Michigan Department of Education Special Meeting for October 22, 2014


>>AS CHAIR, I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND THE REST IS JOHN. THAT CAN BE FOR THE MINUTES, SO WE HAVE A FORMAL MEETING.>>AM I IN THE WRONG SPOT? BECAUSE I’M FEELING A LITTLE LONELY OVER HERE. [ LAUGHTER ]>>I WAS ENCOURAGING US TO MAKE THIS AS INFORMAL AS WE COULD, AND NOT HAVE JEFF AND HEATHER DOWN AT THE END OF THE TABLE, AND ALL OF US — SO WE COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION. MARILYN, DO WE NEED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN ORDER OF PRIORITY?>>YES, BUT YOU CAN’T DO THAT, YET, UNTIL YOU’VE GOT A QUORUM PRESENT.>>YES, WE SHOULD DO THAT. IT’S A REGULAR MEETING.>>FOR THE REST OF YOU THAT DIDN’T HEAR ME SAY THIS, I DID RECEIVE A CALL FROM EILEEN WEISER. SHE’S VERY CLOSE.>>I THINK WE SHOULD START TALKING, THOUGH, IF WE CAN. I THINK, JEFF AND HEATHER, WE WANT TO THANK YOU. YOU ARE DOING YEOMAN’S WORK ON TRYING TO ADVANCE THE RFP PROCESS. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO OPEN WITH IS THERE’S JUST A LITTLE CONFUSION, AND MAYBE SOME FRUSTRATION FROM MANY BOARD MEMBERS — IT SEEMED LIKE THE PROCESS THAT WE’RE ON, WHICH SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR COMING OUT OF THAT LAST COMMITTEE, WHICH ENDED UP BEING A FULL BOARD MEETING ABOUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO PROCEED, THAT WE WOULD INFORM YOUR PUTTING OUT THE RFQ, WHICH IS GREAT, AND YOU DID THAT, AND VERY TIMELY. WE GOT BACK SOME RESPONSES OF TWO BIDDERS THAT THIS MEETING WOULD BE A MOMENT WHEN WE COULD REVIEW AND RANK TOGETHER AND MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHICH OF THOSE, IF THEY MET YOUR TESTS AS THE CONTRACTING AGENT, FOR BEING CREDIBLE, APPROVABLE, AND THAT WE, AS A BOARD, WOULD DECIDE WHICH WE LIKED BETTER OR WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS STRONGEST. SO I FIRST JUST WANT TO — THERE’S A LOT OF SENTIMENT THAT ADDITIONAL PROCESS STEPS SEEM TO BE FOR DELAYS WHICH MAY NOT BE NECESSARY. BUT FIRST, I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU WHAT YOUR VIEW IS ON WHY WE CAN’T MOVE AND MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THESE TWO BIDDERS, SO WE CAN HEAR AND UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC AND SEE IF THERE’S A WAY TO MOVE FASTER, PER OUR SCHEDULE. EVEN IN THE RFP, WE SAID WE’D BE MAKING A DECISION IN OCTOBER, AND IT SEEMS THEY ARE ENCOURAGING ANOTHER PROCESS STEP THAT WOULD PUT US WELL INTO NOVEMBER BEFORE WE CAN EVEN DECIDE ON THE SEARCH FIRM. FAILING SOME SATISFACTION ON WHETHER WE CAN OR CAN’T PROCEED, THERE CERTAINLY IS AN OPTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF RESOURCES FROM THE STATE AND A SEARCH FIRM, WHICH I CERTAINLY THINK WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL, BUT WE COULD MOVE AS WE DID LAST TIME, INDEPENDENTLY, AND SEARCH OURSELVES, AS A COMMITTEE, FOR A SUPERINTENDENT. I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT’S IN THE BIDS FROM THE BIDDERS, TO SEE HOW HELPFUL THEY COULD BE. WE ARE JUST GETTING THEM RIGHT NOW, SO WE HAVEN’T REALLY SEEN THAT. LET’S FIRST TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE REASONS — AND THERE MAY BE SOME VERY GOOD ONES — WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDITIONAL — HI, EILEEN. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHY AREN’T WE READY TO RANK AND REVIEW PROPOSALS, AND THE FIRST TEST IS IF JEFF AND HIS TEAM VIEW ANY OF THESE ENTITIES AS CREDIBLE, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ENTER A CONTRACT. BECAUSE IF NONE OF THEM DO, THEN BY ALL MEANS, WE SHOULD NOT.>>BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IN ORDER OF PRIORITY?>>SUPPORT.>>ALL IN FAVOR, SAY “AYE.”>>all: AYE.>>ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE SOME PERSPECTIVE WHY THE PROCESS IS TAKING MORE TIME AND WHAT THE RATIONALE FOR THAT IS. AND ANY INFORMATION ON THESE BIDDERS AND VENDORS. I AM CURIOUS IF THEY PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY, AND WHAT KIND OF HELP WE MIGHT GET FROM THEM, BUT LET’S TALK ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED AFTER THAT, AND I’M SURE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE AND WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. JEFF, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE SEEING RIGHT NOW? AGAIN, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE UNFAIR, BECAUSE THIS MAY BE MORE CRAIG IN THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE, WHO DID SEND EMAILS SUGGESTING THAT WE WERE MOVING TOO HASTY. THAT’S PART OF THE CONCERN, BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING ON THE TRACK WE AGREED TO COLLECTIVELY.>>WHAT I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT OPENING, IS THAT IT’S MY RESPONSIBILITY –>>EXCUSE ME, I CANNOT HEAR.>>CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?>>I CAN, THANK YOU.>>SURE. IN RESPONSE TO THOSE QUESTIONS, IT’S MY RESPONSIBILITY, AS THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER OF THE STATE, TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THE DMB ACT, PUBLIC ACT 431, AND PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS FROM A TO Z. THAT’S NOTHING THAT I’M SURE YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW. AND THAT’S FOR THE SPENDING OF STATE DOLLARS, WHICH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, TO THIS POINT AND PROBABLY FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WE MIGHT HAVE, IS HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK IS DTMB IS GOING TO FUND THE MONEY FOR THIS SEARCH. IT’S MY JOB TO MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW A CONSISTENT PROCESS. CONSISTENT MEANING CONSISTENT WITH ANY OTHER PROCESS WE DO, THAT WE FOLLOW ANY STEPS WE NORMALLY WOULD TOWARD A CONTRACT. TO ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS “DO WE HAVE CAPABLE BIDDERS?” — MAYBE WE HAVE A MISALIGNMENT ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT DTMB, MYSELF AND HEATHER ARE BRINGING TO THE TABLE TODAY. IN TERMS OF VETTING, WHETHER THESE ARE VIABLE VENDORS — THEY APPEAR CREDIBLE TO ME. BUT I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN UNDERSTANDING THE FOLK THAT YOU’RE TRYING TO FIND. THIS MAY BE AN EXCELLENT, WELL-WRITTEN DOCUMENT, BUT WHETHER IT’S ALL –>>TRUE?