Reproduced above is Supt. Hunter's response to my complaint regarding FF&E purchases. For details of that complaint please see my post "Why Pay More Than List Price?" dated January 2, 2011.
In his response, Hunter discusses the service provided by the furniture vendor, Saxton Bradley, who purchased the bulk of the furniture for the newly renovated high school. In addition to purchasing the furniture, they also stored it until needed, delivered it to the school, performed whatever assembly was required, and hauled away the packaging materials. The fact that Saxton Bradley performs a real service was never in doubt. The question is - How much did it cost us and was it a wise use of resources?
As Hunter says in the first sentence of the third paragraph, "The entire package of 3PL services has a cost and a value." Yet nowhere in district documents is that cost itemized - something my contacts in the Oregon State Procurement Office said is required. Hardly the "industry best management practice" Hunter claims. He seems to suggest that the 3PL services are tacked onto the original purchase prices (including shipping) of the various furniture items.
The examples I have uncovered, where we can actually see the cost of each item and its associated shipping costs, would suggest that Saxton Bradley charged us over 50% of the purchase price plus shipping for their additional services. Since our total Saxton Bradley bill came to $332,000, that means we paid roughly $110,000 for those extra services (storage, assembly, and disposing of dunnage). In the case of the students chairs from the Wenger Corporation, Saxton Bradley charged us an additional $42 per chair for pre-assembled chairs that retail for $76 and ship for $12.
Was it worth it? Hard to say. It was certainly a good deal for Saxton Bradley. It was certainly a convenience for the bond manager who did not have to find a local crew to unpack and assemble furniture (which would have been easy to do given the high rate of local unemployment).
A good deal for those of us who pay the bills? You've seen my report and you've seen the superintendent's response - you be the judge.
In his response, Hunter discusses the service provided by the furniture vendor, Saxton Bradley, who purchased the bulk of the furniture for the newly renovated high school. In addition to purchasing the furniture, they also stored it until needed, delivered it to the school, performed whatever assembly was required, and hauled away the packaging materials. The fact that Saxton Bradley performs a real service was never in doubt. The question is - How much did it cost us and was it a wise use of resources?
As Hunter says in the first sentence of the third paragraph, "The entire package of 3PL services has a cost and a value." Yet nowhere in district documents is that cost itemized - something my contacts in the Oregon State Procurement Office said is required. Hardly the "industry best management practice" Hunter claims. He seems to suggest that the 3PL services are tacked onto the original purchase prices (including shipping) of the various furniture items.
The examples I have uncovered, where we can actually see the cost of each item and its associated shipping costs, would suggest that Saxton Bradley charged us over 50% of the purchase price plus shipping for their additional services. Since our total Saxton Bradley bill came to $332,000, that means we paid roughly $110,000 for those extra services (storage, assembly, and disposing of dunnage). In the case of the students chairs from the Wenger Corporation, Saxton Bradley charged us an additional $42 per chair for pre-assembled chairs that retail for $76 and ship for $12.
Was it worth it? Hard to say. It was certainly a good deal for Saxton Bradley. It was certainly a convenience for the bond manager who did not have to find a local crew to unpack and assemble furniture (which would have been easy to do given the high rate of local unemployment).
A good deal for those of us who pay the bills? You've seen my report and you've seen the superintendent's response - you be the judge.
This may seem silly.... but here goes... I find myself questioning something. To whom did you actually send your complaint? If it was to the superintendent, questioning the Bond Manager's judgement on the equipment prices, then I could understand why Dr Hunter feels he can be the judge and jury on this matter.(I personally think he should have the board's written support on his response letter). However, if Dr Hunter and the Board were the "targets" of the complaint, why is Dr Hunter fielding/reviewing the issues at hand on his own? Or at all. If a teacher is the target of a very serious complaint, such as official misconduct the likelihood of the teacher fielding the complaint and determining on his or her own the complaint is unfounded is pretty low. There should be (and probably is a) process of review... much like an internal affairs investigation in a police department. An outside, impartial agency would be called upon to help investigate the matter. It just seems to me we have a pretty serious problem here.... the Board and the Superintendent are ultimately the root of these particular issues, yet they (mostly Dr Hunter) are the judge and the jury and have the power to simply say... "Yup, everything looks good." Does this seem right?
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't seem right to me either. My complaint was addressed to the board. They apparently handed it off to Hunter and allowed him to respond. I agree with you completely that it is past time for an outside investigation of the superintendent, the board, and the too cozy relationship between some board members, especially the chair, and the employee they are supposed to be supervising. There was an outside investigator hired to look into one of the earlier complaints that I filed but I don't yet know the results of that investigation.
ReplyDelete