Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and auditors question large change orders and attorney fees on Poway Unified purchase‑order report
Summary
Public speakers flagged a June purchase‑order amendment increasing attorney fees for a law firm and a change order shifting nearly $2 million to a special‑education vendor; district staff said the Stepping Stone change resulted from vendor consolidation and the PO report timing explains overlapping line items.
During public comment on Aug. 15, speakers questioned several large entries on the district’s monthly purchase‑order ratification report and sought greater transparency on how sizable change orders are presented to the board.
Frank Shue called attention to a June 13 purchase‑order change that increased attorney fees for an outside firm from $250,000 to $355,200 and tied that firm to the Phelps matter; he urged the board to investigate why the law firm’s work led to additional taxpayer expense. "This firm didn't do its job in its first investigation," he said during public comment.
Melinda Hunton noted a June change order for a vendor she identified as Stepping Stone that expanded a PO from $564,368 to add $1,965,430, calling it "a huge budget" increase and asking whether the change was approved before the budget was finalized. "A huge chunk of our money going to this probably doesn't go to all the kids," she said.
Mr. Little addressed the two items during the PO ratification discussion, explaining the monthly PO report reflects agreements previously approved by the board and that change orders appear later when vendors consolidate or when prior POs are not yet subtracted from the books. He described the Stepping Stone entry as a consolidation of services—replacing multiple providers with fewer vendors—which staff expect will be cost neutral or produce savings over time, though bookkeeping can show both old and new POs until they are formally removed.
Board members asked for clarification about internal vs. external investigations after Frank Shue’s accusation; one trustee cautioned against discussing closed‑session matters in open session. The board subsequently approved the monthly ratification motion on the consent calendar.
What’s next: Board members and staff agreed to explore clearer presentation thresholds for large change orders so the public and trustees can more easily identify material budget changes.