>>YES, OR ANY OTHER WORD YOU WANT TO USE — I DON’T KNOW. THAT’S WHERE I NEED EXPERTS LIKE YOU TO SIFT THROUGH AND DETERMINE WHAT’S CREDIBLE. HYPOTHETICALLY, IF ONE OF THESE FIRMS HAS PRODUCED EIGHT OR TEN STATE SUPERINTENDENTS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, I’D SAY, “WELL, THAT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD.” BUT YOU MIGHT KNOW HOW THOSE SEARCHES TURNED OUT AFTER A YEAR. IF ALL EIGHT OF THOSE PERSONS WERE FIRED, THIS REPORT IS NOT GOING TO TELL US THAT. BUT YOU GUYS KNOW THIS FIELD BETTER THAN WE DO. I CAN SAY IT LOOKS LIKE A WELL-WRITTEN RESPONSE. THAT’S ABOUT ALL THE VALUE I CAN ADD. I CAN SAY THEY HAVE THIS MUCH IN SALES AND ARE FINANCIALLY VIABLE, WHICH IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, ISN’T A BIG CONCERN, BECAUSE THIS IS A SHORT-TERM CONTRACT. IF THEY GO BELLY-UP IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, I’M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT. THE POINT IS, CAN THEY DELIVER WHAT YOU NEED IN THE NEXT SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS? I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER, YOU DO. THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY ABOUT THEM IS THEY’RE WELL-WRITTEN RESPONSES. BUT WHETHER THEY HOLD ANY WATER, I CAN’T JUDGE THAT. ONLY YOU CAN JUDGE THAT. FROM A PROCESS INTEGRITY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT I RECOMMEND IS THAT WE SET FORTH CRITERIA AS WE SAID BEFORE. WE NEED TO TELL THESE GUYS HOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE EVALUATED. WE PUT THAT IN THE RFP AND IT’S NOW UP TO THIS TEAM TO JUDGE THE RESPONSES, BASED ON THE CRITERIA WE GAVE THEM. THEN WE HAVE TO DOCUMENT THAT, IN A CONSENSUS TYPE OF FORMAT. THIS TEAM, WHOEVER THE EVALUATION TEAM — AND IF THAT’S ALL OF US, THEN GREAT. IF IT’S ALL OF YOU AND NOT ME — LET’S HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. I FEEL I SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS. THE FUNDS ARE COMING FROM US. THE NEXT THING WE NEED TO DO IS COME UP WITH A SCORING MECHANISM. NOW, AS I WAS TELLING JOHN –>>EXCUSE ME, I’M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU AS WELL. COULD YOU GET CLOSER TO THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU.>>SORRY.>>WE’LL TRY TO GET THE MICROPHONE ACROSS THE TABLE.>>AS I WAS TELLING JOHN EARLIER, IT’S MY EXPERIENCE, AND I DON’T MEAN TO SOUND JUDGEMENTAL, BUT THERE’S PROBABLY NO OTHER WAY FOR IT TO SOUND, SO I APOLOGIZE. THERE’S PROBABLY ONE OF YOU SITTING HERE THAT HASN’T READ THE RFP FROM COVER TO COVER. THAT’S GENERALLY WHAT I SEE IN THIS SITUATION. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE PROVIDERS FOR US TO JUDGE THEM AGAINST A DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVEN’T FULLY READ. IT’S JUST BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, NOTHING MORE. I’M NOT ACCUSING ANYONE OF DOING OR NOT DOING ANYTHING. I THINK IT’S PRUDENT THAT EVERYONE HAVE THE STACK OF MATERIALS TOGETHER, THE RFP, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR AS YOU READ THOSE RESPONSES. THE RFP LAYS OUT TWO SECTIONS. IT SAYS WE’RE GOING TO LOOK FOR THIS, AND YOU’RE GOING TO BE JUDGED ON THESE CRITERIA.>>YOU SAY THE RFP. DO YOU MEAN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS JUST SENT TO US?>>I MEAN THE RFP, WHICH WAS PUBLIC ALLY RELEASED –>>OH, ASKING FOR THE BIDS?>>THAT’S RIGHT. YOU NEED TO READ THAT DOCUMENT, SOUP TO NUTS, TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? SOME OF YOU PROBABLY HAVE DONE IT, AND THAT’S GREAT. I HOPE EVERYONE HAS, BUT MY EXPERIENCE IS, THERE’S USUALLY SOMEONE IN THE ROOM THAT HASN’T. SO I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE ASKED AND HAVE THAT DOCUMENT SITTING SIDE-BY-SIDE, AS YOU READ THE RESPONSES, SO YOU CAN EVALUATE THEM FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY. THEN, WE RECONVENE AND PUT TOGETHER A CONSENSUS SCORING SHEET THAT’S DEFENSIBLE. IN THE STATE’S PROCESS, THERE’S A PROTEST PERIOD. IT’S POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY, BUT I DON’T KNOW — I CAN’T TELL THE FUTURE — THAT YOU’RE GOING TO AWARD TO ONE VENDOR, AND THE OTHER VENDOR SAYS, “NO, I DISAGREE WITH THAT,” AND YOU OPEN UP A PROTEST PERIOD. THAT’S PART OF OUR PROCESS.>>SO, THIS IS EVEN LONGER? WE NOW ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THIS PROTEST PERIOD?>>YES, YOU’RE NOT GOING TO WALK OUT OF THIS WITH A RECOMMENDATION. AT THAT POINT, WE’D HAVE — IT MIGHT JUST BE A TWO-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE 3 WEEKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY, SINCE THIS IS STATE — PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, WHERE WE ALLOW PROVIDERS OR VENDORS WHO DIDN’T WIN TO CRITIQUE THE EVALUATION THAT WE DID, SO THEY CAN’T SAY, “OH, BY THE WAY, JEFF BROWNLEY HAD A RELATIONSHIP — THIS GUY IS HIS SECOND COUSIN AND GOT AWARDED THE BID.” WE OFFER THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO DUE DILIGENCE ON THEIR OWN, AND QUESTION OUR RESPONSE. AND WE HAVE TO DEFEND THAT. IF THAT HAPPENS. PROTESTS PROBABLY HAPPEN MAYBE 3% OF THE TIME. IT’S UNLIKELY, BUT IT’S A PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BEST PRACTICE, TO OFFER THAT PROTEST PERIOD. AGAIN, IT CAN BE FOR 2 DAYS. DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ANYTHING BIG. AT THAT POINT, WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH SIGNING A CONTRACT.>>I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE REVIEWING THE PROPOSALS, AND WE HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN THE PROPOSALS YET. WE JUST GOT THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES, AND WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE.>>JEFF, I APPRECIATE THAT, I TRULY DO. IF WE’RE SPENDING THE STATE’S MONEY, THEN WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE MECHANICS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO DO. WHAT WE HAD HOPED IS THAT THIS MEETING WOULD BE ARMED WITH THE PROPOSALS, WHICH I GATHER YOU’VE HAD FOR SEVERAL DAYS. YOU COULD HAVE OR THE STATE COULD HAVE OFFERED THOSE PROPOSALS BACK TO US, GIVEN US INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW WE SHOULD BE RANKING THEM, BASED ON RFP, SO THAT AT THIS MEETING, WE COULD HAVE BEEN DOING THAT JOB OF DOING THE ADD-UP OF OUR RANKINGS AND COMING OUT WITH SOME SCORE THAT YOU COULD TAKE THROUGH YOUR PROTEST PERIOD, OR WHATEVER. WE’RE NOT DOING THAT, SO I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHAT IS NOW BEING PROPOSED IS THAT WE JUST GO OVER THE PROCESS AT THIS MEETING, AND YOU’RE PROPOSING NOVEMBER 10th OR BEYOND WOULD BE THE TIME TO COME TOGETHER AND GRADE AND RANK. THEN, WE’D HAVE TO HAVE A PROTEST PERIOD. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE PROCESS WILL PUT US INTO LATE NOVEMBER AT THE EARLIEST IN EVEN BEGINNING TO IDENTIFY THE SEARCH FIRM. AND ONCE WE’VE IDENTIFIED A SEARCH FIRM, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SIT DOWN AGAIN WITH THEM AND THE AG AND FASHION THE FULL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WE WANT, AND TIME FRAME, ET CETERA. THERE’S A LOT OF ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY, ONCE WE HAVE THE SEARCH FIRM IDENTIFIED, TO GET THAT ENTITY UP AND RUNNING.