CCSD's Bill Lewis: Pure as Caesar's Wife?

CCSD Superintendent Nancy McGinley began her series of budget meetings lamenting the projected shortfall in funding the district's yearly operating budget, while Bill Lewis, the executive director of its building program, had to explain his rejection of the low bid for the new North Charleston middle school.

Now, you and I know that the building fund and yearly budget for CCSD are separate from each other, but in the public mind it's all going down the same sinkhole. Lewis's action hardly was of assistance to McGinley's quest or fair to the taxpayers. According to the president of the Charleston Contractors' Association, "the way the system is set up . . . gives the appearance that something wrong is happening." Is it?

What did happen here? Well, according to the P & C's story of last Sunday, the low bid from Infinger Construction was never considered, since Lewis decided to "save time and enable the school to open in August 2009." Saving time, not dollars, was his highest priority. This arrogance led to a negotiated bid with the highest-rated company that will cost us $400,000 more.

"Highest-rated company" sounds good until you look into the details. According to the article, "The school board chose to spend the extra money so a company that it rated as higher quality would do the construction work." That WHO rated? Lewis stated that "contractors are evaluated on two criteria: the technical aspects of their plans — such as their approach, their team and prior performance — and their price." Notice the passive voice here--allowing Lewis to avoid saying who assigned the ratings.

One of two things happened here. Either Infinger was blackballed by Dorchester District 2 with no recourse, or a "few district-appointed people" made a subjective decision that the contractor's quality is not as it should be. The school board, in its usual fashion, followed Lewis's lead. Question: Can they show that Infinger's prior work for the district did not meet its standards? No mention of that.

Some of us might remember that the district no longer accepts kickbacks from contractors in the form of donations, parties, etc., such as last year's goodbye party to Goodloe-Johnson. Now I'm getting too cynical.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to the search for a qualified financial officer to replace Don Kennedy? Did I miss something here?

CCSD Professional? Get a CFO Who's Qualified

Tenisha Waldo of the P & C quoted Nancy Cook, CCSD board chairwoman as saying of Don Kennedy's departure for the Seattle schools, "'This is our third person [Goodloe-Johnson] has raided. It's just not professional, in my opinion. That's why we're so disappointed.'"

Who's not professional? Maybe Nancy Cook, who hoped that a "lucrative counteroffer" would keep Kennedy in Charleston. CCSD was prepared to beef up the salary of a chief financial officer who does not have the qualifications to do the job in the first place? Kennedy sensibly took the Seattle offer, which as far as I can determine is NOT as chief financial officer.

Maybe someone can set me straight. Apart from soliciting what could be considered kickbacks from district contractors (a long-standing practice he did not end when hired in 2004), his obfuscation about the budget during CCSD school board meetings seemed to be Kennedy's most outstanding quality. He may very well be, as McGinley asserts in the CCSD press release, "a man of great honor and integrity," but what was it in his background that qualified him to oversee CCSD's millions in expenditures?

• Does he hold an MBA?


• Is he an accountant?


• Does he have any specialized financial training beyond undergraduate courses at Newberry College?


• Prior to joining CCSD, did he have any experience beyond being in the Air Force and working in the comptrollers' offices at two defense-industry organizations?

While McGinley reviews the "job description," let's hope she adds more sophisticated knowledge to the requirements in her "nationwide search."

In the P & C, using the district's press release as a "prepared statement," Waldo quotes McGinley in calling Kennedy"'a man of great honor and integrity.'" However, she must have tired of rewriting the release. Paraphrasing poorly and quoting word-for-word from CCSD's release she wrote, "Kennedy plans to leave in about eight weeks and will use that time to ensure that all operations will run smoothly after his departure."

The original actually went, "Kennedy will leave the District in approximately 8 weeks, using the time to ensure that all operations will run smoothly after his departure." Plagiarized sentence structure and wording.

Since Kennedy is quoted directly after that sentence, the reader assumes the information came from him; it didn't, unless he's memorized the press release formula.

