North Penn board tables proposal to hire Cornerstone for cash-management services, votes to pursue RFP option
Summary
After a presentation from investment advisers Cornerstone, the board voted 6–3 to table hiring the firm and explore a request-for-proposal process. Members raised questions about fees, references and whether the service could be provided internally.
The North Penn School District Board of School Directors on Jan. 6 heard a presentation from Cornerstone, a private investment-advisory firm, and then voted 6–3 to table a proposal to retain the firm pending further procurement review and a possible request for proposals (RFP).
Cornerstone representatives described an "open architecture" approach that does not sell proprietary products, and said their mandate for school-district clients is to prioritize safety, liquidity and yield. In the presentation, Cornerstone staff cited firm metrics including "over 97% client retention" and proposed a first-year engagement cost of $100,000 with an ongoing annual fee of $50,000 thereafter. The firm said its role would typically be advisory, not discretionary, and that it would not move district funds without administrative signatory authority.
Board members pressed Cornerstone and district staff on several points: whether the firm would have signatory control (administration said no); whether the firm would replace existing services (administration said it would replace the district's current CD-placement service); and how the firm would demonstrate return on investment. Cornerstone pointed to a prior engagement with Hatboro-Horsham as an example where investment-income budgeting increased after the adviser’s work.
Speaker 1 (who introduced the motion on the floor) said the district should seek competing proposals, noting the firm currently works with only a small number of school districts. After debate about the district's procurement practices and whether professional services require an RFP, legal counsel said there is no state law requiring an RFP for professional services but that the district often uses RFPs for competitive reasons.
The board’s motion to table the item — described in the meeting as a pause to allow an RFP process to be considered — passed with the chair announcing a 6–3 vote. The board’s discussion included requests that any RFP scope, references and projected ROI be provided to the finance committee and that Cornerstone provide written examples of performance metrics and client references ahead of further action.
The next procedural step, as described in the meeting, is for the business office to draft any RFP scope if the board later approves issuing one; the board may then review responses and decide whether to engage an adviser or do nothing. The chair recorded the motion as a table rather than a rejection, leaving the board able to revisit the matter.