>>I’M NOT SURE THAT’S THE CASE. WHY YOU NEED — WHAT DO YOU NEED WITH THE AG? THAT I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH.>>THERE ARE SOME LARGE ISSUES AROUND — PART OF THE SEARCH FIRM’S JOB IS TO SEND OUT A COMMUNICATION, BROADLY AND ACTIVELY INVITE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN OPEN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY, THAT WOULD HAVE SOME TIME PERIOD, MAYBE A COUPLE OF MONTHS. THAT ARTICULATION HAS TO SAY — CAN APPLICANTS BE TREATED IN CONFIDENCE? HOW WILL THE PROCESS UNFOLD, WHEREBY EITHER THEIR MATERIAL WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE SEARCH FIRM, SCREENED ON OUR BEHALF, OR DO WE AS A FULL BOARD LOOK AT ALL THE MATERIALS? THESE ARE ISSUES WE HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT, BEFORE, WITH THE SEARCH FIRM AND WITH AG, BEFORE WE INVITE PEOPLE IN. WE HAVE TO AGREE ON HOW THEY’RE TREATED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS. THERE’S WORK TO DO WITH THE SEARCH FIRM, TO EVEN OPEN A WINDOW DURING WHICH PEOPLE CAN APPLY. IT’S SIMILAR TO THE WORK THAT WE’RE DOING WITH YOU, JUST TO PICK A SEARCH FIRM.>>SO, ARE THOSE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS YOU WOULD HAVE WITH THE SEARCH FIRM, OR BEHAVIORAL?>>THINK ABOUT A SOLICITATION FOR SUPERINTENDENT APPLY HAS TO SPELL OUT — HERE’S HOW THIS PROCESS WILL UNFOLD, HERE’S HOW YOU’LL BE TREATED, AND HERE’S HOW DECISIONS AND SCRUTINY ABOUT YOUR MATERIALS WILL BE MADE AND BY WHOM, INVOLVING THE SEARCH FIRM AND THE BOARD. THAT HAS TO BE CAREFULLY ARTICULATED TO BE RIGHT IN TERMS OF HOW WE NEED TO DO THINGS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PROCESS.>>UNDERSTOOD. MY QUESTION IS ARE THOSE TYPES OF PARAMETERS CONTRACTUAL TERMS THAT SHOULD EXIST IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE SEARCH FIRM? ARE THOSE THINGS YOU WANT TO CALL OUT IN A CONTRACT? TO SAY TO THE SEARCH FIRM THEY CAN DO X, Y, AND Z BUT THEY CAN’T DO A, B, AND C. I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE THE AG’S OFFICE INVOLVED. FROM WHAT PERSPECTIVE? SIMPLY ADVISING YOU ON SOMETHING, OR ADVISING YOU ON THE CONTRACT BETWEEN YOU AND THE SEARCH PARTY?>>NO, I THINK THE ADVICE FROM THE AG’S OFFICE COMES INTO PLAY TO MAKE SURE WE’RE FOLLOWING THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. FOR US, FOR THIS SEARCH, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DONE IN PUBLIC, SO THAT’S WHERE THEIR ROLE WOULD COME IN. TO MAKE SURE WE’RE DOING EVERYTHING APPROPRIATELY.>>BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, FOR A SEARCH FIRM TO DEVELOP A FULL SOLICITATION PACKAGE FOR NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION, AS WE CALL FOR IN THE WORK PROGRAM, EXACTLY WHAT THAT SOLICITATION SAYS, TO PERSPECTIVE CANDIDATES ABOUT HOW THEY’LL BE TREATED, HOW DECISIONS WILL BE MADE, BY WHOM AND IN WHAT FORM WILL SCREENING HAPPEN — ALL OF THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW TOGETHER AND AGREE ON WITH THE AG’S ADVICE BEFORE THAT CAN GO OUT. I WAS NOTING THAT EVEN ONCE WE GET A SEARCH FIRM UNDER CONTRACT, WE’VE GOT ANOTHER ROUND OF REAL WORK TO DO.>>OKAY, POST-CONTRACT. THAT’S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.>>WHY WOULD IT HAVE TO BE DONE POST-CONTRACT? WHY CAN’T IT BE DONE IN THE INTERIM?>>WE DON’T KNOW WHO WE’RE GOING TO PICK.>>BUT THOSE PARAMETERS, FOR THE OPENNESS OF THE SEARCH, ARE GOING TO BE FOR ANY FIRM. SO, MAYBE WE SHOULD BE PICKING OUR WAY THROUGH THAT AND DETERMINE IF IT HAS TO BE SEQUENTIAL, OR IF IT COULD BE CONCURRENT WITH THIS PROCESS.>>THERE’S SO MANY ISSUES, LIKE EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF A WINDOW FOR TIME DO WE HAVE TO LET PEOPLE IN? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING BOTH THE SEARCH FIRM AND OURSELVES AGREE ON.>>THAT, DEFINITELY, IS SEQUENTIAL. BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE A DELAY, WITH THE AG’S OFFICE COULD BE –>>WE’VE HAD SOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I’M JUST SUGGESTING THERE ARE MANY ISSUES TO WORK THROUGH, EVEN SELECTING THE SEARCH FIRM. THE BIGGER ISSUES ARE PAST SELECTING THE SEARCH FIRM, IF WE SELECT ONE AT ALL. SO GIVEN — JUST TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE THE SCENARIOS, FOR US TO PROCEED WITH INVESTING IN A SEARCH FIRM, BASED ON THE GOOD AND APPROPRIATE WORK — JEFF AND HEATHER, I’M NOT SUGGESTING YOU’RE DOING ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING. YOU’RE PROPOSING IT WILL BE ANOTHER MONTH PLUS TO WORK THROUGH SCORING, PROTEST PERIOD AND GETTING TO THE MOMENT WE SELECT THE SEARCH FIRM.>>NO, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. I DON’T THINK IT NEEDS TO TAKE A MONTH PLUS. I THINK IF — WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST AS A MINIMUM — I THINK A MINIMUM, IF WE COULD AGREE THAT WE COULD GET TOGETHER ON 11/7, WHICH IS A FRIDAY, AND THIS TEAM CAME TO A CONSENSUS AGREEMENT THAT DAY, WE COULD POST OUR INTENT TO AWARD TO THAT FIRM LATER THAT DAY, WHICH BEGINS THE PROTEST PERIOD OF THREE BUSINESS DAYS. THAT GETS YOU TO THE 12th OF NOVEMBER. ASSUMING NO ISSUES AND NO PROTESTS, YOU CAN HAVE A CONTRACT SIGNED ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER.>>AND TODAY IS THE 21st. OH, 22nd.>>EXCUSE ME, BUT I AM LITERALLY OUT OF THE COUNTRY EVERY ONE OF THOSE DAYS. THAT MAY NOT MATTER.>>I JUST WANT TO GET THE TIME SCENARIOS ON THE TABLE. THERE’S NO ABILITY OR INTEREST IN HAVING THAT MEETING NEXT WEEK, TO SPEED THINGS UP?>>NOT FROM ME, NO.>>IS THAT BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT AVAILABLE?>>ABSOLUTELY. I HAVE TO CHAIR THIS THING. THAT’S MY JOB. THAT’S WHY I TRIED TO GIVE AS MANY OPPORTUNITIES AS I COULD. WE COULD GO OUT FURTHER THAN THAT, BUT THAT’S –>>I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DIDN’T GET THE PROPOSALS BEFORE THIS MEETING?>>YEAH, I’M NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEETING’S FOR. IT’S NOT WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR — I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE DOING TODAY. ARE WE JUST RECEIVING PROPOSALS?>>I DON’T KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.>>I THINK THE DIFFERENCE LIES IN THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS, I’M TRYING TO REMEMBER — THE THREE OF US WERE ON THE BOARD AND, WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD, BOTH FOR MIKE AND TOM WATKINS, WE DID IT OURSELVES. SO THIS IS THE LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE STATE RFP PROCESS AND THE CONTRACT LETTING. WE ARE BEING AMBUSHED BY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. I DIDN’T THINK TO ASK AT OUR MEETING HOW IT WOULD HAPPEN. WE TALKED ABOUT A BIT OF THE PROCESS, BUT WE DIDN’T TALK ABOUT GETTING THE RFP OUT AND GETTING RESPONSES BACK.