Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contract Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves PepsiCo beverage contract amid board debate over contract review and fiduciary duties
Summary
Naperville CUSD 203 authorized administration to execute a beverage contract with PepsiCo on June 2, after debate about sponsorship revenue and whether the board should see signed contracts before authorizing execution.
The Naperville CUSD 203 Board of Education on June 2 authorized the administration to execute a beverage contract with PepsiCo that includes an annual sponsorship fee, vending commissions and product donations, but the vote exposed continuing board differences over contract access and fiduciary oversight.
District staff presented three proposals and recommended PepsiCo based on product mix, price points and building administration preference; the Pepsi package in BoardDocs included a sponsorship fee the presentation listed as $220,000 annually plus vending commissions and sideline product kits for athletics. The board then debated whether it should see final, signed contracts before authorizing administration to execute them.
Board member Melissa Kelly Black repeatedly asked why the board was voting to authorize execution of contracts before a final contract document existed for review and called for consistent criteria for when the board should receive the actual signed agreement. “If it’s my fiduciary duty to okay contracts, I want to see the contract,” Kelly Black said.
Superintendent Bridges and other board members said the board’s action authorizes administration to execute documents that reflect the proposal already posted in BoardDocs. Bridges pointed to Board of Education policy 4.60 (purchases and contracts) and said the district follows state law and IASB model policy: “The superintendent shall manage the district’s purchases and contracts… All contracts shall be either approved or authorized by the Board of Education, authorizing the superintendent or his staff then to execute such documents,” he said.
Board members split on comfort with the practice. Several members, including Amanda McMillan, Mark Wilinski and Joe Kosminski, said the BoardDocs proposal, pricing and scope provided sufficient information for authorization and they trusted administration and legal counsel to finalize contract language. Kelly Black and board member Amanda (last name not specified in the transcript as asking earlier) pressed for receiving signed contracts before final votes on certain items and for written criteria to guide such requests.
A motion to approve the beverage contract passed on a roll call with one recorded Nay from Kelly Black; the superintendent said the final contract would be drafted to reflect the terms submitted in the RFP packet in BoardDocs.
The Pepsi contract vote followed earlier discussion on a separate consent‑agenda treasurer’s surety bond renewal; some board members had also asked whether bond paperwork should include a signed insurance contract, and administration said the necessary forms are in BoardDocs and that no additional contract exists beyond required bond paperwork.
Board members asked administration to continue providing clarity about what documents are posted in BoardDocs and to consider whether the board should adopt written criteria about when to require fully executed contracts for board review before votes.
