Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Midland board on RFP transparency and roof findings; board moves to closed session
Summary
During public comment, speakers asked the board to add forensic analysis of roof failures and to explain marketing/Omnitech spending in the RFP; trustees then voted unanimously to enter closed session to consider exempt legal materials.
Several members of the public used the special Oct. 17 meeting to press the Midland Public Schools board on transparency related to facilities work and the district’s RFP process. Bill Domino urged the board to require forensic analysis explaining why roof systems failed so the district can assess whether maintenance practices were adequate; he told trustees such analysis would clarify whether failures reflect materials, installation methods or maintenance.
"...my request for a forensic analysis of what they find, not necessarily they found a bad roof, but why they found a bad roof," Domino said.
Reita Bonedes questioned whether the RFP and the administration’s review were sufficiently transparent after the May bond was defeated. Bonedes said the FFO committee had not reviewed the 10 submitted bids, allowing the superintendent and administration to recommend a non‑lowest bid. She also asked whether the Omnitech contract listed in board materials — which she said referenced a base price of $43,750 — included marketing or campaign services rather than a pure facilities assessment, asking, "Is this really just a facilities assessment?"
Board leaders acknowledged the concerns and said administration would provide materials to trustees ahead of a forthcoming Monday selection. Before the meeting moved to the vendor presentations, trustees voted on a separate procedural item. Secretary Ringold moved, and Treasurer Latterbach seconded, a motion to enter closed session to consider materials exempt from disclosure under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.268(1)(h)) and an exempt written legal opinion (MCL 15.243(1)(g)). The board took a roll‑call vote and unanimously approved the motion.
No detailed responses to Bonedes’s transparency questions were provided on the public record at the Oct. 17 meeting; staff told the board they would supply a comparative one‑page summary of the finalists’ proposals and estimates prior to Monday’s meeting.