>>EILEEN, YOU SAID IN THE PAST, WE DID IT OURSELVES. IS THAT STILL AN OPTION?>>WELL –>>IT CERTAINLY IS AN OPTION.>>YOU CAN, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT STATE CANDIDATES ONLY. SO IT’S MUCH HARDER. AND I THINK, TOO –>>COULDN’T WE ADVERTISE IN NATIONAL JOURNALS?>>WE HAD OUT OF STATE CANDIDATES.>>WELL, WE HAD TOM WATKINS, FOR SURE.>>NO, WE HAD OUT OF STATE CANDIDATES — I GOT A CALL FROM A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM ANOTHER STATE.>>2000 HAD A SEARCH FIRM. 2004, AFTER WE FIRED TOM, WE DID NOT ENGAGE A SEARCH FIRM, AND WE DID HAVE BOTH IN STATE AND OUT OF STATE APPLICANTS, HOWEVER, MUCH MORE MODESTLY THE POSITION WAS ADVERTISED AND RECRUITMENT HAPPENED.>>I THINK YOU SEND A POWERFUL MESSAGE IF YOU CAN’T LOOK AT THIS AS A THREE WEEK DELAY FOR THE WIDEST POSSIBLE NET WITH REALLY GOOD CONTROLS. I THINK YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT, BEFORE YOU TAKE A VOTE ON IT.>>MY FEAR, IT IS NOT A THREE WEEK DELAY. TWO WEEKS, NOW IT’S THREE WEEKS, AND THEN IT’LL BE THREE MORE WEEKS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS HAS BEEN DELAY AFTER DELAY. I FEEL LIKE, AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD.>>AGAIN, JEFF, NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. THERE’S AN ISSUE OF THE STATE BOARD IS THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, SEARCHING FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT. OF OUR CONTROL AND DRIVING THAT TRAIN. WE BENEFIT AND WELCOME IF THE STATE MAKES BUDGET RESOURCES AVAILABLE, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT YOUR OFFICE HAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE QUALITY OF ANY VENDOR. THERE’S A DISTINCTION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE, IF WE WERE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE RESOURCES– YOU’RE MAKING RESOURCES AVAILABLE, THE STATE IS, THANK YOU– TO SUPPORT A SEARCH WHICH WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. WE WOULD BENEFIT FROM A SEARCH FIRM, PARTICULARLY IF THEY’RE ANY GOOD. BUT WE DON’T KNOW THAT YET. I’D REALLY LOVE TO READ WHO THEY ARE. WE WOULD WANT YOU TO HELP CERTIFY, AS YOU’RE PROPOSING, THAT THEY ARE OF QUALITY, AND WARRANT A CONTRACT OF SPENDING THE PUBLIC MONEY– BUT WE, AS A BOARD, DECIDE AND GUIDE ON WHICH OF THE VENDORS AND WHO WE LIKE. THERE’S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE OF A PROCESS THAT IS GETTING OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL, DIRECT CONTROL, AND KEEPS SLIPPING, IN TERMS OF CHANGING THE CONTOURS OF THAT PROCESS. I’M JUST FLAGGING THAT AS AN ISSUE.>>I ALSO HAD A QUESTION. THE TWO BIDDERS, ARE THEY THE TOTAL– I MEAN, THERE WASN’T ANY FILTERING OUT OF ANYBODY WHO MAY HAVE BID? ARE THOSE THE TOTAL AMOUNT– I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT ANOTHER ORGANIZATION WAS GOING TO BID, AND I DON’T SEE THEM ON HERE.>>THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO RESPONSES WE RECEIVED AT ALL. THERE WAS A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD IN THE MIDDLE WHERE ANY PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS– NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO INTENDED TO RESPOND, BUT ANYONE COULD HAVE SUBMITTED A QUESTION OR NOTIFIED US OF ANYTHING, AND WE DIDN’T HEAR FROM ANYONE.>>I’M WONDERING WHY ANOTHER BIDDER, WHO EVERYBODY LIKED, DID NOT BID? BUT THAT’S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE,>>THERE WAS RADIO SILENCE ON OUR END, UNTIL WE RECEIVED THE TWO BIDS ON THE FINAL DAY. HEATHER, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU HAD CONVERSATION WITH ANYBODY ELSE, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT I KNOW OF.>>I HAD ONE THAT EMAILED IN TO SAY THAT THEY WERE NOT RESPONDING.>>DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT WAS?>>I CAN’T HEAR YOU. IS THAT EILEEN?>>NO, THAT’S HEATHER. WE HAD ONE BIDDER, I GUESS, CONTACT US TO SAY THEY WEREN’T RESPONDING.>>IS THE FIRST NAME AMANDA?>>AMANDA KULLMAN? OF ON-RAMPS?>>I CAN’T HEAR YOU, HEATHER.>>AMANDA, FROM ON-RAMPS?>>FROM WHAT?>>ON-RAMPS.>>THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRMS THAT WE HAD BEEN IN TOUCH WITH BEFORE.>>RIGHT, THERE WERE THREE FIRMS THAT THE PRIOR COMMITTEE, THAT DAN CHAIRED, FOUND AS QUALITY FIRMS. THOSE THREE WERE ANTICIPATING THAT THERE WOULD BE A SEARCH OR AN RFQ, AND ONE OF THOSE THREE RESPONDED.>>WE NOTIFIED THEM AND SENT THEM THE PROPOSAL.>>I WAS JUST SAYING, ONE OF THE THREE CHOSE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION. SO, WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT TO DO? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO PEOPLE WANT TO SPEND ANOTHER THREE WEEKS PLUS TO GET TO THE MOMENT OF PICKING A SEARCH FIRM, WITH A LITTLE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT IF THAT WOULD HOLD, OR DO THEY WANT TO PURSUE A SEARCH… OURSELVES? I’M REASSURED THERE ARE A LOT OF QUALITY APPLICANTS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE JOB, WHICH IS GOOD. I AGREE A SEARCH FIRM COULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN BROADENING THE OUTREACH, AND HELPING US DO THINGS LIKE VET AND SCREEN ON OUR BEHALF, TO WINNOW THE FIELD. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. BUT I’M NOT SURE… IF WE KEEP HAVING PROCESS ISSUES EMERGE BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RESOURCES TO HELP, IF IT’S GOING TO BE SATISFACTORY. WHAT DO OTHER PEOPLE THINK? AND WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO PEOPLE HAVE?>>WELL, FOR ONE THING, I’M DISAPPOINTED THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO FIRMS THAT RESPONDED. THERE WAS ONLY A WEEK, REALLY, THAT THEY HAD.>>KATHY, WE CAN’T HEAR YOU.>>THE ISSUE DATE OF THIS THING, THE REQUEST FOR THE RFP WAS OCTOBER 7TH, AND THEY HAD TO RESPOND BY OCTOBER 15TH. THAT PART WAS COMPRESSED. THAT’S A VERY SHORT TIME. [COUGHING]>>CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? THAT WAS YOUR DIRECTION. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE THIS THING OUT FOR A MONTH. THAT WAS NOT US.>>THAT WAS TO COMPLY WITH OUR SCHEDULE?>>ABSOLUTELY.>>THEN, WHY DIDN’T WE LEARN ABOUT THE REST OF THE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE DONE, BEFORE TODAY? WE GOT THIS EMAIL LATE LAST NIGHT.