PRIVATIZATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

of the

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION

January 31, 2012

The Privatization Advisory Committee held its eight meeting on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 in conference room 528 on the fifth floor of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center.

Board Members PresentTim Morgan

Committee Members PresentRob Harrington, Chairperson

Joan Belk

Sylvia Grier

Barry Hall

Michael Murdock

Kathleen Rose-Bellot

Cassandra Tydings

Susan Walker

John White

CMS Staff PresentKevin Bringwatt, CMS Legal Counsel

Mike Raible, Ex. Director, Planning/Project Management

Sheila Shirley, Chief Financial Officer

Lu Ellen Richard, Ex. Director, Financial Services

Ronnie Green, Ex. Director, Procurement

Mike Martin, Director, Payroll

Denise Cavoly, Ex. Coordinator, Planning/Project Management

OthersKaren Bentley, Mecklenburg County Commissioner, District 1

Bill Anderson, Ex. Director, MeckEd

Christine McGoldrick, Compass Group

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 8:04am.

Opening Comments

Rob Harringtonexplained that the order of business for the meeting would include presentations by payroll and IT.

Mr. Harrington’s opening remarks included a concern by committee members about the lack of budget detail available to them thus far. He indicated that Mike Raible had provided what is publically available, noting that it is not an activity-based budget. He also indicated that the committee had received some budget information from three previous presenters, but had received nothing from IT. Mr. Harrington was specific in asking that the concern over lack of budget detail be noted.

There was also a brief discussion regarding the timeline of providing a recommendation to the Board of Education. After considering work yet to be done, it was decided that the committee would meet again in early February, either in person or by conference call, to finalize a recommendation in advance of the February 14 presentation to the BOE. A called meeting date was not determined.

Payroll Presentation

The presentation began with a recap by Mike Martin of the information previously presented to the committee on December 13, 2011, citing garnishment and reporting as two possible areas for privatization consideration. A lengthy discussion ensued, including the following areas of interest:

  • Inquiry about how problems and customer service would be handled/resolvedby ADP (Automatic Data Processing, Inc.).
  • Question whether ADP would be willing to come and talk to the committee?
  • Question what footprint ADP has in schools/universities in North Carolina and US.
  • Explanation of ADP initial cost for garnishment and reporting ($58,000).
  • Noted that ADP cost is retail until open for competitive bids.
  • Inquiry into the soft costs associated with outsourcing parts of the payroll operation?
  • Question about how many payroll providers are available.
  • Explanation of the ratio between payroll staff to CMS staff.
  • Question regarding the number of steps required to prepare and perform payroll.
  • Explanation of the differences between public and private sector payroll services.
  • Explanation regarding Lawson costs, which would remain constant even if portion of payroll operation were outsourced.
  • Question regarding employee self-serve and why process is so complicated.
  • Accounting of number of payroll staff and explanation of specific functions.
  • Questions regarding cutting checks vs. automatic deposit.
  • Explanation of importance of maintaining the customer service function in payroll.
  • Remarks regarding wisdom of keeping payroll operation together, or outsource pieces; either all ‘in’ or all ‘out.’

Requests:

  1. Provide CMS in-house cost of cutting checks.
  2. Provide copy of Guilford County Schools’ ratio of payroll staff to number of all employees.
  3. Provide copy of entire payroll run schedule.
  4. Provide copy of regulations for DPI payroll benchmarks.

IT Presentation

Mr. Raible notified the committee that Scott Muri, Chief Information Officer, was not available to present. Mr. Harrington noted disappointment and indicated the absence of a presentation was problematic. He suggested that the committee pose questions to be answered by Mr. Muri.

Barry Hallbegan the IT discussion by sharing a brief review of his November 17, 2011 meeting with Mr. Muri and Mr. Raible. During the meeting, Mr. Muri indicated that his challenge is in paying technicians. These individuals begin at the bottom and as they gain experience, move on to top paying jobs, leaving CMS without higher level technical expertise. Another concern is the practice of placing technicians on site versus their ability to troubleshoot remotely. The discussion continued with concerns about what technical support will be required to maintain a wide and varying range of student-owned devices which will be allowed in classrooms beginning in the fall of 2012.

Mr. Harrington provided a summation of questions for Mr. Muri’s attention that the committee members intended to address during the scheduled technical services presentation:

  • What are the personnel turnover rates in the help desk/customer service function?
  • What is the average response time for service/help calls?
  • What are the help desk call volumes and detail?
  • What are the client/customer satisfaction survey results?
  • Provide answer to the committee’s concern regarding the current method of responding to services calls (as the committee understands the situation) in which technicians frequently must travel to the site of routine services, rather than diagnosing and solving issues remotely.
  • Provide percentage of calls resulting in dispatch repair.
  • Provide the technical services planned response to the potentially higher volume of service and maintenance requests resulting from the recent-announced CMS plans to increase technology in the classrooms.
  • Provide an explanation of the number and deployment of different versions of Microsoft Office (and other similar software) in use across the CMS system and plans to standardize the software.
  • Provide additional line-item budget detail for ALL technical related items (back-up for the compiled numbers found in the budget material the committee has previously received).
  • Provide any analysis the technical services support area has performed regarding efficiency in the use of existing technical equipment. Stated differently, an analysis of CMS’s ability to maximize its current investment in technical equipment.

Mr. Harrington noted that the committee plans to include information and potentially, proposals regarding technical services in the scheduled February 14 report to the Board of Education.

Minutes

The minutes from the January 10, 2012 meeting were approved with revision.

Closing

In closing, Mr. Harrington indicated the need for an additional committee meeting prior to the February 14 recommendation to the Board of Education, although no date was set.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:03am.

______

Mr. Rob Harrington, Chairperson

______

Diane L. Wilson, Scribe