web analytics

Tag Archive | "contracts"

School board bits


 

Contracts, privatization of transportation

By Judy Reed

Board votes on administrative, other contracts

The Cedar Springs Board of Education found themselves split 4-3 Monday evening, March 13, when voting on contracts for administrators, executive assistants, and administrative assistants.

Dr. Laura VanDuyn, Superintendent of Cedar Springs Public Schools, brought the contracts to the Board that evening. She told them that all the administrators, except one had agreed to the contracts.

Trustee Ted Sabinas said up front that due to the lack of time they had to review, read, and compare the administrator contracts to the previous contracts, and due to the lack of collaboratively working with the administration on the contracts, as had been done in the past, he would be voting no.

VanDuyn assured the board that she and Carrie Duddles, human resources director, had met with the administrators several times, fielded phone calls, and gave them opportunities to ask questions.

A vote was taken on whether to table the administrator contracts, and it was defeated 3-4. Sabinas, Michelle Bayink, and Brooke Nichols all voted to table. A motion was then made to approve the contracts, and it passed 4-3. Shannon Vanderhyde, Heidi Reed, Patricia Eary, and President Matt Shoffner all voted to pass the contracts.

The Board voted 4-3 to table the executive assistant and administrative contracts, because they had not seen them. Sabinas, Bayink, Nichols, and Shoffner all voted to table them. Shoffner said that he voted to table them because the contracts were not in the packet and he wanted to see them. He said he voted to pass the administrator contracts because they did see that information.

The Board then had to vote on a non-renewal of contracts for two employees—high school principal Ron Behrenwald and transportation supervisor Jerry Gavin.

VanDuyn said that Behrenwald was the administrator that did not approve his contract. She explained that he had asked for more time to review it because he had a question about salary. She then explained that in order to meet the requirements of Section 1229 of the Revised School code, and to meet contract language, the board had to give 30 days notice that they were considering non-renewal if there was any delay in signing the contract. The Board would have to give final notice on April 24, so the process needed to start that evening, March 13. According to the law, the administrator would be notified with a letter, which was reportedly dated March 10, and would give the reasons for non-renewal. VanDuyn said Behrenwald could still sign his contract up to April 24.

Nichols questioned the letter. “I feel like if we pass this, it’s a non-renewal,” she said. “I feel like there should be reasons in the letter, with written statements on why we’re doing non-renewal,” she said.

VanDuyn told the board their attorney drafted the resolution and the letter, and that the letter spoke to multiple discussions or opportunities to discuss the contract, and spoke of the delay.

The Post sent a FOIA request for the letter, among other items, but the administration opted not to fulfill the request for another 10 days.

The Board also needed to vote on non-renewal of Gavin’s contract, due to the fact that they are looking at restructuring transportation, and possibly privatizing it. VanDuyn said he would not have the same contract, and they currently haven’t offered him another contract. She said that they can’t give him a definitive yes or no on his job, and that they have had discussions with him. “We will wait and see as we explore privatization,” she said. “He’s well aware.”

VanDuyn noted again that the process of non-renewal needed to start that night to meet the timeline, and that waiting until March 27 would be too late, since they need 30 days and the final vote is April 24.

The Board voted 4-3 to pass the non-renewal of Behrenwald’s and Gavin’s contracts. Sabinas, Bayink and Nichols all voted against it. Shoffner said he only voted to pass them in order to make the needed time line.

Under Section 1229, those getting a non-renewal notice are also allowed a hearing before a majority of the Board. According to Thrun Law Firm: Strict adherence to the Section 1229 timelines is critical, as a school must give the affected administrator notice that the board is “considering” nonrenewal along with a written statement of the reasons for nonrenewal at least 90 days before the affected administrator’s contract expires.

Section 1229 also requires a period of 30 days before the board can make a final determination on whether to nonrenew the affected administrator. During this period, the affected administrator must be given the opportunity to meet with a majority of the board members to discuss the stated reasons for the nonrenewal.