The rule for plagiarized wording is three words in a row from the original source. You don't need to graduate with a degree in journalism to know that.

CCSD: Everybody Else Does It

What part of "kickbacks" does Don Kennedy, CCSD's financial officer, not understand? Apparently, he never met a kickback he didn't like.

Part of the P & C's campaign to return to the good graces of CCSD (and probably Joe Riley) is a front-page followup on the solicited funds that paid for Goodloe's farewell party.

According to Kennedy, "Companies that win major contracts with the Charleston County School District have been subject to requests from district officials for donations for school-related activities for years. Vendors for the district could be asked for donations several times in a school year." Kennedy goes on to extol the benefits of those contributions to the school community.

This story gets better, though. Kennedy admits that CCSD "doesn't have records . . . and no one monitors the requests or donation receipts." So, as I understand it, this is "off the books" money? Does anyone wonder how much is involved besides me?

Either quite naive or disingenuous, Kennedy claims that "donations play no role in whether the companies win lucrative contracts." He also defends the practice by saying that it "preceded his working with the district" and isn't "'unique to Charleston County.'"

An important question for SMG Chairman Bill Wiseman, whose firm contributed and has $241.5 million in contracts with CCSD, was NOT asked (or at least not reported): how or if SMG reports such contributions in its income tax returns. Needless to say, Wiseman "did not see the donations as a conflict." In fact, he's quoted as saying that :the only time the company avoids giving money is when a contract is pending." Right. When a contract is pending, CCSD can't remember if SMG has ever contributed to the district.

The comments solicited from district officials in Berkeley County and Dorchester District 2 reveal another can of worms, folks. While Berkeley claims not to solicit on a regular basis, it also doesn't know who's given what to whom. Dorchester District 2 says it "doesn't pay attention" to contracts when "soliciting partnerships or resources." The article did not clarify the attitude of its business manager, Allyson Duke, on the practice of donations, but she apparently does not have records of them.

The most egregious example of a kickback is the $6000 to CCSD from SSC Service Solutions, more than 10 times the amount provided by the other two contractors. Don Kennedy and its spokesman, Bill Steward, would have us believe that gift was unconnected to the expiration of its $24 million contract next summer. Wiseman's memory is fuzzy over how much has been donated in the past 25 years. Again, my question: how is the company reporting this $6000 on its income tax returns? How does CCSD plan to report it; or, maybe I should say, does CCSD plan to report it, if it doesn't keep track of donations?

Everyone can understand a local school's soliciting funds for extras, but let's think about what abuses can arise from the process if it is not monitored or recorded.

• The district receives funds unrecorded on its balance sheets.


• Contributions theoretically can influence awarding of contracts.


• Schools with "contacts" will receive an inequitable share not reflected in the figures shown by district accounting.


• Lack of oversight tests human nature's desire to get an edge on the competition.

We should use common sense, as Ron McWhirt is quoted as saying.

• Donations over some minimum amount, say $50, should be recorded and reported to the district.


• The district should keep records, public records, and include such donations on its balance sheets.


• And those who award contracts should not solicit nor accept funds from potential contractors.

These policies (with the appropriate adjustments) can be put into effect for the coming school year. All it takes is the will to do it!

A Contrite P & C Manufactures Puff Piece

Bill Hawkins, executive editor of the Post and Courier was properly contrite this morning. Oh, you won't find his name on Courrege's puff piece about Goodloe-Johnson's speaking at two graduations this week. No, the payback for being critical of the contractor-paid farewell party in an article on the front page last week (see June 2nd post here) was to mend district fences with a contrived "news" piece.


What was the news, you ask? There wasn't any, but since principals at "two of the district's most troubled high schools" had asked Goodloe-Johnson to speak at graduations, the occasion lent itself to Courrege's highlighting G-J's "accomplishments."


What accomplishments? Let's see. According to the salutatorian of North Charleston High, who doesn't even know G-J, " The superintendent motivated and cared about her and her classmates, . . . and the superintendent did all she could to make her school better academically. 'It's like we're her children.'"


