Board orders probe of integrity officer contract and freezes vehicle use pending review

The Prince George's County Board of Education voted Aug. 21 to investigate the validity of a contract for the district’s Office of Integrity and Compliance and to require the superintendent to halt use of two vehicles assigned to that office pending the investigation.

Board member Dr. Felton Moss introduced both motions after reporting that a contract for the integrity and compliance director carried a start date of Jan. 29, 2024, but he could not find a record the contract had been presented to the board for approval. Moss said his review indicated the contract included compensation and an assigned vehicle.

The first motion asked the board to “investigate the validity of the Office of Integrity and Compliance contract with the director.” The vote on that motion was recorded by roll call: Dr. Anderful, Aye; Miss Boozer Struthers, Aye; Mr. Briggs, Aye; Miss Brown, Aye; Miss Goins McCants, Aye; Dr. Moss, Aye; Miss Olivo, Aye; Miss Walker, Aye; Chair Jackson, Aye. The chair announced “There are 9 in the affirmative.” The transcript did not record a second mover. The motion carried.

Moss’s second motion asked the board to require the superintendent to halt use of both district vehicles assigned to the office until the contract’s validity was determined. District staff provided vehicle details during the meeting: vehicle #3330, a 2023 Ford Explorer, was assigned to Mr. Frank Turner II as a take-home vehicle; the driver’s residence was in Howard County, Maryland. Vehicle #4370, a 2004 Chevrolet Impala, was assigned to a contractor (not a PGCPS employee); staff said that contractor resides out of state. The staff explanation said the contractor does not have fueling rights comparable to the take-home employee.

The board took a roll-call vote on the halt-of-use motion with the same named Aye votes reported; the chair announced the motion carried. The meeting minutes reflect that the board adopted the motions and that district staff were instructed to comply while the inquiry proceeds.

What the board requested. The first motion directs a formal investigation of the contract’s provenance and whether proper procedures were followed in its execution. The second asks the superintendent to stop permitting the two vehicles to be driven or fueled in connection with the office until the inquiry concludes.

Why the board acted. Moss framed the motions as a stewardship and accountability action, noting the office was created to investigate waste and fraud and that the circumstances around the contract and vehicle assignments raised governance concerns. Other board members expressed support for investigating the contract and ensuring appropriate use of district resources.

Next steps. The board did not specify an internal or external investigator in the meeting record. The motions require the district to investigate and to report findings to the board; the next public steps will depend on that internal inquiry and any additional board requests.