Post by BLRBoardwatch Updates on May 14, 2022 16:41:52 GMT -7
According to the Banning Lewis Charter and Colorado State Law (see Charter Contract Section 8.8 linked here and here), our school must use a competitive bidding process for any purchases over $10,000 with the exception of professional services provided by the management company or authorizer.
The focus of this post is on marketing and enrollment support services (which are not professional services as regulated by DORA/state of Colorado).
As you can see in this lengthy series of CORA requests of Banning Lewis and D49, both BLRA and D49 custodian of records replied that there were no records they could find where requests for proposals (RFP) were sent out for marketing and enrollment. In addition, there was no evidence provided by BLRA Custodian of Records or D49 that our school filed the replacement policy required by their waivers. Since CORA requests rely on transparency by the public entities from which open record documents are requested, we accepted the responses as official and final from both BLRA and D49.
An original post was made for users on this forum to share information amongst ourselves supporting our credible questions about marketing and enrollment dollars going to the same individual and that person’s company. We know that the total amount paid from various affiliates of Banning and D49 is substantial. Based on the information (or lack of) returned from CORA requests, the opinions were posted that the school was in violation of the charter and competitive bidding requirements for marketing and enrollment support.
On April 25, 2022, the “BLA School Board” sent an email titled “BLA BOD Letter to the Community” publishing the name “Blrboardwatch” which caused views of this once private thread and forum to increase significantly. As a result, questions were raised by at least one board member about the veracity of the opinions posted on this forum. Fair enough. Our goal is transparency and openness.
In May 2022, Heather Zambrano sent an email titled “Community Response 5-4-22” in which she provided both emails and board minutes showing that competitive bids were in fact sought just prior to the Foundation being started. Dated February 16, 2016, board minutes reflect that a vote was taken to approve paying “DCO” $3500 per month retainer and up to $18000 and Crimson Strategies $4500.
Below is a summary of payments made to D/CO between June 2016 - August 2018. No vendor payments to “Crimson” appear in financial transparency documents during this timeframe.
UPDATE to Competitive Bidding for Marketing
06/08/2016 D/CO $1100.00
09/12/2016 D/CO $5562.89
11/04/2016 D/CO $7515.46
12/01/2016 D/CO $3603.88
02/02/2017 D/CO $7507.41
03/10/2017 D/CO $8386.54
05/25/2017 D/CO $4516.66
01/23/2018 D/CO $156.00
05/08/2018 D/CO $1382.00
Total: $39730.84
So, as it turns out, there was evidence of asking for competitive bids for marketing, and DCO was awarded the contract. We are not sure why both BLRA custodian of records and D49 office of communications failed to provide these documents. This post has been updated to correct opinions of the original poster and follow-up conversations based on the documents that were first provided (or not).
But, there’s more….
In the same email sent from Heather Zambrano, additional details are provided showing how the school board took action to start the foundation, accept a board VP’s resignation, and appoint that same board member to a paid position as the Owner Rep (?) or Executive Director, committing $7000 of school money plus $45,000 from Oakwood Homes (it’s not clear how that money was spent).
Minutes from 3-15-16 reference the following discussion item:
12.7. Marketing and Fundraising
12.7.1 We need move forward with Marketing and Fundraising. $45,000 is
available from Oakwood for this or for Owner Rep. $7000 was allocated for
this as well from the BLRA Budget.
On 4-5-16, a special meeting was called with the following discussion item referenced:
b. BLRA Foundation
Discussed Executive Director position for the Foundation
and in the category of future business:
g. April Regular Meeting – Accept Board Member Resignation
In her 5.4.22 email to Community members, Heather Zambrano stated the following:
“The bylaws of the Foundation require that the majority of the Foundation Board be board members of the BLA BOD. It states that the President of the BLA Board is the Chairman of the Foundation. This is to ensure that the fundraising meets the vision of BLA.” (page 2)
and:
“By April 2016, it was clear that the success of the school required a substantial amount of dollars to equip/outfit the building with essential items for operations. At that point, the BLRA Foundation was discussed, as was Heather’s resignation from the Board, so as not to create a conflict of interest as the Foundation's Executive Director. Heather, as the fundraising and marketing Committee Chair was carrying this substantial lift in her previous capacity as the Board VP, thus the separation of an entity began.”
