Baltimore County board rejects proposed sports-officiating contract after members raise process concerns

The Board of Education of Baltimore County on Aug. 12 voted down a contract recommendation for sports officials after multiple board members raised procedural concerns and procurement staff described the solicitation as a low-bid, single-award-per-sport process.

The vote followed extensive discussion that began after the board—s Building and Contracts Committee forwarded item K-1 to the full board without a committee recommendation. Board Member Donald McMillian said he had been contacted about the contract, defended his decision to raise questions and criticized efforts to silence members: “I—m not an employee of Baltimore County Public Schools. I—m an elected representative,” he said in remarks recorded in the meeting.

Purchasing staff answered questions about the solicitation and said the method of award was written as a low-bid selection per sport. "The solicitation process and the evaluation process was low bid per sport," purchasing staff said, explaining that a single supplier could win for a sport if it submitted the lowest price for that sport.

The motion to approve the contract did not carry. The roll call recorded board members voting or indicating recusal/abstention as follows: Miss Henn — recuse; Miss Frempong — yes; Miss Agumbe — yes; Miss Dolesky — abstain; Dr. Savoy — abstain; Mr. McMillian — yes; Mr. Young — yes; Miss Dimonowski — no; Miss Lichter — yes; Miss Harvey — yes. The board chair announced, "Motion does not carry."

Superintendent Brandon Rogers later noted the current contract expires on Sept. 30 and acknowledged the potential impact on fall sports officials, asking staff to provide more information to the board about operational effects.

Board members who pressed procurement said they were concerned about the appearance of limiting awards to single vendors for each sport and whether that structure reduced flexibility to fill assignments. Purchasing staff told the board they historically structured the award as one vendor per sport and asserted they had not experienced difficulty filling positions under that approach.

Item K-2 through K-11, separate contract awards considered together, were approved earlier in the meeting following committee recommendation; item K-1 remained the isolated contested item and failed on the full-board motion.

The board did not adopt an alternate contract at the meeting. Dr. Rogers and staff were asked to provide the board follow-up information about the operational implications of not approving the new contract before the existing agreement expires.