Collier School Board sides with superintendent in after school programs hearing

Dec. 17--Local attorney and parent Steven Bracci didn't seem surprised when he lost his case against the Collier County School District.

He had argued the school district did wrong -- but the hearing officer, or judge, was district Superintendent Kamela Patton.

He had to convince a group that the school board previously voted wrong. But that group was, in fact, the school board.

So board members voted again at Monday's quasi-judicial hearing on Bracci's lawsuit, which debated the merit of the district's request for qualifications regarding after school care. Without a word of discussion after the hearing's conclusion, they voted unanimously with Patton's recommendation to dismiss the case.

"Does anyone here think I'm getting a fair case, having Kamela Patton as the hearing officer? Let's call a spade a spade," Bracci said.

The hearing immediately was contentious, as Bracci made clear his feelings about the district-determined rules, fervently calling those parameters into question about a dozen times. He was met with equal vigor from district counsel Jim Fox; the two were arguing within minutes.

Bracci repeatedly asked the board to acknowledge that he would never get a fair and impartial hearing; he pleaded to the board to wash their hands of the lawsuit and send it to an unbiased administrative law judge in Tallahassee for review. He said he wasn't even notified of the proper procedures until Friday, and cited a different set of procedures on the district's website than were provided to him by Fox.

Patton's final order, penned months ago, was to dismiss the lawsuit in part because Bracci, a parent, does not have adequate legal standing to oppose the RFQ the district sent out in May. An RFQ historically can only be challenged by bidders or suppliers, the district contended through arguments from legal counsel and Chief Purchasing Officer Nancy Sirko, who presented for the district.

Bracci argued that when the district opened the request period and began operating itself as a supplier of after school care through its district run program, it gave him standing as a payer because the RFQ set prices that he must pay for his student's care.

"You put out this RFQ and they bid to become accepted (vendors). You're buying nothing. Who's buying the service? I am, the parent," said Bracci, whose children attend a school that replaced Sports Club with a district-run program. "(The district) couldn't afford to compete. You guys aren't concerned about the price because the parents are paying the price."

Fox asked Bracci if he had any cases or precedent that would back him up.

"The bottom line is there's not a lot of case law directly on this point because what this school board has done with this bidding is so bizarre, so out of left field, that no one's ever done it before," Bracci said. "The school board is a fellow bidder. They bid behind the scenes. And we're paying a fixed fee and they're one of the ones who are receiving the fee. I absolutely have a case for exceptional circumstances."

In her presentation, Sirko noted that Bracci didn't follow the district-set rules, including fronting a bond to insure associated costs of the hearing could be recouped by the district. It is common in this type of hearing that the petitioner puts up a bond to pay for any associated costs of a hearing, should he or she lose. Sirko also said he missed several deadlines, which Bracci denied.

Bracci said he repeatedly asked Patton to vacate the role of hearing officer, citing "well-founded concern of fair and impartial hearing," but she refused.

He also took several exceptions to Patton's recommended order, including bias and Bracci's resulting concern of not getting a fair and impartial hearing, and Patton's facts not being supported by evidence, as there never was an evidentiary hearing.

Of the disputed facts that could have been addressed in such a hearing, one key component was about electronic posting of the district's notice of intent. Bracci alleges Sirko simply emailed the RFQ to those she saw as potential vendors and didn't post it electronically so that anyone could have found it and bid. This dispute over a material fact has to go one way, and that's to Tallahassee, Bracci said.

"It said the district posted its notice of intent May 30, 2013," Bracci said. "Not only is it wrong and incorrect, but it's not enough ... it says you must post a notice of decision by electronic post on your Web page. There's a question of fact there and I disagree with her and in my exceptions I told Ms. Patton, 'I disagree with you, prove it, show me your posting,' and she didn't do it. That's a question of fact and when there's a question of fact ... you automatically refer your case to the division of administrative hearings."

___

(c)2013 the Naples Daily News (Naples, Fla.)

Visit the Naples Daily News (Naples, Fla.) at www.naplesnews.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services