>>I’M NOT TRYING TO PUT THIS ALL ON JEFF. THERE MAY BE OTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MOVING THIS PROCESS AFTER THE ELECTION, WHICH, IF WE’RE PROCEEDING AS WE SAID TO PICK BY APRIL, WE’LL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME AFTER THE ELECTION TO LOOK FOR PEOPLE. I HOPE THAT NONE OF THAT WAS COMING INTO PLAY. THE ONLY DISAPPOINTMENT I HAVE, AT THE LAST MEETING IT SEEMED AS THOUGH, YES, WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WAITING FOR THIS, YES, WE’LL OPEN UP TO MORE BIDDERS, WHICH WE DID GET. JEFF AND HEATHER, YOU MAKE SURE YOU’RE COMFORTABLE WITH A SOLICITATION AND A WINDOW. IF YOU ARE, GREAT. WE’LL GET BACK WHO WE GET BACK AND WE’LL USE THIS MEETING TO DO THE KIND OF SCREENING AND GRADING AND DECISION MAKING. MY DISAPPOINTMENT WAS THAT WE’RE NOW USING THIS MEETING TO MAKE THE DECISION, AND WE NOW HAVE THREE OR FOUR WEEKS OF NEW PROCESS THAT EMERGED– AGAIN, NOT PUTTING BLAME ON ANY PARTICULAR PLACE. SO JUST WHERE WE GIVE AND WHERE WE ARE. YEAH, RICHARD.>>FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH, WHEN I WAS AT THE NASBE ANNUAL MEETING, THEY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE GOING BACK INTO THE SUPERINTENDENT PLACEMENT BUSINESS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT’S EITHER NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, THAT THEY’RE GOING TO BE OPEN. IF WE WERE TO DELAY ANOTHER MONTH AND THEY HAD A SHOT AT IT, I’D BE FAVORABLE TO THAT.>>BUT THEN WE’D HAVE TO OPEN UP THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN, CORRECT?>>YES.>>AND WHAT IS THE PROCESS?>>I THOUGHT THAT’S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, SINCE WE ONLY HAD A WEEK’S…>>NO. I THINK WE HAD A QUESTION, DO WE WANT TO SPEND THE NEXT MONTH REVIEWING TWO PROPOSALS, OR DO WE JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD ON OUR OWN, SINCE THE BOARD HAS DONE IT IN THE PAST, AND JUST DO IT AGAIN?>>WE HAVE THE JOB DESCRIPTION. WE KNOW WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR. WE JUST NEED A PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION, ARTICULATION AND CLARITY AROUND HOW WE’RE GOING TO TREAT PEOPLE, AND ALL THAT WORKED OUT.>>I THINK IT WOULD BE SMART TO ARTICULATE WHY, IF WE’RE NOT REPLACING OUR SUPERINTENDENT UNTIL APRIL, WITH HIM SUPPOSED TO BE LEAVING ON JUNE FIRST, THAT WE’RE PUSHING SO HARD. WE JUST PUSHED, AND WE’VE ONLY ENDED UP WITH TWO APPLICANTS, BECAUSE WE PUSHED TO GET A SMALL WINDOW. NOW WE’RE SAYING THAT THAT’S NOT GONNA WORK, THAT WE HAVE TO PUSH TO GET CANDIDATES IN RIGHT NOW. EVERYBODY I’VE EVER TALKED TO– I’VE BROUGHT THIS UP NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE– BUT EVERYBODY I’VE EVER TALKED TO HAS SAID THAT, ONCE YOU HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE, IT GOES VERY QUICKLY. CANDIDATES APPLY, YOU HAVE MAYBE SEVEN DAYS TO TEN DAYS. YOU’VE GOT TO, WITH THE PUBLIC PROCESS, GET THEM IN HERE FOR INTERVIEWS WITH THE PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. THAT WE WORK HARD. WE DON’T HAVE THE LUXURY OF A PRIVATE INSTITUTION OR PRIVATE FOR PROFIT, WHO CAN TAKE ALL THE TIME THEY WANT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO INTERVIEW PEOPLE. I STRUGGLE BECAUSE I’M HEARING SEVERAL THINGS. I HEAR, “GOSH, I WISH WE HAD MORE APPLICANTS”, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME OR A DIFFERENT WINDOW AFTER THE ELECTION. TWO, THERE ARE OTHER SEARCH FIRMS THAT WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN INCLUDED. I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER WE HAVE TO CLOSE THIS DOWN AND DECLARE THIS PEOPLE ARE NOT… IF WE ARE GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO TRY TO GET MORE APPLICANTS, IF WE HAVE TO TRUNCATE THIS PROCESS. THE THIRD ONE IS THAT THE ENTIRE THRUST OF THIS BOARD IS TO TRY AND DO THINGS PROFESSIONALLY, AND WE’RE JUST NOW TALKING ABOUT– BECAUSE THIS ISN’T MEETING BY THREE WEEKS OR POSSIBLY FOUR– JUST DUMPING THE WHOLE THING, AND GOING OFF ON OUR OWN, WHICH MAKES NO SENSE TO ME AT ALL.>>I WANT TO ADD, I WORK FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT HIRES BY COMMITTEE AND APPROVAL OF BOARD, AND IT NEVER GOES QUICKLY. THAT’S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. ONCE YOU IDENTIFY A CANDIDATE, IT TAKES AT LEAST ANOTHER MONTH TO GET BOARD APPROVAL, ASSUMING YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THERE’S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN. FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IT’S JUST NOT A SEVEN TO TEN DAY THING. IT’S A LONG PROCESS.>>HERE’S WHAT HAPPENS, HAVING WATCHED MANY SEARCHES IN THE EDUCATION ARENA. YOU HAVE CANDIDATES THAT, ONCE THEY’RE KNOWN PUBLIC ALLY, NEED A DECISION, BECAUSE THEIR PEOPLE WILL START LOOKING TO REPLACE THEM, IF WE DON’T. THAT’S THE ODDITY OF THIS. ONCE THEY’RE IN HERE FOR AN INTERVIEW, WE DON’T HAVE A LONG TIME TO MAKE A DECISION BEFORE WE START LOSING CANDIDATES. THAT MAY BE THE DIFFERENCE. ARE YOUR SEARCHES PUBLIC?>>ACTUALLY, I WAS IN THAT SCENARIO. I WAS SELECTED WEEKS BEFORE I WAS APPROVED. YOU DEAL WITH IT.>>THE APPROVAL PART IS DIFFERENT, CASSANDRA. WE CAN CONVENE ON– HOW MUCH PUBLIC NOTICE DO WE NEED? FIVE DAYS? THAT PART OF IT, THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CONVENE TODAY, MEANS THAT WE CAN ACT NIMBLY.>>DAN, YOU CHAIRED THE ORIGINAL LOOK AT THE TIGHT, YEAR-LONG– OF PROCESS. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR TIMETABLE, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT AND EVEN ADDITIONAL TIME NEEDS, POST SELECTING THE SEARCH FIRM TO DEVELOPING THAT SOLICITATION APPROPRIATELY, TO HAVING A MONTH OR TWO, WHATEVER WE DECIDE, FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY AND FOR THE SEARCH FIRM TO REACH OUT, TO HAVING AN ITERATIVE SERIES OF VETTING, BACKGROUND CHECKS, WINNOWING THE FIELD, IDENTIFICATION OF FINALISTS – ALL OF THAT IS MONTH, MONTH, MONTH. SO WE’D BE HARD PRESSED TO HIT APRIL, IF WE’RE ON TRACK.>>IT WASN’T THE LAST TWO TIMES, I BEG TO DIFFER ON THAT.>>I WAS IN THE LAST TWO TIMES. YOU WERE ON THE BOARD IN 2000. YOU STARTED A SEARCH THAT SUMMER, AND IT ENDED IN APRIL. JUST LIKE WE’RE PROPOSING.>>JUST A MINUTE. WHEN DID THE APPLICATIONS COME IN THE INTERVIEWS AND THEN TO THE HIRE? THAT PERIOD IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS PROBABLY ABOUT TWO MONTHS. THAT’S THE PART THAT I’M TALKING ABOUT. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS EXTENSION FOR FOUR, FIVE MONTHS RIGHT NOW, SIX MONTHS, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL, SIX MONTHS. I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY YOU WOULD CONSIDER GOING SOLO ON THIS WHEN WE HAVE TWO SEARCH FIRMS, ONE OF WHICH MAY BE VERY SPECTACULAR, AND IT MIGHT EAT UP A MONTH OF THAT SIX MONTHS. BUT IT STILL HAS–>>WHAT IF THE SEARCH FIRMS ARE BOTH DUDS?