Board delays vote on Primary Class (dba Odyssey) contract after members cite unanswered questions

Members of the Financial Operations body postponed action on a contract with Primary Class, doing business as Odyssey, for the Utah Fits All program after several members said they did not have enough information to make an informed decision.

The board first approved the remainder of the consent calendar, with items 3 and 4 pulled for separate consideration; the motion to approve the remainder passed “14 in favor, 1 absent,” according to the meeting record. The contract approval under discussion was on the pulled items and did not receive a final vote before the meeting was adjourned.

The dispute centered on whether staff had provided sufficient vetting information. Vice Chair Hart said he was “very confident that our staff went through a rigorous RFP process,” and said he “look[s] forward to working with Odyssey.” Several members expressed the opposite concern. Member Carey said, “I'm a proponent of education choice, and I think we have to find the right fit for the students, but I'll be opposing this motion. I don't believe it's been very transparent. I have questions that have not been addressed or answered.”

Deputy Superintendent of Operations Scott Jones told the board the solicitation was reopened after a new law — referenced in the meeting as HB 455 — and that the previous vendor had the opportunity to reapply but did not. Jones said the board is the contracting authority for any contract over $100,000 and that “if the board doesn't approve the contract, then I would not sign the contract,” noting the current vendor, ACE, remained the contractor “through May” and that the transition planning assumed a new contract would be in place before that expiration. He cautioned that without a signed successor contract, “that would be a pause in the operation.”

Board members asked for more details about the vetting process, why the prior vendor ACE did not continue, and whether staff had sought feedback from other states where Odyssey (or similar vendors) operates. Member Earl asked whether staff had contacted other states about “hiccups” or smooth operations. Member Brinton and Member Davis said they wanted clearer explanations of ACE's reported failures and how the new vendor would avoid the same problems. Member Davis also noted that only two firms applied and that the program’s complexity — including many small reimbursements and numerous private schools and homeschoolers in the state — complicates vendor work.

Jones offered to provide the board with written responses and both sides of information related to recent allegations involving Odyssey in Idaho, saying he had “both sides in writing” and could share them if the board wanted. Parent concerns were raised: one board member said the parent liaison received 25 emails from concerned families.

After discussion, a motion to postpone the item to a subsequent meeting was made and replaced by a motion to list the item for consideration at the board’s carryover business the following day. The meeting then moved to adjourn; members were told that items 3 and 4 “will naturally carry over.” The adjournment passed with one recorded opposition.

Next steps identified during the meeting included staff sharing the vendor response materials and other vetting documents with board members and the contract being relisted for the board's carryover business at the next meeting, allowing members another opportunity to review materials before a formal vote.