According to Courrege, "The schools were among those in most need of help in Charleston County, and she was their champion." In support of that statement Courrege points out that G-J managed to prevent the state takeover of Burke a few months ago. Does she also point out that, of the more-than-a-dozen other high schools also facing takeover, NONE was selected? In fact, the state made a point of NOT taking any over. Is anyone sure that this non-takeover was the result of G=J's actions and/or a solution? Not me.


Burke principal Charles Benton, who owes his job to G-J, was quoted making the proper noises, and a Burke junior who had been treated to special "lunch dates" with G-J gushed her thanks.

The P & C provided the same puffery in its coverage of the North Charleston ceremony, stating that "[North Charleston High] isn't the same as it was two years ago; it's safer and stronger academically." Where is Courrege's evidence that the school is "safer and stronger academically'? Missing in action.


Oh, its principal thanked G-J for being "a supporter, cheerleader and advocate of the school"(her job?) and said that G=J "talked at faculty meetings and assured them [faculty?] she understood their challenges and that their school was not failing. She led a pep rally to motivate students before they took important standardized tests." However, this flattery is not evidence that the school has improved, although I sincerely hope it has.

It seems that editor Hawkins received many nasty emails regarding the original front-page story. As he wrote on his blog of June 4th, "The gist of the e-mails is that we weren’t being fair to Goodloe-Johnson, as this was a practice that apparently started with the farewell party for her predecessor, Ron McWhirt." He went on to echo my posting of June 2nd on that issue (hmmm).

Now, I agree that if the P & C didn't cover the previous party in the same manner, it could be interpreted as unfair to G-J. What's needed now is some investigation of who contributed to the cost of McWhirt's party and what they expected (or got) in return.

THAT would be useful information. Let's send Hawkins some emails. He can be reached at bhawkins@postandcourier.com

Front Page News! CCSD's Conflict of Interest

Wow! What a pleasant surprise this morning to see on the P & C's front page coverage of CCSD that wasn't a puff piece extolling district administration. I almost wondered if the editors had been reading my blog.




Friday night was Goodloe-Johnson's going-away-party at the Charleston Yacht Club, but going away wasn't the focus of the article. No, it focused on "three recipients of multimillion- dollar contracts with the Charleston County School District [who] collectively contributed $7,000 for" the party. Goodloe-Johnson was not amused. She must have been shocked to get probing questions from Courrege: in fact, she called such questions "'tacky'." That's as in "lacking good taste"?

Most people would call these contributions kickbacks; they have nothing to do with good taste but are, in some corrupt circles, considered a cost of doing business. The biggest contributor to the party's costs provides custodial services to three-fourths of the constituent districts. It has a multi-million dollar contract that could be extended, especially if it's nice to the administration. Two other companies are "construction management firms for the district's building program." Their "program management" fees total about $17 million over the next few years. What's a minor payment when so much is at stake?

And Don Kennedy's defense: "most of the district's major contractors make donations to the district. School officials who work with the companies asked them to give money for the event."

Well, that's clear, then. Those donations CERTAINLY couldn't be considered kickbacks!

And to cement the soundness of the practice, Kennedy pointed out that the district did the same for Ron McWhirt.

Oh, well then. If they did it in the past, it MUST be okay.

"Kennedy said the district doesn't solicit money from companies that could soon be submitting contract proposals to the district, and he didn't see the donations as a conflict."

Well, he wouldn't, would he? After all, he doesn't see it as a conflict of interest that he sits on the audit committee that selects the auditing firm that audits himself.

They must still be searching for the tattler who told Ravenel where the funds came from. Unfortunately, Ravenel, who chose not to attend as a result, was the only board member who did see the conflict, or as he said, "'It doesn't pass the smell test.' It's difficult for companies that do business with political entities to turn down requests for money for events."

Well, duh. I wonder what the other board members thought.