Next round on Valley Forge Middle School fencing project: TE School Board hires safety consultant

Fencing April 2015

What’s that proverb about a “bad penny always coming back”?  After last week’s TE School Board meeting, that could be a fair description of the Valley Forge Middle School fencing project.

Residents who attended the District’s June 12th Facilities Meeting expected the fencing discussion at Valley Forge Middle School to finally end.  But instead, the public learned that after many, many meetings and months of legal bills for the District (i.e. taxpayers), the Chesterbrook Civic Association and Green Hills homeowners, Board President Kris Graham’s proposed hiring a safety consultant for the Valley Forge Middle School.

The Board has repeatedly cited the 2013 safety report by Andy Chambers (the former Tredyffrin Township Police Chief) as the rationale for building fences around the District’s eight schools. However the public was not provided input for the safety study and the Board, citing safety reasons, never permitted the public to see the report.

Although District residents have not read the Chambers’ safety report, the Board claimed that its safety suggestions included fencing all schools. Taxpayers paid (“not to exceed $11,500”) for the safety report two years ago, so did the Board decide to spend more money on another study (to focus specifically on VFMS).  During the Facilities Committee meeting the Board was quick to point out that the District would send out a RFP for the VFMS safety consultant, which they admit was not done before they hired Chambers in 2013.

During the committee reports at the June 15 regular school board meeting, Dr. Motel (chair of the Facilities Committee) presented the following update,

The Facilities Committee met Friday, June 12 at the district offices on West Valley Road and the meeting was open to the public.

We discussed again the possible installation of additional fencing at Valley Forge Middle School. The committee has decided after many meetings of which this issue was discussed to obtain a second opinion from an additional safety consultant who will review the Valley Forge Middle School site specifically and make recommendations as to whether or not additional fencing at the site is advisable and if so what it should look like and where it should be placed.

The process will be an RFP will go out this summer for a school safety consultant. The selection of the safety consultant will begin at the next committee meeting in public with public input. I want to clarify that this means no new fencing will be installed at Valley Forge Middle School this summer.

Fast forward three months to last week’s school board meeting and the safety consultant discussion – a discussion which was troubling on many levels:

  1. Initially the hiring of the safety consultant appeared as part of the school board’s consent agenda but was later removed to allow for discussion.
  2. Contrary to what the Board previously stated on at the Facilities Committee meeting on June 12 and at the June 15 School Board meeting, no RFP was released.
  3. The Business manager Art McDonnell contacted three safety security companies and asked them for a proposal.
  4. McDonnell ‘picked’ the company, National School Safety & Security Service at a cost of $15,500.
  5. No District signed contract for National School Safety’s services. Responding to Board and resident questions, McDonnell suggested that a contract was not necessary and pointed to the company’s proposal on the TESD website. (The proposal is found on pg. 177 of the Sept. 21 school board agenda}.
  6. Residents asked the cost of the other 2 safety security companies. McDonnell did not have the exact figures but thought one was around $4,000 and the other $20K.
  7. National School Safety’s proposal contains no dates for the deliverables. Their consulting fee of $15,500 is for pre-visit phone calls and review of existing documents, 3 day visit which includes 1-1/2 days of interviews and site visits, 1/2 day of debriefing and presentation to committee and written report of recommendations.
  8. No public meeting on this topic is included in the company’s proposal.
  9. McDonnell stated that earlier fencing correspondence, emails, etc. would be given to the consultant. However, when further questioned on this topic, McDonnell acknowledged he was not sure how long the District kept emails!  (What is the policy on email retention?)
  10. When pressed on the need for the safety consultant to receive public input on fencing, etc., McDonnell referenced a proposed public meeting for Thursday, Nov. 19 with a preliminary safety report from the consultant to be given on Friday, Nov. 20 at the 2 PM Facilities Committee meeting.
  11. What is the value of resident input if the public meeting is held less than 24 hrs. before National School Safety delivers their preliminary report at the Facilities Committee meeting.
  12. Several residents and Board members questioned McDonnell regarding the ‘scope’ of the consultant’s work without the benefit of an RFP. How would the company know the District’s expectations?
  13. In the end, the Board offered that residents could send emails about the fencing project to schoolboard@tesd.net and they would forward to the safety consultant. For the record, Art McDonnell is the public information person and all emails to the school board must go through him first.

I have attended many school board and committee meetings but the discussion to hire a safety consultant for Valley Forge Middle School had to be one of the most troubling I have ever witnessed.  The decision to hire the safety consultant lacked process …there was no RFP outlining the District’s expectations as the Board previously stated  – no dates for deliverables – no contract – no resident input provision, etc.  Even with all the questions and uncertainty the Valley Forge Middle School security consultant, the Board voted 9-0 to hire National School Safety & Security Services at a cost of $15,500.

Where’s the P.R.O.C.E.S.S.?  The public is repeatedly told that the ‘real work’ goes on at committee meetings. Really?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

6 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. The T/E school board can’t come up with one concrete way that the new proposed fencing for Valley Forge Middle School would increase safety for the students.

    They tried generic statements about creating visible boundaries and delaying an intruder. However, neither of those are applicable to VMFS due to it’s unique physical makeup and the fact that the front of the building will still have no fencing.

    Therefore, they are going to spend $15,500 in order to justify spending $80,000 on fences the community has very loudly and clearly stated that it doesn’t want and does not increase the safety of the students.

    The only real impact the proposed new fences will have is to spend more money during a year in which the school district is running a deficit, make the school less physically appealing, and make the land less useful as they will not be able to use parts of it for track meets and field day due to loss of useable space.

    The only thing the school board has accomplished through this process is to show yet again why there needs to be change in the T/E school board.

    [Reply]

  2. I am not an expert in any of this, but I have to wonder why there wasn’t an RFP initially? Why did it take so long after wasting so much time and money for some one to decide that they needed to put an RFP out there? Why they don’t know how to put an effective RFP together? Why not give up this whole thing? The people don’t want it. It’s not about safety, it’s about power?

    [Reply]

  3. WOW — This is a disgrace and certainly not to be unexpected under the direction of the Facilities Chairperson. How can the Board allow such action??? This sounds so so much like the way the current folks in DC operate because they think think they know better. I would certainly be a party to any legal action against the Board — and it astute Counsel, – if that is a possibility.

    [Reply]

  4. Common sense says 4 to 6ft. fences are not going to deter someone who wants to do harm from doing harm.

    The fences are for show. The consultant is for show. Appearances, on the outside, and in reality to mark boundary lines and absolve guilt in the event of an incident. In the event something happens, Board Members can point to the fences and say, see we did something. It’s not our fault. And we paid a consultant alot of money to back us up. They may even then blame the consultant because we all know it won’t be their responsibility.

    Whats really sad is that all 9 Board Members voted for this when they know the truth.

    [Reply]

  5. There could be no clearer demonstration of the need for fresh thinking on the School Board than the 9-0 vote in favor of accepting a proposal that offers “recommendations” on an unspecified subject in an unspecified timeframe – but for a clearly specified cost.

    It’s up to us to demand that the candidates go beyond the usual pablum and give us a clear idea of how they would govern. “Govern” being the operative word. And then hold them to the promises.

    [Reply]

  6. Thank you for the update and detailed summary.

    At this point, I believe the community is just fed up with this board and not being heard.
    Their votes will do the talking on November 3rd.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2019 Frontier Theme