>>IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW? I’M INTERESTED IN THE QUALITY OF THESE SEARCH FIRMS. WHETHER WE’RE MISSING A LOT IF WE DECIDE TO GO OUR OWN WAY, OR IF THEY DO LOOK INTERESTING, WHICH MIGHT COLOR A DETERMINATION ABOUT… LET’S TAKE SOME TIME TO VET ONE OR TWO OF THEM. IF THEY’RE REALLY GOOD, IT MIGHT BE WORTH IT. IF THEY’RE NOT, WE’RE NOT MISSING MUCH, THEN IT ISN’T.>>YES. CAN WE LOOK AT THE PROPOSALS?>>ABSOLUTELY. WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS AN RFP AND YOU HAVE TWO RESPONSES. ONE OF THE RESPONSES IS IN TWO, STAPLED PACKETS, SO THEY GO TOGETHER.>>DID YOU GET AN EMAIL ON THIS, YOU FOLKS AT HOME?>>YES. I CALLED JOHN AND THEY HAVE IT. [INDISTINCT CHATTER]>>YOU GOT EMAILS FROM HEATHER, EARLIER?>>RIGHT. I FORWARDED THEM TO THE PEOPLE AT HOME.>>WHY DON’T WE TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND LOOK THROUGH THESE AND GET SOME PROSPECTIVE ON… WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.>>IT LOOKS LIKE RAY AND ASSOCIATES IS SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO PARTNER WITH QUINN AND ASSOCIATES. TIM QUINN WAS THE WELL-LIKED ADDITIONAL PERSON.>>THAT’S ENCOURAGING.>>DAN, YOU AND OTHERS WERE ENCOURAGING.>>THIS IS A DIFFERENT RAY AND ASSOCIATES THAN I THOUGHT. THAT’S INTERESTING. OF COURSE, THE PEOPLE ON THE PHONE DON’T HAVE THIS.>>IT’S BEEN EMAILED TO THEM.>>ONE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, AS YOU’RE CONSIDERING THIS DELAY IS… IT’S BEING COMMUNICATED AS MORE OF A DELAY THAN IT IS, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO WAY, EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN YOUR PRESUMPTION THAT WE WOULD WALK OUT OF HERE WITH A DECISION TODAY, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THAT CONTRACT EXECUTION THING, WHICH MEANS, AT BEST, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE THIS THING SIGNED SEVERAL DAYS FROM NOW. THE DELAY IS REALLY TWO WEEKS AND TWO DAYS. FROM TODAY’S MEETING TO… AT MINIMUM, I SUGGESTED ON THE 7TH, I JUST DON’T WANT FOLKS TO THINK IT’S A MULTI-MONTH DELAY. IT’S REALLY TWO WEEKS AND TWO DAYS.>>THIS GROUP NEVER GETS TOGETHER ON THE FIRST PROPOSED DAY. WE HAVE EIGHT DIFFERENT SCHEDULES THAT WE HAVE TO MATCH. YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MINE, BECAUSE I’M OUT OF THE COUNTRY. SO, YOU ONLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SEVEN.>>NOVEMBER 7TH WORKS FOR ME. THERE’S ONLY ONE TIME THAT DOESN’T.>>I’M JUST REFLECTING AT RAY AND COMPANY’S PROPOSAL. THIS IS WHY HAVING A SEARCH FIRM MEANS THOUGHTFUL INPUT INTO MODIFICATION OF THE TIMELINE. THEY ARE SAYING THAT EVEN IF THEY START RIGHT NOW, THERE WOULD BE AN APPLICATION DEADLINE OF FEBRUARY, 2015. AND THEY LOOK VERY GOOD ON PAPER FROM WHAT I’VE SEEN.>>SO JUST PER YOUR POINT, EILEEN, THERE’S STEPS IN THE ROAD HERE THAT NEED TO BE MADE.>>YES, BUT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT OFFERING THE… CONTRACT IN APRIL. THEY SAY THEY CAN MEET THE SCHEDULE AS IT IS, WHICH GAVE TWO MONTHS FOR OVERLAP.>>WAS THERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE PRICING PROPOSAL?>>YES.>>$41,925, FOR RAY AND ASSOCIATES.>>$25,000. ALTHOUGH THEY DO SAY IT’S SUBJECT TO CHANGE. IT’S BASED ON THE EXPENSES THAT THEY ITEMIZED, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONES THAT RAY PROPOSED.>>THEY’RE BOTH ESTIMATES.>>SO, THE BASE FEE FOR RAY AND ASSOCIATES IS $30,000. THE BASE FEE FOR– $20,000 IS THE BASE?>>STATE OF NEBRASKA, FOR THE OTHER ONE. I WAS NOTICING THAT WAS THE ONLY STATE ONE. OH, NO, THEY’VE GOT ILLINOIS. ROBERT SCHILLER, OH THEY HIRED SCHILLER FOR ILLINOIS. HE WAS SUPERINTENDENT HERE, FOR A BRIEF MOMENT IN TIME.>>LONGER THAN YOU… CHOOSE TO REMEMBER. THAT WAS A LOCAL SUP AT THE TIME. WE FELT LIKE HE WAS HERE FOR A LONG TIME.>>HOW LONG WAS HE HERE?>>AT LEAST A FEW YEARS.>>THEY ALSO PLACED ERIC SMITH, WHO WAS THERE FOR SIX YEARS, IN FLORIDA.>>WELL, THE GOOD NEWS IS, FOR EVALUATION, WITH CASSANDRA HEADING OUT OF THE COUNTRY, IT’S NOT LIKE THERE’S FIFTEEN, WITH THREE THAT YOU’D AGONIZE OVER.>>I’M HAPPY TO FLIP A COIN TODAY AND PICK ONE, BUT I DON’T THINK JEFF WOULD GO FOR THAT. NOR SHOULD YOU.>>HE’S SHAKING HIS HEAD NO.>>NOT WITH THE TAXPAYERS HARD-EARNED DOLLARS.>>FOR THE THREE PEOPLE ON THE PHONE, HE’S SHAKING HIS HEAD NO.>>WHAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND IS WHY WE DIDN’T GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE TODAY. THE ONE YOU SAID TO US LAST NIGHT–>>I’M SORRY, I CAN’T HEAR YOU.>>I SAID I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE DIDN’T GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE TODAY. WE GOT THE DESCRIPTION. ALL THESE THINGS WERE DELIVERED LATE LAST NIGHT.>>I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. I’M VERY ANGRY ABOUT IT. THERE WAS NO POINT IN COMING HERE TODAY, IF WE COULDN’T MAKE A DECISION.>>YOU’RE BEATING ON THE WRONG PERSON.>>I’M NOT ANGRY AT THEM, I’M ANGRY AT THE PROCESS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS COULDN’T HAVE BEEN TOLD TO US, BEFORE.>>WHEN WAS THE BIDDING OVER? WHEN DID THE BIDS COME IN?>>THE 15TH. [INDISTINCT CHATTER]>>THAT’S A WEEK AGO. WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THEM.>>AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS AGREED THAT WHEN YOU GOT THEM IN, THEY’D BE SHOVELED OVER, EN MASS, TO MARYLAND, AND ALSO IF AND WHEN YOU HAD TIME, YOU’D PROVIDE THE KIND OF GUIDANCE ON HOW WE SHOULD BE REVIEWING THEM THAT YOU SHARED JUST TODAY. I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS– GETTING THE ADMINISTRATION’S HELP AND GETTING BUDGET RESOURCES, WE ARE SUFFERING FROM ADMINISTRATIONS CONTROL AND CHANGES IN THE PROCESS, WHICH IS THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. THESE ARE GOOD BIDDERS, IT LOOKS LIKE. WE WOULD BE WELL-SERVED IF WE COULD SELECT ONE TO HELP US. DO WE WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER MONTH TO AGREE ON WHICH OF THESE WE’D PICK? BUT GIVE UP A MEASURE OF CONTROL OF THE PROCESS, AS WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S RESOURCES? WE MIGHT SEE OTHER, UNPREDICTABLE INFLUENCE FROM THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE AND OTHERS IN THE PROCESS, IF WE’RE TAKING RESOURCES THAT ARE BEING ARRANGED FROM THE GOOD OFFICES OF SAME.>>IS IT MORE ACCURATE TO SAY IT’S THREE WEEKS? WE WERE SAYING IT WOULD BE TWO WEEKS AND TWO DAYS, IF PEOPLE COULD MEET ON THE 10TH. MAYBE PART OF YOUR ANSWER TO THAT, JOHN, IS TO SEE IF PEOPLE CAN MEET ON THE 10TH. AT LEAST THEN, WE’D KNOW WHAT THE DELAY IS. HE’S TALKING ABOUT THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY, IF WE AGREE AT THAT POINT.