The Escambia Children’s Trust will conduct interviews with the top 29 ranked proposers for its Out-of-School-Time RFP. The first is 3 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 4 at its offices on Pensacola State College’s main campus in Building 11. The other meetings are scheduled for the same time on Jan. 20, Jan. 30 and Feb. 3.
The interviews for the Jan. 4 meeting are as follows:
Proposal Interview (10 minutes each, all times approximate)
A. Boys & Girls Club of the Emerald Coast 3:45 p.m.
B. Dixon School of Arts and Sciences 3:55 p.m
C. Covenant Care 4:05 p.m.
D. Children’s Home Society 4:15 p.m.
E. Urban Development Center 4:25 p.m
F. Omega Lamplighters 4:35 p.m.
G. Pensacola Children’s Chorus 4:45 p.m.
H. Creative School Age Child Care 4:55 p.m.
I. Pensacola Little Theatre 5:05 p.m.
Meanwhile, the proposers must present several documents to verify their IRS 501(c)3 nonprofit determination, financial stability and board members. They must provide line-item budgets for their programs and certificate of insurance. They need to hand over all memorandums of understanding and agreements with subcontractors and partners and the line-item budgets for the subcontractors’ portion of the program.
Here is the complete list, per the Trust’s website:
As part of the Grants Committee’s review process, the Escambia Children’s Trust must have the following documents on file.
Document 1 – IRS 501(c)3 determination letter (if applicable)
Document 2 – State of Florida annual report from Sunbiz (NGOs only)
Document 3 – List of current board members with contact information
Document 4 – (two parts)
Part A: Submit most recent approved organizational budget
Part B: Choose one of the following as appropriate to your agency
For proposers receiving annual contributions of $1 million or more: Upload three most recent years of audited financial statement summaries and disclosures to include internal control reports and any accompanying management letters, OR individual tax returns and personal financial statement of net worth for the most recent year if Proposer is an individual proprietor. Privately held companies wishing to maintain confidential financial information must have Dunn & Bradstreet Reports (D&B). If any of these statements include a material weakness or significant deficiency, include a letter of explanation.
For proposers with annual contributions of at least $500,000 but less than $1 million: Upload three most recent financial statements reviewed or audited by an independent CPA.
For proposers with less than $500,000 in annual contributions: Upload three most recent 990s, compilations, audits, or reviews of financial statements.
Document 5 – MOU’s, contracts or agreements for all proposed subcontracts.
??Subcontractor MOU Checklist:
Is there a clear description of how the contracting entity (agency) and subcontracting entity relate to one another?
Are the commencement/renewal time period(s) clearly defined?
Is there a clear description of services to be provided?
Are the costs of the services clearly stated?
Is there clear explanation how payment is to be made and by when?
Is the information required on invoices and requirements for other backup documentation to make payment clearly outlined?
Are conditions of termination described (the subcontractor must be terminable at any time, for any reason)?
Is program monitoring described and sufficient to ensure delivery of quality services as outlined in the subcontract?
Are the terms for confidentiality outlined and do they align with the terms as defined in the ECT agreement?
Are the full Public Records requirements included as defined in the ECT agreement?
Are special situations and incidents addressed and do they include the “when,” “how,” and “to whom” to report incidents?
Are there requirements outlined for Background Screening as defined in the ECT agreement?
Are insurance requirements included in the subcontract or does your agency insurance cover the subcontractors service delivery?
Document 6 – Line-item budgets for all proposed subcontracts
Document 7 – Corrective-Action or Performance Improvement Plan reports if your agency had a grant contract terminated OR your agency has been placed on any corrective action or performance improvement plan in the last 3 years from any funders.
With this documentation, include a response on how your agency has addressed or is addressing the deficiencies (if applicable)
Document 8 – If your agency has been a defendant in any litigation or regulatory action in the last 3 years, OR your agency has been a plaintiff in a bankruptcy, provide a brief explanation for each instance (if applicable)
Document 9 – (two documents; files can be merged or uploaded separately)
Most recent balance sheet AND
Profit and loss/revenue and expense statement
Document 10 – Certificate of Insurance (COI) – please upload current insurance documentation
*Please note: If you are selected for funding, this language from RFP #2022-03 is in effect: “the Proposer shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance, naming the Escambia Children’s Trust as an additional insured with respect to the Commercial General Liability of at least $1,000,000 each, no later than ten (10) days after award and prior to execution of Statement of work.
The successful Proposer(s) shall comply with the following insurance requirements:
Commercial General Liability, Required $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Workers’ Compensation Insurance limits per applicable state statute. Required if Proposer has employees engaged in the performance of work under this Agreement.
Need to correct a serous error above, Rick, concerning my following statement from above:
“Low point: when one of the members rather shamelessly shilled for an area organization that is already well-funded to receive money for brick and mortar even after it was made clear by other Board members how inappropriate it was.”
It was not a Board member, but a staff member, who put up a panicked defense against a surprisingly unified Board on the question of awarding construction funds for brick and mortar improvements and even new buildings–that same staff member who seems to be calling the shots behind the scenes, most likely for her benefactor.
