Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Partnerships Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers vote on Addition Financial partnership after members raise exclusivity concerns
Summary
A proposed partnership with Addition Financial that would include a debit-card affinity program, financial literacy and a "preferred credit union" designation drew questions about exclusivity; the motion was withdrawn and the item deferred for a workshop and contract review.
The Leon County School Board on Feb. 24 discussed a proposed partnership with Addition Financial Credit Union that would allow the credit union to offer debit-card affinity products, provide financial literacy training, and hold priority tabling rights at district events.
Mr. Stufski (district presenter) described the three main components: a debit-card program that would donate 3 cents per transaction to the district foundation (he estimated annual recovery of about $30,000 once the program matures), in-class and staff financial training, and first-right-of-refusal tabling at school events. An Addition Financial representative (Andre) attended to answer questions.
Several board members sought clarity on what the district would be giving up by granting a preferred-partner designation. Board counsel Opal McKinney Williams flagged contract language in paragraph 2 that states, "Addition Financial shall be the only financial institution granted the right to market itself as the official credit union partner," and noted that the language could create exclusivity among credit unions. Chair members expressed concern over the breadth and implications of exclusivity.
A motion and second were made to approve the item, but after additional discussion the mover (Smith) agreed to withdraw the motion and the seconder (Cox) withdrew the second. The board directed staff to schedule a workshop to review the contract details and return the item to a future meeting (the mover asked to defer to the March 10 meeting, with a March 9 workshop to precede it). No final action was taken at the Feb. 24 meeting.
Board members asked staff to provide a clearer accounting of what other partners have provided in the past and to clarify exclusivity, first-right-of-refusal language and any revenue or in-kind tradeoffs before taking a vote.
