Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Substitute Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board awards substitute management contract to ESS amid concerns over fingerprinting fees
Summary
The board approved RFP E‑2324‑009 for substitute management services (ESS). Board members said ESS reduces administrative burdens, but a board member raised concerns that incoming substitutes currently pay more than $100 for fingerprinting and background checks.
The New Milford Board of Education voted July 16 to award the substitute management contract under RFP E‑2324‑009, selecting a vendor as part of a procurement process the district says balanced price and scoring.
Mr. Brian McCauley asked whether using ESS is more effective than managing substitutes in‑house. Mrs. Teresa Kavanagh, director of human services, said ESS offers incentives the district cannot, and provides a dedicated representative; she said moving substitute management in‑house would require hiring a full‑time staff position. Anthony Giovannone, director of fiscal services and operations, said the district issued the RFP because the prior ESS contract had expired and that two vendors submitted bids.
Mrs. Tammy McInerney raised a concern that incoming substitutes are paying “over $100” out of pocket for fingerprinting and background‑check paperwork and said that equates to a full day’s substitute pay; she questioned why the fee is high through ESS when some districts manage substitutes at lower cost. Mrs. Kavanagh suggested following up outside the meeting on that point. Mrs. Faulenbach and other board members said the administrative burden reduction and vendor capabilities informed the recommendation.
Mr. Dean Barile moved to approve the bid award for RFP E‑2324‑009; Mr. Tom O’Brien seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Why it matters: contracting with a third‑party substitute manager can speed placements and reduce school‑office workload, but fees for substitute onboarding can affect prospective substitutes and hiring competitiveness. The board requested further off‑line clarification on onboarding fees and the cost to substitutes.
