Cambridge city solicitor Megan Bayer acknowledged irregularities in the process of approving payments to a firm that helped hire a new superintendent of schools. Speaking at Tuesday’s School Committee meeting, Bayer said the city is launching an internal review of the contracts and process related to hiring the firm, The Equity Process.
She also confirmed that the city had paid the consultant for work outside the scope of the initial contract. The School Committee approved a $9,950 deal with The Equity Process, below the $10,000 threshold for a competitive bidding process. But Bayer confirmed the city has paid The Equity Process a total of $40,000 for work performed.
That work was part of a revised contract promising the firm an additional $40,000 for the search, a contract that was not made public before it was reported last month. Committee member remarks underscored that committee chair and Cambridge mayor E. Denise Simmons and vice chair Caroline Hunter were the only members aware of the additional payments.
Approval without confirmation
Bayer answered questions that were raised at the School Committee meeting two weeks ago and then tabled. “I did sign this contract. I was aware that the School Committee has a rule that requires approval over a certain amount, and the language on the signature page is that the contract is signed subject to the School Committee’s approval,” Bayer said. “I did not check to make sure that approval was attached.”
Bayer was unable to explain in her presentation to the committee when the scope of the firm’s work was expanded beyond the original $9,950 payment. The city has been unable to provide evidence that the committee reviewed and voted on the additional contracts, despite it being a committee requirement.
Member Richard Harding did not let the admission go easily.
“This is what lawyers do, right? As the layperson in entering a contract, I send it to my lawyer. I can miss it. The lawyers can’t miss this,” Harding said. “I don’t know that we need an investigation to simply say, ‘Where’s the School Committee order?’”
Still, the School Committee seemed ready to put the issue to rest. Members voted to approve the payments that have already been made but cancel the final portion of the firm’s work, worth $10,000. That fee was to cover support for onboarding an incoming superintendent, which became unnecessary after the job went to an internal candidate. “It appears to me an oversight, a mistake,” member David Weinstein said.
Hunter said she looked forward to the review “because much has been made of what I think – and I agree with member Weinstein – was a process mistake between the city and the school department in handling something that’s not normally done in that routine way.”
Recommendations for process improvement
The review was spurred by the city’s inability to document when and how the contract was revised.
Bayer said one goal of the review is to “have some recommendations to come out of this, of what could be done differently in the future, to make sure that no steps of the process get missed.” The results of the review will include revision of documents and “conversations with the city’s purchasing department,” she said.
Its results are slated to be released in January.
This article has been updated to clarify that the contract review is a requirement of the School Committee.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
The Mayor and Vice Chair gave a consultant a $40,000 contract without any authority to do so. This isn’t a process error, it’s a crime scene.
This was not an oversight.
The contract was set up to evade the $10,000 rule.
Furthermore, as we have seen, the contract was given to a firm that had little background to engage in such work, name withstanding.
The firm could not have done the proper work for less than ten thousand, so an unauthorized work around was concocted.
Why isn’t someone asking why this firm was hired? Is everyone afraid of what they will find. It’s very apparent looking at the information about the firm.
This ineptness has become par for the City of Cambridge.
This is no oversight. This is an intentional skirting of the rules by the Mayor and the Vice Chair. Yet another great example of the total lack of transparency exhibited by our current elected officials, doing deals in the back room and only promising changes when they get caught.
Shame on the Councilors who voted to retroactively approve this sham contract.
How is this not a crime? Isn’t it best to be investigated locally lest the federal people come in? Has the state started one yet?
Here’s a recommendation: follow your own rules for submitting a contract and getting it signed by the lawyer.
In what way should this contract not be voided?
Correction: The aforementioned now convicted – and sentenced to 20 years – City employee was the Traffic Engineer for the City at the time of his arrest, working in what was then the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Deptartment.
See Cambridge Day article here:
Former city transportation engineer is convicted on charges relating to child sexual abuse material (updated) – Cambridge Day https://share.google/tTtplOhCqo2VVw2xm