>>CAN EVERYBODY EXCEPT CASSANDRA MEET ON THE 10TH?>>OF NOVEMBER?>>I DEFINITELY WANT CASSANDRA’S INPUT, BUT IF WE ARE TO PROCEED, I’M NOT WORRIED ABOUT… THE QUALITY RANKING OF THESE PROPOSALS.>>WHATEVER YOU GUYS DECIDE IS FINE.>>THE 7TH IS A FRIDAY. IT’S TWO WEEKS, TWO DAYS FROM TODAY.>>CASSANDRA’S NOT COMING BACK TILL THE 17th, RIGHT?>>THE 7th IS FINE WITH ME.>>WHEN ARE YOU LEAVING, CASSANDRA?>>THE 5TH.>>THERE’S NO WAY ON EARTH THAT WE CAN GET IT DONE BEFORE SHE LEAVES?>>I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS IF ALL EIGHT OF US ARE IN CONCURRENCE ON THE SAME FIRM? WHAT IS IT THAT WE’RE WORRIED ABOUT? THAT CASSANDRA MIGHT BE PART OF A 5-3, OR 6-2 VOTE ON ONE FIRM VERSUS THE OTHER?>>I’M WONDERING IF IT COULD BE ARRANGED BEFORE SHE LEAVES. THAT’S ALL.>>ABSOLUTELY, BUT I AM LOOKING AT WHAT PART OF THIS WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC THAT SHE COULDN’T PARTICIPATE IN?>>IF YOU WERE DOING WHAT YOU SAID YOU COULD DO, GIVE US GUIDANCE ON HOW TO SCORE, AND WE WOULD INDEPENDENTLY SCORE AND RANK THESE PROPOSALS, WHICH COULD BE DONE BEFORE ANY NEXT MEETING, AND CASSANDRA COULD DO THAT, IF WE WENT THIS ROUTE, WE’D HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HER SCORING, AND IF WE HAD A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, WE COULD ADD THOSE UP AND HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE MAJORITY AND HAVE CASSANDRA’S INPUT. I’M JUST LOOKING FOR A WAY TO BENEFIT FROM THAT INPUT TOWARDS THE COLLECTIVE DECISION, WHICH WOULD BE MADE AT A PUBLIC MEETING.>>WHAT IS THE FOYA NOTE DOWN HERE IN THE BULLETS?>>I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS ARE SUBJECT TO FOYA. YOU GUYS ARE USED TO OPEN MEETINGS, SO YOU GET THAT CONCEPT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THAT. THAT’S IT.>>IF PEOPLE APPLY, THAT’S NOT FOYA-ABLE, IS IT?>>THE NAMES BECOME PUBLIC THE MINUTE WE START TALKING ABOUT THEM.>>MICHELLE, THAT’S ONE OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE TO HAVE VERY CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM THE AG. I BELIEVE THE PROCESS CAN UNFOLD WHERE PEOPLE APPLY AND CAN CHOOSE TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL UP TO A CERTAIN POINT. IF THEY ARE BEING CONSIDERED AS A FINALIST, THEN THEY MUST BE PUBLIC. HAVING THAT EXACTLY DELINEATED IN THE COMMUNICATIONS TO APPLICANTS–>>IT’S EARLIER THAN THAT. THEY BECOME PUBLIC PRETTY EARLY IN THE PROCESS. [OVERLAPPING CHATTER]>>I DIDN’T HEAR YOU, MICHELLE. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?>>MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM THE WAY IT GOES AT WAYNE STATE IS THAT IT IS HELD, YOU DON’T REVEAL… UNTIL IT’S THE FINALIST.>>MICHELLE, IT’S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AT WAYNE STATE. THEY OPERATE UNDER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RULES THAN WE DO.>>THE UNIVERSITIES OPERATE UNDER DIFFERENT RULES THAN US, BUT WE CAN REFER TO THEM BY LETTER, OR NUMBER. WE DON’T HAVE TO REFER TO THEM BY NAME UNTIL… WE WANT TO INTERVIEW.>>CAN WE DECIDE WHICH WAY TO GO? THE 7TH IS A POTENTIAL FIRST DATE. JEFF, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GIVE US A SCORING MATRIX, AND WE WOULD INDEPENDENTLY FILL IT OUT, BUT SEND IT BACK TO OUR STATE BOARD EXECS– AND YOU – KNOWING THAT IT IS PUBLIC INPUT INTO A MEETING WE WOULD HAVE, TO AGREE, REVIEW, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN YOU HAVE A FEW DAYS OF PROTEST PERIOD. COULD WE DO THAT?>>THE CONSENSUS HAS TO BE DONE IN A MEETING, RIGHT?>>RIGHT.>>CAN EVERYONE DO THEIR HOMEWORK AND SUBMIT SCORE SHEETS AHEAD OF TIME? ABSOLUTELY.>>GOOD. BECAUSE THAT WAY, CASSANDRA CAN– [OVERLAPPING CHATTER]>>EVERYBODY, IS THAT PREFERABLE TO SAYING, “SCREW IT, LET’S DO IT OURSELVES”? FOR ALL THAT ENTAILS, FOR GOOD AND FOR ILL?>>I JUST THINK WE NEED A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, OF WHAT OTHER DELAYS WE’RE GOING TO HAVE. THIS PIECEMEALING STUFF NEEDS TO STOP.>>THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN JEFF’S PROCESS AND THE START OF THE CONTRACT, AND WHATEVER’S AT THE START OF THE CONTRACT, PLUS THE AG DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD EARLIER, WHICH I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.>>PLUS, THE ELECTION HAS COMPLICATED THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT IN HISTORY.>>BUT IT WOULD SERVE US WELL IF WE PUT DOWN THE THINGS YOU ARE ENUMERATING, INCLUDING THE AG QUESTIONS. WITHOUT THAT, THAT’S PART OF THE REASON WE ARE HERE WITH THIS CONFUSION, THAT THERE IS A PROCESS. THERE’S RIGMAROLE WITH STATE PROCESS.>>WE NEED THE RIGMAROLE. I’M SORRY, I DON’T MEAN TO BE DEMEANING. BUT WE JUST DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THIS. THERE’S YOUR END, BUT THERE’S OUR END, TOO, AND WE’VE HAD THE SAME OPEN MEETING RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS TWO SEARCHES, DID WE NOT?>>YES, WE MET THEM.>>SO THE AG’S ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE THAT DIFFERENT. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS COME UP WITH A PROTOCOL FOR IT, SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. [OVERLAPPING CHATTER]>>ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE GOTTEN CLEAR GUIDANCE ON IS WE CAN’T HAVE A COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, EVEN A COMMITTEE WITH DTMB, MAKE DECISIONS. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE FULL BOARD MAKE DECISIONS. TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, CAN WE, WITH YOUR GUIDANCE, GRADE AND REPORT BACK THE RANKING, HAVE THAT NEXT MEETING ON THE 7TH TO BUILD THAT CONSENSUS WITH WHATEVER INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED, AND HAVE THAT DECISION MAKING MEETING?>>YES.>>IF WE WANT TO DO THAT, THEN LET’S DECIDE THAT’S WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT FORCE CHANGE IN THIS THAT ARE DRIVEN FROM OTHER ISSUES THAT ADMINISTRATION HAS, FOR ME, WILL MEAN THAT’S ONE BRIDGE TOO FAR, AND WE’RE GOING TO JUST BEGIN OUR OWN SEARCH AT THAT TIME. WE WILL NOT CONTINUE IF WE FACE ANY MORE COMPLICATIONS.>>IS THAT A QUESTION?>>NO, I’M JUST SAYING IT FOR THE RECORD. IF SOME NEW WRINKLE EMERGES THAT SUGGESTS WE CAN’T PROCEED AS WE JUST AGREED, AND HAD SOME REASSURANCE FROM JEFF THAT WE THINK WE CAN, THEN THAT’S IT FOR ME, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE WON’T PROCEED WITH A SEARCH FIRM AND RESOURCES FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.>>I THINK YOU ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE FIVE MEMBERS WHO CAN BE IN PRESENT, IN LANSING.>>WHAT ARE THE TIMES ON NOVEMBER 7TH?>>THERE’S TWO TIMES.>>I HAVE TO CANCEL WHATEVER I WAS DOING ANYWAY, FOR EITHER TIME. SO I CAN MAKE BOTH TIMES.