Here is a story of the Windham School Board, but it can and is any town USA...
Windham School Board member Ken Eyring Letter to the
Editor
January 12, 2014
WSB
TRANSPARENCY
When I ran for the Windham School
Board (WSB), I promised transparency. Sometimes, that puts me in an
uncomfortable situation when I disagree with fellow Board Members. Such is the
case now, as I provide my insights regarding what I feel was a rushed 3-1-1
decision (Rekart/Joanis/Senibaldi – yes, Eyring – no, Breton – abstain) to sign
a no-bid, $577K contract with Cenergistic, a “behavior-based” energy
conservation company during the 1/6/15 WSB meeting.
The allure to sign the contract was
Cenergistic’s estimate that the Windham School District (WSD) would save $1.8M
over 10 years with “no equipment changes required” if the district followed
their customized energy conservation program.
I was skeptical. As a School Board
Member who has attended many of the Citizen’s Facilities Committee (CFC)
meetings over the past 7 months, I knew from speaking with Tom Murray (Windham
Contractor), Jerry Rufo (Facilities Manager for IBM), and Rich Amari
(Construction Management), that the proposed plans for addressing our space
needs incorporate many energy saving measures (for all our schools) that align
with PSNH programs.
So prior to the meeting, I reached
out to PSNH and spoke directly with our area’s Account Executive
regarding programs that would provide the WSD with free energy audits and
substantial equipment rebates that could immediately lead to double digit energy
savings. I asked Mr. Murray from the CFC to join me on the call – to ensure our
district was expertly represented.
I brought this information with me
to the WSB meeting. I expressed confidence that Windham already had the
expertise to accomplish the savings. I shared my phone conversation regarding
the free audit and financial incentive programs that are provided by PSNH, and
I questioned why we would sign an agreement with Cenergistic.
I suggested we seek competitive bids
from other companies. I made my fellow Board Members aware that the Derry
School District rejected Cinergistic’s proposal, and suggested we put off our
decision for two weeks – to provide enough time for us to perform our due
diligence, and thereby make a more informed decision. I also requested several
times that Windham residents be allowed to share their views with the Board.
The three expert members of the CFC mentioned above were present and wanted to
speak, but were denied permission by Chairman Rekart.
To my dismay, a majority of the
Board voted to move forward even though we don’t have a clear definition of the
services that will be provided – nor IMO, a valid justification for the
enormous cost. And there is no guarantee the projected savings will be
realized.
I was so troubled by the process,
that I took an unpaid day off from work the following day to do some more
research. Here is some of what was found:
The Massachusetts
Inspector General wrote this “Advisory for
the Procurement of Energy Management/Conservation Services” for Massachusetts
School Board Officials:
That advisory refers to EEI and
includes the following:
“Before paying a vendor hundreds of
thousands of dollars, this Office strongly recommends that school districts
determine if some energy savings can be achieved through other forms of
education or energy conservation measures.”
“Although EEI claims that its
program is unique, energy conservation and management service options exist in
abundance”.
“This Office recommends that
awarding authorities not execute contracts until they fully understand the
basis of the service fee being charged and should be able to tie the fee to a
measurable product deliverable.”
“Awarding authorities should be very
clear on the following points:”
- “The ten year projection used to market and sell the
program is not guaranteed and the district is contractually obligated to
pay EEI’s fee regardless of whether the district ever achieves the
projected savings.”
- “EEI guarantees only that savings will exceed costs,
not that savings will equal EEI’s projected savings.”
- “EEI’s guarantee applies only if EEI is satisfied that
the energy manager devotes enough time and effort to the program and that
the district ‘substantially implements’ the program.”
“In order to receive EEI’s
guarantee, EEI clients are required to purchase software, to measure energy
savings.“
“EEI has a business relationship
with the software provider which should be disclosed to clients prior to the
signing of a contract. The founder and owner of EEI, established a company,
American Energy Intelligence, for the sole purpose of purchasing the software
from Enron Corporation, and assigned the rights to Good Steward, LLC. … Reports
from this software are used to identify school district cost savings and are
the means by which EEI tracks its savings guarantee.”
I believe the above information that
was found in a short period of time raises questions that should be answered.
I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Respectfully,
Ken Eyring
Windham School Board Member
Ken Eyring
Windham School Board Member
No comments:
Post a Comment