A number of local parents and child care providers say new rules for selecting which providers get to operate in MCPS buildings are just a codification of the status quo.
At stake is the process for which the county’s Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF) picks which providers get to operate before and after school programs in county schools.
After two lawsuits and many complaints about undisclosed conflicts of interest, unfair standards and school principals with too much sway in the rebidding process, Montgomery County proposed a new set of regulations last month.
But at a County Council public hearing last week and in emails sent to county officials, many say the proposed regulations still don’t provide specific enough standards or include anyone with child care experience in the rebidding process:
“In the Commission’s view, these two documents represent a codification of the status quo and do not serve to address the concerns raised by child care providers and parents related to the selection of well-qualified providers and the implementation of consistent, quality child care in elementary before and after school programs,” wrote Shaun Rose, who runs the Rock Spring Children’s Center in Bethesda and is a member of the Commission on Child Care.
“The Regulation and Administrative Procedures that apply only to Child Care in Public Space (CCIPS) administered by the Community Use of Public Facilities (CUPF), afford CUPF much discretion in the process, and do not make it clear which section of government is responsible when parents or providers have an issue with CUPF’s actions,” Rose wrote. “Of particular concern is that the draft Administrative Procedures neglect to require that the selection committee include a member with child care expertise.”
Rose went on to write that a work group spurred by two lawsuits against the county’s child care rebidding process met only three times. He also indicated many of the decisions were made by county officials behind closed doors.
One of those lawsuits came from Wonders Child Care, a provider with sites in Bethesda and Chevy Chase that in 2012 lost its before and after school location at North Chevy Chase Elementary School.
Wonders claimed one member of the rebidding committee — a former parent — had a previous legal issue with the nonprofit and that member’s bias “was apparent during the committee’s work.”
Wonders also claimed the committee member never disclosed her previous legal issue and that the North Chevy Chase principal, Renee Stevens, helped circulate “an anonymous letter to the community disparaging Wonders.”
Wonders sued. The nonprofit dropped the suit to allow Bar-T, a bigger for-profit provider that had lost school sites in the same rebidding process, to continue with its suit.
The result was a Montgomery County Circuit Court decision that found the county rebidding system was not the legal way to conduct the process and that state law assigned the responsibility to each local Board of Education.
In January 2013, the Montgomery County Board of Education punted the responsibility back to the county government, passing a resolution to delegate authority to the CUPF.
The County Council’s Health and Human Services and Education Committees are set to discuss the complaints at a hearing on Thursday afternoon.
But according to Council staff, it would be difficult for the Council to force changes to the rebidding process. Any changes sought by the Council to the proposed regulation would need to be approved by the County Executive, the Board of Education and the ICB — the county agency that oversees CUPF.
That likely won’t be of any comfort to some child care providers, many who have complained about the inconsistency of the CUPF’s rebidding process for school space. Some have questioned why the county’s Health and Human Services Department or MCPS itself don’t take charge of the process.
A 2013 memo sent to CUPF Executive Director Ginny Gong from Councilmember Hans Riemer includes anonymous complaints from providers alleging a principal told an incumbent child care provider up for rebid that the provider could buy her a commercial popcorn machine for school events.
One provider said it was told “that parents don’t care about quality and that ‘old, white women,’ should not represent your center, should not be part of the process.”
A provider alleged it lost space in a school and was told afterward by the school’s principal that “he hated the process and felt the whole thing was scripted to get a certain result.” A provider told Riemer it was told “to put more minorities on our interview committee, to have a sales-type person be present at your interview, change your name, that tuition was too expensive” and “to be perkier,” among other things.
Gong, who is scheduled to appear at Thursday’s Council hearing, said the department decided to create the new bidding process in 2007 to give other providers an opportunity.
Earlier this year, she labeled some of the accusations in the Riemer memo as misinformation and defended CUPF’s ability to lease out school space for before and after school child care programs.