The school board then must make its final determination and give the administrator notice of that decision not later than 60 days before the affected administrator’s contract expires. Under Section 1229, a school may not nonrenew an administrator’s employment contract for a reason that is “arbitrary or capricious.”

Privatization of transportation

Supt. VanDuyn spoke to the Board about the plans to explore privatization of busing. She said the one of the recommendations made by the Excel Consulting Group last year was to get a quote on privatizing busing. They received an informal quote from Dean’s Transportation, and they brought them in to meet with the bus drivers, first in small group, then in a larger group. She noted that they wanted the bus drivers to weigh in on this, and that there would be meetings with them last week. “It’s been a great collaboration process,” VanDuyn told them. She said that she would have information for the Board at the March 27 meeting.

According to the most recently amended budget, the budget for transportation is $2,926,976. And, according to statistics posted on their website from April 2016, they had 41 buses in their fleet.

The Post asked the Superintendent some questions about the possibility of privatization, savings, what would happen to the buses, and other things, but she declined to comment, because the board had not yet seen any information.

SPECIAL MEETING

Please note that there will be a special board meeting on Monday, March 27, and it will start at 5:45 p.m. That is an hour earlier than normal.

Posted in NewsComments (0)

Tax-avoiding companies shouldn’t get contracts paid for with your tax dollars


_V-Levin

By Sen. Carl Levin

Over the last few months, there has been a growing rush of U.S. corporations seeking to swear off their U.S. citizenship and move their mailboxes, for tax purposes, to a low-tax jurisdiction. I don’t think that’s right, and it’s time we put a stop to it. Three months ago, I introduced the Stop Corporate Inversions Act with 22 co-sponsors, which would do just that.

A few weeks ago, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and I introduced another bill, the No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act. This new legislation would at least ensure that companies that shift overseas and renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes don’t get taxpayer-funded federal contracts.

Most Americans agree with us that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used for contracts with companies that move their addresses abroad to dodge U.S. laws. Over the last 12 years, Congress has passed a series of restrictions on federal contracting with inverted corporations. We passed restrictions in 2002, 2006 and 2007. Since fiscal year 2008, a government-wide provision banning contracts with inverted corporations has been included in every annual appropriations bill.

The No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act would strengthen that ban by closing a number of loopholes in the current law. Those loopholes have allowed some inverted corporations to continue collecting revenue from American taxpayers while at the same time shifting their tax burden onto those same American taxpayers. Our bill also makes the existing ban, which has been included in annual appropriations bills, permanent.

Some may say that the real reason for inversions is that our tax rate is too high. It’s true the top corporate rate is 35 percent. But the effective tax rate—what corporations really pay—is about 12 percent. And when companies can go to places like Ireland or the Caribbean and negotiate sweetheart deals to pay little or no taxes, there will always be tax incentives for companies to abandon their country instead of paying their tax bill, no matter what our tax rate is.

Some may say that we should wait for tax reform to address this issue. There are two reasons why we shouldn’t. First, if it happens at all, tax reform is months or years away; these inversions are happening now. Second, this is a bill about contracting.

This bill doesn’t amend the tax code. And it has been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees federal contracting, and not to the Finance Committee, which oversees tax policy. So even senators who think we should wait until we pass comprehensive tax reform before fixing the tax inversions problem should be able to support this bill.

In similar circumstances in the past, Congress has chosen to act overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan fashion. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about fairness. It is simply unfair to businesses that don’t invert to have to compete with companies that do invert.

This is about putting American families who work hard and pay their share. We shouldn’t sacrifice the interests of those families. We shouldn’t ask them to send their hard-earned tax dollars to contractors who skip out on their tax obligations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward.

Carl Levin is the senior U.S. senator from Michigan.

 

Posted in NewsComments (0)


advert
Kent Theatre
Ensley Team Five Star Realty
Advertising Rates Brochure
Cedar Car Co

Get the Cedar Springs Post in your mailbox for only $35.00 a year!