I had really hoped that Director Greer would see the wisdom of putting the brakes on after the last meeting and make a better attempt at herding the cats. Whether she realized that a full stop and back to the drawing board was the *only* appropriate crisis management response from an administrative standpoint, the politicians on not just the Board but her own staff continued to spin the tops.
If this continues to careen out of control in this fashion, then someone on the policy Board needs to place it on the agenda to revisit her role and whether it’s a good fit. And then be prepared to head off a couple of even worse case scenarios, such as if “Programs and Performance” is instructed to take the reins as the only way to fulfill her off-label job duties, or one of the grants committee Board members deciding to take the paycheck they’ve been quite clear they’re now bitter about not receiving–who can blame them at this point that their burn-out is evident.
The obvious answer to the fiasco of the last regular meeting was to (1) hold a workshop to (2) bring things into best practices and (3) resolicit the whole shebang.
Unfortunately it’s looking like even getting to that point of sanity won’t be possible with current staff and current grants assignments. :( Because if this doesn’t get better or manages to get even worse, then it ought to go back on the ballot for the public to rescind. We’re getting to the point that the best mothers and apple pie ballot language in the world won’t be enough to disguise a boondoggle for what it is. It would instead be so much better if Ms. Hightower and her procedural sidekick would quit politicking and start working to turn this around.
Too bad that a Board policy meeting got slid in not sure when for this morning–the day before the grants get revisited tomorrow. As in, there were votes taken today that will leave the process in several areas of uncertainty tomorrow, and reversed previous directions while keeping previous decisions on the table. No matter–to just keep careening forward is the push coming from some corners, with, as I stated this morning, a complex political Mexican standoff happening at every turn. Staff vs. staff, staff vs. grant committee, grant committee vs. Board, staff vs. Board, Board vs. Board. And it’s totally clear now from what corners the politics and back-door dealing are coming from, an utter disservice to those Board members calling for best practices, common sense, and simplification, who are getting worn down in all of the typical and obvious games.
A couple of hours off camera, with no mainstream press there, and no video. Hosted in a small conference room off-campus by Sunshine Health, with many important action items–one of them, the grants process, which should have been a workshop in and of itself. All votes taken with screaming importance to future direction and administration, crammed on the agenda for maximum Chinese water torture treatment ending in lick and a prayer decisions. Clearly orchestrated for very little public attention–we got word around 9 and raced up there only to miss the general public comment, which was switched to the start of the meeting, and the first action item. Kevin Wade Facebook lived the rest of the action items, but the sound was predictably horrible. If he has time he’ll boost the audio tomorrow.
Although to what purpose, I’m not sure. It’s such a shame. Rather than putting the brakes on after the last meeting, as was so apparent was the right course of action, instead it is being shoved through in typical fashion with all the standard earmarks of backdooring and forced inevitability. As I emphasized in my speaking, it was a continued travesty that is clearly a concerted effort to exhaust and flummox the Board members trying to speak reason and put on the brakes. Nothing new; all the tried and true forms including endless chewing over of moot points and byzantine rabbit holes to simply wear people out to try to get them to concede in frustration.
Although there were a couple of clear improvements, for the most part is was another giant step in the wrong direction/s, and in solidifying the slapdash nature of it all. During the meeting, Patty Hightower said that the word “transparency” was overused; I responded that perhaps the reason it gets utilized so much is because there is so little of it, and today was definitely a low point for the books. I am grateful, however, that Ms. Hightower stayed after to discuss some of my statements. As I expressed to her, as the senior member of the Board, she needs to lead things in the direction of getting on the right track, rather than allowing and even abetting it to go further off the rails.
High point: a candid discussion of how ridiculous the cone of silence is arranged (although the proper, clean solution was tanked, natch)
Low point: when one of the members rather shamelessly shilled for an area organization that is already well-funded to receive money for brick and mortar even after it was made clear by other Board members how inappropriate it was.
Prognosis: it needs to get a whole lot worse before it’s going to get any better–as in, without some serious shakeups, nothing will improve. You can’t have one staff member apparently de facto in charge while the ED de jure stonewalls any move the Board makes to straighten things out while the grants committee gets put in a more convoluted place while one Board member maneuvers around the chess board while another’s primary functions seem to buttress her every move and belabor every discussion point in the most excruciating fashion until people would rather stick a red hot poker in their eye than continue the discussion one minute longer.
Well, you can. Just not if this Trust is ever going to succeed in helping disadvantaged kids.
Hats off and much gratitude to David Peaden, Commissioner May, and Chair White for refusing to budge during some key moments of absurdity. I hope to goodness that the two new members will support taking this whole thing back to a workshop, as was the real motion on the floor rather than the motion that got voted on the previous meeting. Because that’s what today’s session should have been–a workshop. When a vote immediately necessitates a half hour discussion of the potential need for a future re-do, it’s clear that the people speaking commons sense need to take the reins.