Heather Zambrano goes on to explain the following:
“Details: From 2013 until 2016, Heather was a BLRA Board member that was actively engaged
in the expansion efforts of grades 9-12 and the BLPA facility.
April 6, 2016 – June 30, 2016: $6500 was paid to Heather Zambrano as a 1099 of BLRA
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017: $40,000 salary through the BLRA Educational Foundation via 1099
July 1, 2017 forward – budgeted annually through the Foundation, paid as a 1099
The BLRA Foundation raised money/made asks and was able to sustain June of 2017 through January of 2021 of $3333.00 monthly plus any budgeted bonus. Please note that THIS WAS NOT SCHOOL’S MONEY!
ACCEL entered into a contract from February 1, 2021 and shall be completed on a rolling basis as requested by Client not to extend past January 31, 2022. Fee: $3,333 per month, prorated for partial months, for full-time work. Please note that THIS WAS NOT SCHOOL MONEY!"
We want to thank Ms. Zambrano for being transparent about the origins of the payments she was receiving from BLRA, the Foundation, and Accel schools. It is important for the community to know where education dollars are going, regardless of whether those dollars are public, private, or some of both.
So, we will leave the questions that were asked with the original post that we’d like the Board to answer publicly:
1. What data or evidence-based best practices were consulted to determine that marketing, enrollment, and related services performed by someone with clear ties to influential positions of power were essential to the school?
2. What other contractors or vendors were given access to compete for these essential services? Were other people invited to apply to be the ED of the Foundation?
3. Why did the Foundation continue to fund these services for at least two years while the Foundation was no longer taking on money?
4. Were there any programs or school positions that did not receive funding while this contractor was being paid, especially in 2019, 2020, and 2021?
5. When the school board President negotiated a new contract between ACCEL and the same vendor, what discussion if any occurred within the board or foundation to ensure that conflicts of interest and abuse of influential positions of power was avoided?
6. If it was a conflict of interest in 2016 for the ED of the Foundation to remain on the board, why was it not a conflict of interest in 2021 when that same person rejoined the board and became its President?
7. What is the board’s official response to what still appears to be impropriety?
Thank you for pursuing trust and transparency with the public whom you are charged with serving.
The focus of this post is on marketing and enrollment support services (which are not professional services as regulated by DORA/state of Colorado).
As you can see in this lengthy series of CORA requests of Banning Lewis and D49, both BLRA and D49 custodian of records replied that there were no records they could find where requests for proposals (RFP) were sent out for marketing and enrollment. In addition, there was no evidence provided by BLRA Custodian of Records or D49 that our school filed the replacement policy required by their waivers. Since CORA requests rely on transparency by the public entities from which open record documents are requested, we accepted the responses as official and final from both BLRA and D49.
An original post was made for users on this forum to share information amongst ourselves supporting our credible questions about marketing and enrollment dollars going to the same individual and that person’s company. We know that the total amount paid from various affiliates of Banning and D49 is substantial. Based on the information (or lack of) returned from CORA requests, the opinions were posted that the school was in violation of the charter and competitive bidding requirements for marketing and enrollment support.
On April 25, 2022, the “BLA School Board” sent an email titled “BLA BOD Letter to the Community” publishing the name “Blrboardwatch” which caused views of this once private thread and forum to increase significantly. As a result, questions were raised by at least one board member about the veracity of the opinions posted on this forum. Fair enough. Our goal is transparency and openness.
In May 2022, Heather Zambrano sent an email titled “Community Response 5-4-22” in which she provided both emails and board minutes showing that competitive bids were in fact sought just prior to the Foundation being started. Dated February 16, 2016, board minutes reflect that a vote was taken to approve paying “DCO” $3500 per month retainer and up to $18000 and Crimson Strategies $4500.
Below is a summary of payments made to D/CO between June 2016 - August 2018. No vendor payments to “Crimson” appear in financial transparency documents during this timeframe.
