Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outsourcing Custodial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Custodial outsourcing draws heated response as Methuen School Committee reviews RFQ responses
Summary
Administrators reported six RFQ responses to outsource custodial services; members expressed deep division — some warned outsourcing would cost jobs and harm service continuity, others said budget pressure requires exploring options.
The Methuen School Committee on Thursday discussed six responses to an RFQ seeking quotes for outsourcing second-shift custodial services, triggering a sharply divided debate about job losses, long-term costs and fiscal pressures.
Administration said the RFQ responses are preliminary and no decisions had been made; the custodial union and a written statement from Tenney second‑shift custodians urged full transparency and reminded the district that outsourcing is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E. The custodial statement also called for an accurate assessment of structural causes behind pest issues and asked that employees not be blamed or targeted.
Some committee members, including Member Desaglio and Member Shabiliya, said privatization would reduce the workforce and were strongly opposed. “I will not ever support privatization in Methuen,” Member Desaglio said, warning that past privatizations had cost the city more. Member Shabiliya said the exploration of outsourcing is painful given long-standing personal relationships with employees and the reality that privatization savings typically come from reduced headcount.
Other members, including Member Willette, said the committee must explore options because the district faces hard budget choices, declining custodial headcount and limited revenue growth. Supporters pointed to examples of long-standing contractors in comparable districts and urged committee members to review references before forming judgments.
Administration said the responses include year‑over‑year pricing (one firm supplied three-year pricing) and references; staff suggested the committee set an executive session to review negotiating strategy and the detailed proposals with legal counsel present.
What happens next: Staff said the quotes are time-limited (60 days) and recommended follow-up negotiations and an executive-session briefing with counsel and negotiating-subcommittee members before any public action. The committee also asked administration to provide a five-year impact statement and more detailed workforce and financial projections before considering any contract award.
