference in bids between Gold Star and Durham is about $20. And if that's accurate, that means that this change is taking place based on the savings of roughly $1.63 per student annually," he said, characterizing that figure as roughly "1p per student per school day." Richards also said Durham's safety record was stronger than the incoming contractor's record, a concern he raised without offering documentation during public comment.
Neither speaker described any formal board vote or documented contract award at the meeting; both framed their remarks as public comment on a procurement decision. The board did not discuss or vote on the transportation contract during the open-meeting segment shown in the district transcript.
The comments were made during the meeting's public comment period; the board's public record for procurement decisions or any response from district staff about contractor selection was not part of the public comment segment.
Ending: The board moved on to its regular agenda after public comment. The district did not provide procurement details or a staff response in the public comment segment of this meeting transcript.
