Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses for clarity after district lists contracts alongside MOUs
Summary
Assistant Superintendent Tony O. Brooks outlined the district’s MOU evaluation process; directors pressed staff to clarify why two federally funded contracts appeared in the MOU listing and requested a running inventory separating MOUs and building‑level contracts.
Tony O. Brooks, assistant superintendent for student support services, presented the district’s memorandum‑of‑understanding review process, saying MOUs are evaluated on community impact, communication and accountability and scored from 1 to 3. He listed longstanding partners and described service categories including mental and physical health, academic support and family engagement.
Directors raised repeated questions about two programs—Mentors in Motion and Branch Top Solutions—that appeared on the MOU list but were described in discussion as federally funded contracts. Director Pearson asked why the items were on the MOU list if they were contracts; Brooks said he did not supervise contracts and could not speak professionally beyond noting that those were contracts entered into at the individual‑school level and funded in some cases through Title I.
"So I can't speak beyond saying I know that they were contracts... they are receiving monies for their services through Title I," Brooks said. Directors asked staff to compile a running inventory that clearly separates MOUs from contracts, to provide evaluations and supporting artifacts for renewals, and to revisit district policy to prevent future confusion.
Why it matters: MOUs and contracts carry different oversight responsibilities and timelines. Directors said the district must be transparent to the board and community about where funds flow and how partnerships are evaluated.
Next steps: The board asked for a clear list separating MOUs and contracts, the related evaluations and artifacts for items recommended for renewal, and a policy review to clarify oversight responsibilities.
