Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glen Ellyn SD 41 board withholds August payments to Safeway and authorizes superintendent to seek alternative bus providers
Summary
After weeks of missed routes and late buses, the Glen Ellyn SD 41 board voted to withhold two August invoices from contractor Safeway, approved payment for July services, and authorized the superintendent to negotiate contract amendments or bring in other transportation providers on an emergency basis.
Get email alerts on the Transportation Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glen Ellyn SD 41 — On Sept. 16, the Glen Ellyn SD 41 Board of Education voted to disapprove two August invoices from its transportation contractor, Safeway, and to authorize the superintendent to negotiate contract amendments or hire other transportation providers if service does not improve.
The board voted to disapprove Safeway invoices dated 08/31/2024 — invoice 2807 for $152,671.48 and invoice 2815 for $111,051.84 — and to approve payment for earlier July invoices related to summer special‑education routes (invoice 22646 for $63,124.24 and invoice 2666 for $1,040.88). The motion also authorized administration and legal counsel to determine and recommend penalties to apply to the withheld August invoices under the transportation contract.
“Hope is not a strategy,” Superintendent Jeff said, describing repeated operational failures and the district’s effort to press Safeway for concrete fixes. He told the board he had personally monitored nearly 500 community feedback submissions and met with Safeway leadership multiple times, including a site visit at Hadley where Safeway’s interim COO and owner reviewed dismissal timing and routing on site.
Parent Anthony Tranchita testified during public comment that his daughter, who is in the district’s early‑childhood special‑education program, was repeatedly missed on pick‑ups and had been placed on buses without necessary safety‑seat straps. “Lucky does not care about the students,” Tranchita said of the company owner (identified in the record as Lucky), and urged the district to pursue stronger remedies; the board heard similar reports about missed stops, lack of a parent contact number, and drivers unfamiliar with routes.
District staff described a sequence of operational changes aimed at improving service: adding dispatch staff, untiering certain afternoon routes so buses do not complete high‑school tiers before servicing elementary runs, and deploying additional resources to the most affected schools. Mr. De Porter (district administrator) told the board the number of buses in the district this year matches last year’s fleet, and that routing and GPS tracking tools for parent notification were not yet fully operational.
Given continued service problems, the board approved a motion (as amended) authorizing the administration to negotiate and bring to the board on an emergency basis: amendments to the Safeway contract to add or reduce Safeway routes temporarily or permanently, and contracts with one or more alternative student‑transportation contractors to take over Safeway routes. The amended motion removed school‑specific wording to give administration flexibility across buildings and route types.
Board members and staff said the goal is to resolve late and missed runs quickly so that students — particularly special‑education students and families with young children — are not repeatedly inconvenienced or put at risk. The board also approved a revised payment order that reflected removal of one check tied to Safeway services while legal and administration calculate penalties.
Next steps: Administration will work with legal counsel to calculate contract penalties and return with a recommended penalty calculation and any proposed vendor amendments or contracts for board approval; the board indicated it might call a special meeting if action is needed before the October schedule.

