I believe the District said the total value of the contract is less than $1 million, BUT they still didn't provide the actual amount and $999k would still be truthfully "under $1 million." But the statute you cited earlier says the value must be below $35k and there's no way that the work being done could possibly cost that little - especially when the District is being so cagey about the amount. . It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that most of the Board members aren't even aware of that rule, but both Gilzean and Figgers should both know it. As for the others, ignorance is no excuse
This all goes back to the Network revamp they introduced in the Aug 23 board meeting. Where Gilzean highlighted earmarking 1 million in their budget plan for a network redesign, highlighting a key benefit would be to improve their 911 response. They even highlighted their current response times were below the state standard and needed to be addressed 'now'. This was likely part of their justification of why such a program needed to be awarded quickly... as an 'urgent operational need'
As for Gilzeen and Figgers - who cares, the procurement staff in the district, including their newly labeled CFO who are long time employees (not appointees) know the procurement rules. The Districts own updated Procurement Policy (also included in the Aug 23 Meeting packet) highlights Contracts >25k must be signed by the Distract Admin (and those over 500k must goto the board).
Note for services, their policy states deals over 100k for services must use formal bidding.
But also note the exception they put into their policy...
"VIII. SECURITY RELATED PURCHASES
Purchases of goods or services for security systems, wired or wireless networks, alarms, or other peripherals that reveal configurations or methodology supporting the security of District infrastructure
are exempt from public bidding."
But they never distinguish between 'public bidding' and 'competitive bidding' - so I don't know how to read that exception. Nor how to interpret the District's policies vs linked by
@LAKid53 - as that statue applies to agencies defined as "“Agency” means any of the various state officers, departments, boards, commissions, divisions, bureaus, and councils and any other unit of organization, however designated, of the executive branch of state government" --
The district board is appointed by the executive branch, but is not really part of the executive branch nor delegate of it. It was created by the legislature.
If you go through the old budget presentations, should be a line item for the network redesign project. I just don't have the time myself today to back track... but should be in there for the 'how much' concerns.
