The Oak Park Elementary School District 97 Board of Education will decide tonight whether to keep its contract with the consultant it hired to lead its strategic plan, or fire the firm.
The board opted last week to halt the work of Tallahassee, Fla.-based MGT of America, Inc., which has satellite offices across the country, citing among a number of reasons the lack of community input MGT was building into the planning process.
At its Jan. 25 meeting, school board members voted unanimously to withhold payment to MGT. The board has not approved of the firm’s handling of its strategic plan, the district’s first in more than a decade.
MGT had not garnered the level of community involvement promised in its proposal, said some members. Other information pertaining to specific timetables, a project calendar and data collected by MGT about the district have been inadequate, members said.
“We had ongoing concerns and wanted to make clear what we expected this process to look like,” said Dist. 97 Supt. Constance Collins. “Everything is on hold.”
The district’s legal department was reviewing MGT’s contract, Collins said on Thursday. Board president Carolyn Newberry Schwartz said the board would honor the work MGT has done if the firm is not retained.
During a closed-door meeting on Feb. 1, the board discussed postponing MGT’s work, which included holding the first of two community forums scheduled to start next week. Those forums have been postponed. Focus group meetings at the elementary school scheduled to start this week are also on hold.
Collins and board members said they remain committed to creating the strategic plan.
“This is still a goal and something we want to move forward on,” said Collins. “There are a lot of people who have given their time and we want to keep the momentum going.”
MGT was hired in late October for a total cost of $74,160. MGT was set to be paid $13,832 for services provided for the month of September. The firm also had $5,000 due as payment at the time of signing its contract. Both payments were scheduled for release at the Jan. 25 meeting. The board voted to withhold both.
The board had asked MGT to provide it with information concerning the direction of its work ahead of its Feb. 1 executive session. Board members remained unsatisfied.
“The information provided was insufficient,” said Schwartz. “The board was working with MGT to make this process successful. We certainly hired them with the hope that it would be. Right now, our focus is trying to protect the assets of the district.”
The closed session last Wednesday concluded after more than two hours.
District spokeswoman Gail Crantz said Thursday that the district would contact committee members and stakeholders concerning the board’s decision.
What went wrong?
MGT was one of four consulting firms vying for the district’s strategic plan contract. MGT beat out Cambridge Associates, the Boston firm that conducted the district’s last plan in 1989. MGT was chosen primarily for promising open and broad-based community involvement.
The firm submitted a proposal in October, which the board approved. But MGT seemed to deviate from that proposal, according to some on the board.
The first signs of trouble came in December as MGT and the board worked on putting together a strategic plan steering committee. MGT proposed a 10- to 12-person committee consisting of district teachers, staff and administrators, but recommended only one community member. The board wanted at least 20 persons and several community members. MGT and the board compromised on five parents for the committee.
MGT and the board were on different pages concerning other issues, too.
The firm conducted focus group meetings in December with Dist. 97 administrators, staff and board members. MGT was asked to create a flow chart describing the various committees and focus groups, and how information would be shared. The firm was slow in developing the chart. The one it finally delivered to the board was not what the board had in mind.
“They sent a flow chart but it didn’t look like anything we were use to,” said board member Sharon Patchak-Layman, an early proponent of MGT. “It didn’t show the leaps and arrows of what happens to information?#34;does it go to the board or the steering committee?”
Members also expressed interest in establishing a stakeholder council to help advise both its members and the steering committee. Members asked for a description of the council, its function and how it would interact with the board and steering committee.
MGT agreed to outline the council, but that too failed to materialize.
The board also questioned MGT’s knowledge of the district and Oak Park. Board members asked MGT for a summary of data it collected on Oak Park’s school district and how it was obtained. The firm had yet to provide that information by last week’s executive session.
The firm began outlining goals before fully understanding Oak Park and the school district, according to some on the board.
MGT has attempted to comply with the board’s concerns, some members said.
Still, Patchak-Layman called the firm’s work so far, “a mixed record.”
“As far as following the proposal they’ve submitted?#34;it’s not there,” she said. “When you work with a consulting group you hope that they have a lot of expertise. My benefit of the doubt is that they have that expertise but haven’t conveyed that to us yet.”
Wednesday Journal attempted to contact a representative of MGT. As of press time, no one from the firm was available for comment.
MGT has previously worked with elementary and high school districts, and higher educational institutions, according to its website. Its more than 400 clients include school districts in Texas, Maryland, Indiana, Georgia and Florida. Oak Park’s Dist. 97 is among those listed. The firm also lists county governments as clients.
CONTACT: tdean@wjinc.com
