Clayton County board tables RFP for Convocation Center, seeks amended MOU and clarifications

The Clayton County Board of Education on May 20 tabled action on RFP O1425, the procurement for management of the newly built Convocation Center, and directed staff and the Clayton County Public Schools Foundation to produce an amended memorandum of understanding and answers to outstanding legal and operational questions before any vote.

The board’s request follows hours of discussion about who will serve as the district’s liaison to the foundation and the proposed day‑to‑day management structure for the $130,000,000 facility. Board members raised concerns about role definitions, potential duplication between a proposed foundation‑hired general manager and a hired operator, and whether the MOU reflects the operational responsibilities the district expects.

Board members said the meeting was intended to put outstanding questions on the table so the two parties can produce a revised MOU that explicitly defines responsibilities and reporting lines. "We're not paying to rent our own facility to hold graduations," said Ralph Simpson, who the superintendent described as the district designee charged with oversight and information gathering; Simpson recommended formalizing a district liaison role in the MOU and suggested hiring a locally based general manager to help guide the district through the contracting and operations transition. "What I'm guaranteeing you is that the next time that I come before you, I want to be in a position ... that you don't have this feeling that you have," Simpson said.

Nina Packer, executive director of the Clayton County Public Schools Foundation, told the board the foundation is ready to proceed under the current MOU and described planned revenue strategies intended to support operations. "The Clayton County Public Schools Foundation is ready to move forward, and proceed under the terms of the current MOU," Packer said, and she described a naming rights campaign the foundation is pursuing to help underwrite operations. Packer said the foundation has launched an $18,500,000 naming‑rights effort, with top tiers of $10 million and $5 million, intended to secure operating funds for the venue.

Superintendent Morcease Smith (referred to in the meeting as Doctor Smith) told the board the convocation project was originally conceived to reduce recurring graduation costs and to create a revenue‑generating community venue. He said district leaders will work quickly to provide the board with written answers to the attorney’s list of questions and an amended MOU. "We want the board to be comfortable first and foremost," Smith said, adding he expected staff could provide the requested clarifications within a few days.

Board members repeatedly asked that the amended MOU clarify: whether the superintendent's designee (Simpson) will have oversight or liaison responsibilities and the scope of any such role; whether a foundation‑hired general manager would be a foundation employee and what that job would encompass; and how an external management company selected through RFP O1425 would coordinate scheduling, budgeting, and day‑to‑day operations with the foundation and the district. Counsel for the board had circulated a draft list of legal questions about the RFP and the procurement documents; directors asked that all those questions be answered before the RFP approval proceeds.

The MOU and its Exhibit B were cited specifically during the discussion. Packer pointed to language in Exhibit B that requires superintendent approval (or approval of his designee) for the foundation’s choice of a third‑party management company: "[a]pproved by the superintendent or his designee; such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed," she read. The board also heard that the district maintains an intergovernmental agreement with Clayton County that reserves 20 dates per year for county events.

Board members emphasized the separation of roles: the foundation will hold nonprofit status and undertake fundraising and oversight of contractors; the foundation would hire and, if it chooses, manage a general manager and the operator. "The management company is subject to our oversight," Packer said, adding that the foundation’s counsel will coordinate with the board’s counsel on contract terms before signature.

Because the board did not have all requested clarifications in hand, a board member moved to table approval of the RFP until the board receives an updated, marked‑up MOU and written responses to attorney questions. The motion was discussed and the board signaled agreement; superintendent Smith said staff would provide the requested materials promptly so the board can consider a clean, complete approval package rather than vote on documents that still contain open questions. No formal roll‑call vote or tally was recorded in the public transcript; the board’s stated outcome was to postpone action until the requested clarifications are provided.

Background and next steps: board members repeatedly framed the work as an effort to protect the district’s mission and taxpayers’ investment. Board members noted the district spent $2,000,000 in seed funding for the enterprise and emphasized that the facility’s operations and naming rights revenue must be structured to avoid unrelated business income tax and to protect nonprofit status. The foundation described its plan to create a subsidiary to hold operational activity, to insulate the foundation and to allow for proper accounting and tax treatment.

The board instructed superintendent Smith and designee Ralph Simpson to work with foundation leadership, the foundation’s legal counsel, and the board's counsel (Clem Doyle) to draft a revised MOU and to answer the attorney’s RFP questions. Those materials will be returned to the board for review; the board said it will not vote to approve RFP O1425 until it has a marked‑up MOU and written responses to the outstanding questions.