Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees table review of Edwin Kessler contract; board seeks scope, invoices and funding reconciliations
Summary
Board members said the construction contract tied to district HVAC and facility work lacks an explicit written scope and clear funding splits; trustees voted to table further action and requested full contract documentation, exhibit attachments and a payment reconciliation.
Trustees raised concerns about the district's contract and payment records for a major facilities project carried out under an architectural/contracting arrangement that the board discussed under an agenda amendment.
A trustee told the board the "original contract that was drafted and approved by the board, does not have a clear indication as to the scope of work. The terms of payment, there's no warranty information" and said attachments and bid documents from 2021 appear not to be included with the present contract packet. The item on the agenda was described as "discussion of Edwin Kessler's contract and invoices" (agenda language); trustees repeatedly said they could not locate a written scope of work within the contract as circulated.
Trustees said the underlying bids appear to have been solicited in October 2021, and some members said payments and budgeting since then have not clearly separated what portions of work federal funds (ESSER-related) should cover versus district-funded portions for facilities not serving students. One trustee said the project "was completely budgeted from federal programs" and cited a total project figure in discussion, but board members also described inconsistent figures in the materials and said the minutes and contract attachments did not show the scope or exhibit attachments.
Why it matters: Board members said the district is responsible for proper use of federal funds and taxpayers' dollars and that missing scope and exhibit documentation prevents trustees from confirming what work was approved, what remains to be paid, and who is financially responsible for non-allowable facilities. Several trustees referenced prior audits and concerns about unapproved contracts or missing approvals in earlier years.
What the board asked for: trustees voted to table further discussion of the contract and invoices and directed superintendent staff and the district attorney to compile and circulate: (1) the original solicitation/bid documents (October 2021), (2) the full contract file including exhibit B and attachments, (3) a reconciliation of payments and drawdowns tied to the project since 2021, and (4) any attorney memos about federal-allowable expenses. Trustees said they would reconvene—by special meeting if needed—once that documentation is available.
Ending: No payments or contract amendments were approved. The board set a follow-up to review the requested documentation and asked staff to consider inviting the architect/contractor to a future meeting if that helps resolve outstanding questions.