>>WHAT DATE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?>>FRIDAY, THE 7TH.>>WHAT WERE THE TIMES?>>10:30 TO 12:00, OR 1:00 TO 3:00.>>I THINK I COULD DO 1:00 TO 3:00.>>YOU HAVE TO BE IN LANSING, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE A QUORUM HERE.>>RIGHT. I THINK I CAN DO IT. I HAVE AN EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING IN THE MORNING, BUT I CAN DO IT.>>I CAN DO EITHER OF THOSE.>>I CAN DO EITHER ONE.>>SO THAT ELIMINATES SOMEBODY. YOU CAN MAKE 10:30 TO 12:00, AND RICHELLE CAN MAKE 1:00 TO 3:00. WHAT ABOUT THE 10TH?>>SOME PEOPLE WILL BE ABSENT ANYHOW. CASSANDRA WILL BE ABSENT, AND EITHER LUPE OR MICHELLE. HOW ABOUT OTHERS?>>I’M GOOD.>>KATHLEEN?>>I THINK I’M GOOD.>>I’LL GIVE YOU A RIDE. 10:30? IS THAT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT?>>WHAT ABOUT THE 10TH? IS EVERYONE AVAILABLE ON THE 10TH?>>I’M AVAILABLE ON THE 10TH.>>I AM, TOO.>>ONLY IN THE MORNING FOR ME.>>I AM NOT OPEN, BUT I COULD BE AVAILABLE.>>YOU CAN, ON THE 10TH?>>THE 10TH IS MUCH HARDER FOR ME. I CAN DO THE MORNING.>>YOU CAN’T DO THE MORNING, RIGHT, JOHN?>>I GAVE LIKE EVERY TWO HOUR BLOCK I HAD.>>ON THE 10TH, WE’D LOSE CASSANDRA AND DAN.>>AND ON THE 7TH, WE’D LOSE CASSANDRA AND EITHER MICHELLE–>>IT’D BE THE SAME, EITHER WAY.>>I, PERSONALLY THINK THE SOONER THE BETTER, GIVEN THIS DISCUSSION, SO I WOULD SAY THE 7TH. WHICH OF THOSE TIMES WAS THE RIGHT ONE?>>IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU WANT TO MISS.>>I CAN DO EITHER ONE.>>I CAN DO THE LATER ONE, AND LUPE CAN DO THE EARLIER ONE.>>I CAN BACK UP THE 10TH TO 1:00, IF THAT HELPED.>>YOU CAN MOVE THE 10TH UP TO 1:00?>>BUT THAT STILL DOESN’T WORK FOR RICHARD. A MONDAY.>>MONDAY?>>YES.>>I’D HAVE TO BE BACK BY 5:00.>>WE CAN DO IT. ON THE 10TH? WE CAN PICK UP RICHARD?>>WHO DO WE GET ON MONDAY THE 10TH, AT 1:00 PM?>>DAN, COULD YOU DO THAT?>>AT WHAT TIME?>>1:00 PM.>>HMM. I’LL MAKE IT WORK.>>YOU COULD GO BY PHONE, RIGHT? IF WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE THERE?>>YES.>>I’M HERE. KATHLEEN’S HERE. EILEEN’S HERE. MICHELLE, COULD YOU DO IT?>>I COULD DEFINITELY CALL IN.>>LUPE, COULD YOU BE HERE IN PERSON ON THE 10TH?>>WHAT TIME?>>1 O’CLOCK.>>1 O’CLOCK?>>YES.>>OKAY, I THINK I CAN DO 1 O’CLOCK.>>OKAY. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? ARE YOU OKAY? IS THIS WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO?>>I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT JEFF IS SAYING ONCE WE DECIDE, WE CAN HAVE A CONTRACT SIGNED WITHIN 48 HOURS?>>ONCE YOU HAVE THAT PROTEST.>>PROVIDED YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PROTEST ISSUES FROM THE OPPOSING VENDOR.>>’CAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS DRUM UP SOME PROTESTORS FOR THE MEETING. YOU CAN’T HAVE A THIRD FIRM, IN THIS EXAMPLE, COME IN AND PROTEST.>>AND HOW MUCH TIME DO THEY HAVE FOR THAT?>>48 HOURS.>>TWO BUSINESS DAYS.>>SO, FRIDAY THE 13TH IN THE MORNING, WE CAN HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT?>>IN THE AFTERNOON.>>YES.>>LET’S DO THIS. WE’LL INVESTIGATE. I’LL GET CASSANDRA’S HELP WITH THE AG’S ISSUES. I WAS TRYING TO GET THE AG’S WORKING US THROUGH THIS PIECE OF THE PROCESS AND THEN I’LL MAKE SURE WE’RE CLEAR ON THE OTHER PIECES, PER EILEEN’S PART. I’M GLAD WE LOOKED AT THE PROPOSALS. IT SOLVES THE TIM QUINN MYSTERY. HE’S SOMEONE THAT WAS SMARTLY ADOPTED BY RAY AND ASSOCIATES. HE’S SOMEONE THAT A HEALTHY CROSS-SECTION OF STAKEHOLDERS IN MICHIGAN KNOW WELL, AND VIEW AS VERY HELPFUL, FROM CRAIG RUFF TO ROBERTA STANLEY TO MANY OTHERS. ANYWAY, THIS IS GOOD. JEFF AND HEATHER, APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE AWKWARDNESS OF THIS DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB. WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.>>WE’RE TRYING TO DO OURS.>>I KNOW. WE’RE TRYING TO DO OURS.>>IF I CAN MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION, SO WE DON’T HAVE A DISCREPANCY. THE 11TH IS A HOLIDAY, SO IT WOULD BE THURSDAY.>>THE 11TH IS A HOLIDAY?>>VETERAN’S DAY.>>YES. THEY CAN’T REACH THE STATE TO PROTEST. THEY MIGHT BE WORKING, BUT THEY CAN’T REACH JEFF TO YELL.>>WE DON’T GET VETERANS DAY OFF ANYMORE.>>SO WE ARE VERY CLEAR, WHATEVER FORMAT OF… GRADING SHEET THAT YOU PREPARE, YOU WILL DO THAT AND SHARE IT WITH US, AND WE WILL FILL IT OUT AND THAT WILL GIVE YOU WHAT YOU THINK WE WILL NEED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION?>>CORRECT.>>THANK YOU.>>BUT WE’LL GET IT BEFORE THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, RIGHT?>>THAT COULD BE DONE VERY SOON AND THEN WE HAVE TIME TO SEND IT BACK IN, AND WE’LL HAVE CASSANDRA’S INPUT. I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO OFFER BACK IN ANY OTHER EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES, INCLUDING CASSANDRA, AS THEY REVIEW THESE TWO PROPOSALS IN MORE DETAIL THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER ONE IS WORTHY OF PICKING OR NOT.>>ONE QUESTION. ON THE SCORING SHEET. I WOULDN’T NORMALLY DO THIS, BUT GIVEN THAT CASSANDRA WILL BE OUT, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A COMMENTS FIELD, SO YOU CAN CAPTURE ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAD?>>YES.>>THAT’S GOOD.>>IS THERE ANY REASON, LEGALLY, WHY CASSANDRA CAN’T SHARE WITH, SAY THE BOARD PRESIDENT OR SECRETARY, ANY CLARIFICATIONS? IT’S ONLY IF WE GET INTO A QUORUM. ONLY IF WE GET INTO A CAUCUS MEETING THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.>>THERE’S NO ISSUES FROM MY PROCESS PERSPECTIVE. IF YOU HAVE OPEN MEETINGS ISSUE YOU NEED TO WORK OUT, THEN–>>IT’S SEPARATE.>>I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD NOT BE A PARTISAN THING AT ALL.>>NO, I’M JUST SAYING, IF YOU GUYS WERE TALKING INTERNALLY, THAT YOU CAN’T DO THAT AND HAVE COMMENTS BE VALID BECAUSE THERE’S AN OPEN MEETING ISSUE. THERE WOULD BE ANYWAY.>>I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.>>YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. WE’RE ALL TIRED.>>THANKS, EVERYBODY FOR MAKING THE EXTRA EFFORT TO PARTICIPATE AND FOR PULLING THIS TOGETHER. I’M OFFICIALLY ADJOURNING THIS MEETING.>>THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD IS I NOTED HERE THAT THAT MEETING HAS TO BE A HOUR AND A HALF MINIMUM. THE ONE ON THE 10TH.>>THOSE ARE MY TIMES, SAYING WHEN WE CAN HAVE A MEETING. IF IT ONLY TAKES 30 MINUTES, THEN TAKE 30 MINUTES.>>OKAY, GREAT.>>WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET OUT OF THAT MEETING EXACTLY WHAT’S NEEDED, SO WE DON’T FACE ANOTHER, OH, WE HAVE TO DO THIS. FOR THE APPROPRIATE VETTING AND APPROVAL PROCESS THAT WE ALL NEED TO DO.>>THANK YOU.

Leave a Reply

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