Anthony C. from Krokidas & Bluestein provided an update to the committee. He reminded members that three key matters are currently being addressed: the lease agreement, which is the primary focus, along with IT services and custodial services. He noted that more detailed information regarding the lease would be shared during the executive session.

Regarding IT services, Anthony mentioned that there is strong consideration for bringing them in-house. This aligns with Darshan T.’s belief that internalizing these services could offer better support and greater control for the school, potentially at a comparable cost to what is currently being proposed by LFD.

As for custodial services, Darshan is in the process of initiating a bid process. The school is exploring both the option of bringing the services in-house and the possibility of contracting with a new vendor.

This agenda item was discussed in Executive Session.

This agenda item was discussed in Executive Session.

This agenda item was discussed in Executive Session.

Darshan T. said that the $868,000 proposed by LFD for custodial services seems high. He recommended that the school look into what other vendors are charging to see if there are more reasonable options.

Chris N. asked if the DESE requires the school to compare prices from other vendors. Darshan T. said yes, the school is not allowed to pay more than fair market value.

Chris N. then asked if one month would be enough time for Darshan T. to gather this information and report back at the next finance meeting. Darshan T. said yes, and explained that he will issue an RFP to collect bids and compare them.

Chris N. also asked if, in the case a new vendor is chosen, the current custodial staff could be hired by that new vendor. Darshan T. explained that since the custodians work for LFD, this would be something to discuss with any new vendor. Chris N. said it's important to keep in mind the staff's livelihoods during this process.

This agenda item was discussed in Executive Session.

Darshan T. proposed using the same process for evaluating IT services as was suggested for custodial services, by issuing an RFP to gather bids. He shared that all members of the IT department have approached him, expressing interest in being hired directly by the school. According to Darshan, 85 to 90 percent of their work supports school operations, and all four staff members are interested in transitioning to school employment. He noted that hiring them directly would cost less than contracting them. Darshan also mentioned that he discussed this with Elka S. and confirmed that these employees have not signed noncompete agreements with LFD.

Chris N. asked whether a non-solicitation clause exists in the service agreement. Darshan replied that there is none. However, he expressed concern that LFD might claim tortious interference if additional staff leave to join the school, following the earlier transition of four staff members. Chris N. recommended that Darshan T. continue to consult legal counsel regarding this matter. He also asked whether Darshan T. could collect IT service bids in time for the next finance meeting. Darshan T. confirmed that he could. Chris N. noted that this timeline would allow for the final fiscal year 2025 budget to be approved on time.

Chris N. then inquired if Darshan T. had received any updates on potential federal funding cuts to Title I, Title III, or school operations that could impact the budget. Darshan replied that he had not, but he plans to attend a webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Charter School Association on May 13 to learn more. Chris N. added that, if necessary, any budget impacts could be addressed in an emergency session in June.