Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts Architecture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board divided as member raises procurement concerns over $1.5 million paid to architect
Summary
A board member challenged the administration’s contract decisions for a planned new high school, saying the district had already paid ADM Group roughly $1.5 million and that hiring a new firm (DLR) on consent violated procurement and transparency norms; the consent agenda passed despite the objection.
A Tolleson Union High School District governing board member publicly challenged the administration’s handling of architect services for a planned new high school, saying the district had already paid another firm about $1,500,000 and expressing concern the board was being asked to approve a change without discussion.
Dr. Luna Najera, a governing board member, said during the “updates” portion of the meeting that the district had previously hired ADM Group to design “high school number 8” and had paid the firm “approximately $1,500,000.” She said the board had frequently pulled contracts over $1 million in past practice for discussion and that she had “serious concerns” that tonight’s agenda placed a different architect, DLR, on consent rather than as an item for board discussion.
“I do believe that hiring DLR is a breach of contract, with ADM,” Dr. Najera said. “I do also believe that, there could be some violations in procurement.” She asked for transparency and accountability around the prior contract and the new recommendation.
Later in the meeting a consent-agenda item that included the architect matter was pulled for discussion. During the roll call vote on the consent agenda, Dr. Najera recorded a “no” vote and stated: “This board has already hired ADM Group for architect services and unanimously passed a master architect agreement with ADM in May of last year. ADM has already been paid $1,500,000 for work on several projects, including school number 8. I don't think this is legal, and I vote no.” Other members on the record voted yes.
President Sun and other board members had a procedural exchange with Dr. Najera about whether a board member could “pass” on a vote; the chair said the board would proceed by roll call and would not allow a “pass” to be recorded in that meeting.
The consent agenda ultimately passed on roll call with recorded “yes” votes from multiple members and at least one recorded “no.” The board did not take further public action to rescind or amend prior contracts during the meeting; board members asked that policy references be exchanged in follow-up emails.
No contracting documents, procurement policies, or legal opinions were presented at the meeting. Dr. Najera asked the superintendent and staff to provide further documentation about the payments to ADM and the procurement process; the transcript shows she said she would send the board policy she cited to the president.
The item and the objection prompted public comment earlier and later in the meeting from parents and teachers expressing concern that architects and building plans should include teacher input.
No court cases, statutes or written procurement findings were presented on the record at the meeting; members asked staff to follow up with the policy citations and documentation.