UPDATE to Competitive Bidding for Marketing
06/08/2016 D/CO $1100.00
09/12/2016 D/CO $5562.89
11/04/2016 D/CO $7515.46
12/01/2016 D/CO $3603.88
02/02/2017 D/CO $7507.41
03/10/2017 D/CO $8386.54
05/25/2017 D/CO $4516.66
01/23/2018 D/CO $156.00
05/08/2018 D/CO $1382.00
Total: $39730.84
So, as it turns out, there was evidence of asking for competitive bids for marketing, and DCO was awarded the contract. We are not sure why both BLRA custodian of records and D49 office of communications failed to provide these documents. This post has been updated to correct opinions of the original poster and follow-up conversations based on the documents that were first provided (or not).
But, there’s more….
In the same email sent from Heather Zambrano, additional details are provided showing how the school board took action to start the foundation, accept a board VP’s resignation, and appoint that same board member to a paid position as the Owner Rep (?) or Executive Director, committing $7000 of school money plus $45,000 from Oakwood Homes (it’s not clear how that money was spent).
Minutes from 3-15-16 reference the following discussion item:
12.7. Marketing and Fundraising
12.7.1 We need move forward with Marketing and Fundraising. $45,000 is
available from Oakwood for this or for Owner Rep. $7000 was allocated for
this as well from the BLRA Budget.
On 4-5-16, a special meeting was called with the following discussion item referenced:
b. BLRA Foundation
Discussed Executive Director position for the Foundation
and in the category of future business:
g. April Regular Meeting – Accept Board Member Resignation
In her 5.4.22 email to Community members, Heather Zambrano stated the following:
“The bylaws of the Foundation require that the majority of the Foundation Board be board members of the BLA BOD. It states that the President of the BLA Board is the Chairman of the Foundation. This is to ensure that the fundraising meets the vision of BLA.” (page 2)
and:
“By April 2016, it was clear that the success of the school required a substantial amount of dollars to equip/outfit the building with essential items for operations. At that point, the BLRA Foundation was discussed, as was Heather’s resignation from the Board, so as not to create a conflict of interest as the Foundation's Executive Director. Heather, as the fundraising and marketing Committee Chair was carrying this substantial lift in her previous capacity as the Board VP, thus the separation of an entity began.”
Heather Zambrano goes on to explain the following:
“Details: From 2013 until 2016, Heather was a BLRA Board member that was actively engaged
in the expansion efforts of grades 9-12 and the BLPA facility.
April 6, 2016 – June 30, 2016: $6500 was paid to Heather Zambrano as a 1099 of BLRA
July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017: $40,000 salary through the BLRA Educational Foundation via 1099
July 1, 2017 forward – budgeted annually through the Foundation, paid as a 1099
The BLRA Foundation raised money/made asks and was able to sustain June of 2017 through January of 2021 of $3333.00 monthly plus any budgeted bonus. Please note that THIS WAS NOT SCHOOL’S MONEY!
ACCEL entered into a contract from February 1, 2021 and shall be completed on a rolling basis as requested by Client not to extend past January 31, 2022. Fee: $3,333 per month, prorated for partial months, for full-time work. Please note that THIS WAS NOT SCHOOL MONEY!"
We want to thank Ms. Zambrano for being transparent about the origins of the payments she was receiving from BLRA, the Foundation, and Accel schools. It is important for the community to know where education dollars are going, regardless of whether those dollars are public, private, or some of both.
So, we will leave the questions that were asked with the original post that we’d like the Board to answer publicly:
1. What data or evidence-based best practices were consulted to determine that marketing, enrollment, and related services performed by someone with clear ties to influential positions of power were essential to the school?
2. What other contractors or vendors were given access to compete for these essential services? Were other people invited to apply to be the ED of the Foundation?
3. Why did the Foundation continue to fund these services for at least two years while the Foundation was no longer taking on money?
4. Were there any programs or school positions that did not receive funding while this contractor was being paid, especially in 2019, 2020, and 2021?
5. When the school board President negotiated a new contract between ACCEL and the same vendor, what discussion if any occurred within the board or foundation to ensure that conflicts of interest and abuse of influential positions of power was avoided?
6. If it was a conflict of interest in 2016 for the ED of the Foundation to remain on the board, why was it not a conflict of interest in 2021 when that same person rejoined the board and became its President?
7. What is the board’s official response to what still appears to be impropriety?
Thank you for pursuing trust and transparency with the public whom you are charged with serving.