Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Edtech Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees table three-year Aubrey dashboard contract after questions on cost, privacy and finance
Summary
Superintendent presented a sole-source, three-year contract with Aubrey for a district data dashboard (three-year total $106,581.40). Trustees raised concerns about budget uncertainty tied to state recalibration, data security and implementation details; Trustee Stanton moved to table the item for a work session and the board voted to table the contract.
Superintendent Dr. Goldart proposed a three-year, sole-source contract with Aubrey to provide an integrated district data dashboard intended to centralize student and operational data. The contract the superintendent presented totaled approximately $106,581.40 over three years, billed annually.
Dr. Goldart described the platform as a transparency and analytics tool that could consolidate data and help the district measure progress on its strategic vision. “Aubrey means open in Spanish,” she said, introducing James Seaman, Aubrey’s representative, who participated by videoconference.
James Seaman told trustees the district sets the criteria Aubrey uses for early-warning or graduation-tracker dashboards and that the company provides a non-appropriations clause allowing cancellation in subsequent years if funds aren’t available: “there is a non-appropriations clause that allows for cancellation in any of the subsequent years beyond the first year of the contract.”
Several trustees voiced budgetary concern amid uncertainty over the state funding recalibration. Trustee Cecilia Aragon said she had “very severe reservations” about approving a three-year contract while the district’s future funding levels remain unclear. Trustee Marshall said she “struggled with the amount of $106,581.40” given recent financial unknowns involving insurance and salaries.
Other trustees asked for more detail about privacy protections, how Aubrey would interact with PowerSchool and whether the system would create redundancies. Trustee Sorenson requested training and named district staff she expected to be involved in implementation.
Trustee Stanton moved to table the contract so trustees could see a demonstration and hold a dedicated work session; that motion was seconded and carried on a board vote. The board directed staff to schedule a work session where Aubrey would present use cases, examples from other districts and staff who would be responsible for implementation.
No final contract was executed at the meeting; trustees said they wanted more time to evaluate data-security controls, the district’s implementation plan and whether the tool should be adopted at one year before committing to three.
