Many questions taint school busing scheme

When the state commission that controls the Youngstown City School District’s finances receives the contract for student busing services, we would expect it to meet its statutorily mandated oversight responsibilities. That means asking tough questions about the entire bidding process adopted by the school board.

Of singular importance to the taxpayers of the district is the fact that only one company, Community Bus Services Inc. of Youngstown, submitted a bid. State law requires competitive bidding for any public contracts worth $25,000 or more. The keyword is competitive — and that begins with the specifications.

Thus the question: Were the specifications drawn up for the transportation services such that only CBS could meet them?

Indeed, the chairman of the state fiscal oversight commission, Roger Nehls, warned not too long ago that the bid document developed by the school board’s business committee lacked details and specifics needed to attract competitive bids.

Another question that must be fully explored stems from a charge made by some of the companies that did not bid regarding the time frame of the process. They contend that they had only two weeks to develop and submit their bids, whereas CBS has been working with the school district for months. If that is true, it amounts to a form of insider trading.

Then, there is the question of the three-year contract CBS now has with the school district for special needs student transportation. The company is in the second year of the contract and is paid just over $1.6 million a year with annual 3.8 percent increases.

Linkage

It is clear that CBS used its current contract in developing its new proposal, which calls for the following: digital recorders/global positioning system units for 60 buses; computer software for bus routing and maintenance; and, transportation employee payroll and general consulting services.

The company made the offer at no cost while guaranteeing a $500,000 reduction in the $5 million annual student transportation costs the district now bears.

But there’s a catch: It wants the district to extend its special needs student transportation contract for an additional five years.

The state fiscal oversight commission, which has watched over the school district’s finances since the state declared a fiscal emergency in November 2006, must investigate the relationship between CBS and school officials.

The over-arching question is this: Are the taxpayers of the fiscally and academically challenged urban school system getting the biggest bang for their bucks when a major contract is let with no competition?

The necessity for an independent review of the entire process leading up to CBS’ proposal is good public policy.

The Youngstown City School District faces an uncertain future, fiscally and academically. While the financial picture has brightened somewhat since November 2006, major challenges abound. The loss of student enrollment is of concern.

Academically, the district has the dubious honor of being the worst in the state of Ohio. Members of the school board have a responsibility to work with the administration to chart a course of recovery that would meet the requirements of a state academic oversight commission.

The board would do well to let the fiscal commission handle the transportation services contract.