Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Former district vision/hearing technician alleges abrupt team dismissal, flags new vendor costs
Summary
A longtime vision/hearing technician told the board her entire team was dismissed by group email and questioned the district27s contract with a new vendor, citing a FOIA timeline and a vendor minimum quote of $28,050 plus added developmental screening fees.
Debbie Lancelotti Fields, a former registered nurse and certified vision/hearing technician with 26 years of service at Addison SD 4, addressed the board during public comment to allege an abrupt, mass dismissal of her team and to question the district27s decision to contract with an outside vendor for vision and hearing services.
Fields said her team received a group dismissal email on June 10, 2024; she told the board there was "no incompetence or neglect of duties," that team members were notified long after planning for a replacement had begun, and that staff who previously trained the vendor were not informed in advance. According to materials she cited from a FOIA release, communications to replace the team began on Nov. 10, 2023, and a quote from "Peoples Vision and Hearing Incorporated" was received Feb. 23. Fields said the contract was signed April 22, a deposit made June 7, and developmental screening services were added on May 7 after the contract allegedly had been signed.
She presented line-item figures from the vendor contract, saying the minimum bill for a minimum of 3,300 mandated tests was $28,050 (vendor quote) and that developmental-screening days were priced at $600 per technician per day; with roughly 10252512 screenings annually, she estimated an "additional $6,000 to $7,200 per technician" could be added. Fields also stated that the new vendor would test only statutorily mandated grades and that billing would be based on actual tests provided.
Board members acknowledged receiving her materials and said they would make sure board members received copies. No formal response or resolution was reached during the meeting; the comment was entered for the record and board members indicated they had received an email from Fields with supporting documents.
The district did not offer a substantive reply on the record at the time; board follow-up was implied by the chair's offer to distribute the documents to members.
