The members of the Cordell Public Schools Board of Education have collectively refused to comment on their decision to pay almost $5,000 more than necessary for a school roof repair project.
On May 12, the board approved a $24,985 contract with Brox Industries of Lawton to repair the north roof of the school gymnasium, despite having a written bid of $20,020 from local contractor, Nurnberg Roofing.
There was no discussion during the meeting about the reason for accepting the higher bid. Superintendent Brad Overton simply told the board members that he had called around and felt that Brox had a good reputation. Without any questions about the price difference or the quality of work and references, the board unanimously accepted Overton’s recommendation and awarded the more expensive contract to Brox.
Following the June 8 board meeting, at which there was also no discussion of the issue, The Cordell Beacon sent an email to each of the board members asking just one question: “Why did you vote, without discussion or question, to approve the superintendent’s recommendation to award the contract to a higher bidder?”
The email, which was sent Tuesday morning, June 9, was not answered by even one of the board members (Ron McKee, David Thain, Dale Selman, Mike Reimer, or Nocona Cook) by close of business Friday, June 12.
Local resident Keith Javorsky, who attended the May 12 meeting, expressed his concerns about the board’s decision making process.
“I’d like to know when the discussion was, because it wasn’t at the board meeting,” he said. “Why are they even on that board if they’re just going to let Overton do whatever he wants?”
Oklahoma law allows public agencies to select a bidder other than the lowest one, but requires the awarding of such a bid to be accompanied by a statement explaining why.
“If an award is made to other than the lowest bidder, the awarding public agency shall accompany its action with a pubicized statement setting forth the reason for its action. Such statement shall be placed on file, open to public inspection and be a matter of public record.” 61 O.S. § 117.
No such statement accompanied the board’s decision, nor has any such statement been issued by the board since the decision. The issue is only magnified by the board members’ unwillingness to tell the public why they chose to waste almost $5,000 of the taxpayers’ money on a higher bid.