No-Bid CCSD Reorganization Contract Approved Along Party Lines

During the October 18  Legislative Advisory Committee meeting about  the Clark County School District (CCSD) reorganization, Committee members were presented with a proposal from TSC2, a recently formed consulting firm headed by Tom Skancke, former CEO of Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance (LVGEA). Firm consultants are slated to  assist the CCSD with AB394 reorganization efforts, including administrative and financial changes, transition services and education policy development. The contract is for one year.

The $1.2 million contract caught some legislators and concerned parents  by surprise. Several members of the Advisory Committee complained about having  one day to review all the documents pertaining to the $1.2 million proposal. Legislators also wondered why there was no Request For Proposals (RFP), which would have made this contract subject to a competitive bid process.

Senator Mo Denis asked Glenn Christenson, a businessman who worked with Station Casinos and more recently collaborated closely with TSC2 principal Tom Skancke at LVGEA, how long the proposal had been in development. Mr. Christenson answered 6-8 weeks. Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz asked CCSD Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky how long it would have taken to go through a competitive RFP process, and he responded 6-8 weeks.

Senator Mo Denis asked, about parental engagement. He added that he couldn’t  see the proposal succeeding without that input, and noted “there is no plan for parent outreach.”  

Assemblywoman Diaz believed the scope of the work from the consulting firm was too broad and needed to be more focused and finite. In particular, she and Assemblywoman Dina Neal noted that the proposed work involved policy development, which is legally the responsibility of CCSD Trustees.

Assemblywoman Diaz also noted that the reorganization plan was designed to give power back to local administrators, parents and teachers and ensure that local schools were building a sense of community. Yet parents are completely absent from the proposed transition structure, she added.  

Assemblywoman Diaz also questioned the metrics used to measure the efficiency of the contractor’s work: “What is the evaluation process that’s before us here to make sure that this investment is going to be a good investment?”

Mr. Christenson said there would be a process but did not know what that process was.  No one from TSC2 stepped forward to provide an explanation.

Senator Joe Hardy was apprehensive about the proposal. He asked twice if the school district had agreed to share the $1.2 million cost of the consultant. He also asked if the school district had an opinion about the cost.

CCSD lobbyists and officials were present during the Committee meeting but did not come forth to answer Senator Hardy’s questions.  

After the meeting, several parents groups, including members of Break Free CCSD and HOPE for Nevada, echoed Senator Hardy’s concerns and commented that they found the price tag “shocking.”

Pressing for additional budget details, Senator Becky Harris questioned the educational policy development and financial services section of the proposal. Senator Harris made reference to the fact that one-third of the proposal budget was designated to be dispersed at an hourly rate of $350. She asked why an hourly rate was required, and who the firm anticipated hiring to assist in the work detailed in the proposal. Tom Skancke, President and CEO of TSC2, informed Senator Harris that other consultants would be hired on  an as-needed basis.  

Assemblywoman Neal asked for more clarity about the proposed work, including the types of documents that would be handled by the consultants. The Assemblywoman  also asked what authority the firm would have, questioning if power over decisions should remain in the hands of the CCSD Trustees.  

Vice President of TSC2, Michael Vannozi, formerly an education policy advisor to Senator Harry Reid who also worked with Mr. Skancke at LVGEA, advised Assemblywoman Neal that the consulting firm would be doing a number of project-based policy initiatives, with on-call consulting. But Assemblywoman Neal pressed further: “Are you entrenching or stepping into areas that have not been delegated to you? Do you have the authority to do it? Because it should be something that is being done by the Trustees. Don’t they have policy governance already?”   

The consulting contract was approved by the CCSD Reorganization Advisory Committee along party lines by a vote of 5-2, with  Republicans controlling the votes. Democratic Senators Denis and Aaron Ford were not present for the vote.  

Many of the Committee members understood that taking $1.2 million out of the bare-bones CCSD budget will mean fewer resources available to schools and students, and that will mean less science equipment, less after-school tutoring, less technology and a whole host of other shortages. When educating children should be the No. 1 priority, bringing in consultants, on a last minute, no-bid basis, should be a last resort.

Educate Nevada Now applauds the members of the Legislative Advisory Committee for scrutinizing the $1.2 million no-bid contract. This no-bid consulting proposal was sprung on many of the Advisory Committee members, CCSD Trustees  and concerned parent groups. Given the size of this contract, its rushed timeline, broad scope,  and the absence of background documentation, ENN believes it is the fiduciary duty of the CCSD Trustees to also take a close look at this contract and ensure that the district’s scarce public dollars are not wasted.