Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) have been proudly touting the Public Private Partnership (or P3) they are using to build new schools rapidly and utilizing private funds as a model for the nation. The Blueprint Schools Phase One wrapped up this month with ribbon cuttings for six new schools. The approval to proceed to commercial and financial closing for Phase Two was on the agenda for the September Board of Education meeting last week to move ahead with building a further eight. However, that agenda item failed to gather the necessary majority, with six “ayes,” four “nays” and two abstentions. Among those voting “no” was Jonathan Briggs, school board representative for District 2, including Greenbelt, whose district would benefit from the planned new building for Springhill Lake Elementary.
Some have expressed concern that this vote shows outside influence on board members, including from labor unions and Prince George’s County Council.
Unions and Parents Comment
During the public comment period, several representatives of unions spoke about the need for a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the building of the new schools. Meanwhile, parents pleaded for the pending new schools to be built as planned. One parent, Timothy Meyer, said, “Phase Two delivers new schools for districts one, two, three, four, five and nine. These big wins are right in front of you, ready to go,” and asked them not to play “amendment games.” “I do not want this board to go back to its past,” he said, referencing the acrimony, lawsuits and ethics investigations of recent years. “We’ve been there, with endless fights over who got money from whom and which union got which contract.”
Steve St. Clair of the Local 197 Carpenter’s Union testified that PLAs are “investments in the community like these schools are,” and other union members, including a bus driver, a construction worker, a carpenter and more spoke of the importance of a PLA for union labor.
What the public comments were speaking to was an amendment that came from the floor when the agenda reached the approval to proceed to commercial and financial closing for Phase Two. Newly appointed board member Jocelyn Route proposed that the board amend the approval to include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a union, which had been emailed to board members from the union Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA) the prior Friday.
The MOU was not on the agenda and was not shared in Board Docs where meeting documents are placed, which meant its consideration would likely violate public meeting laws. It also incensed some board members.
Associate Superintendent Jason Washington said, “We’ve never seen the MOU. It was never sent to us.” Washington said they have committed to “robust union participation” in Phase Two and require the developer, PGCEC, to engage in good faith with unions and had already set up those meetings.
County Council Pressure
Route (at-large, appointed), who made the motion to add the MOU, argued that it was unprofessional of board members not to have read the emails that are sent to them. “Chair [of Prince George’s County Council] Tom Dernoga requests Superintendent House that you give him a call,” she announced. “He stated that you have not called him back.”
“My councilmember, Tom Dernoga, reached out to me as well,” said Board Member David Murray (District 1). “I’m looking at the email where he made clear that the county council is not taking [up] the P3 without this PLA agreement … It’s not going to be on the agenda without the PLA.” Murray said he was in strong support, arguing the P3 could not go through without the PLA and not approving it would hold up the new schools.
Community Values
Briggs stressed that the board also had to consider workers who are parents and family members of students and create contracts that reflect community values. He was in favor of delaying the vote.
Council Influence
Board Vice Chair Lolita Walker (District 9) objected to the county council’s reported stance: “What we do hear at a public meeting for the first time … is that our council people have said that they’re saying no to a project that is imperative to our schools.” She expressed concern “that our council is what’s driving the decisions that we’re making tonight … It’s not an action that we decided to take. Nor is it on our agenda.”
Board member Walter Fields (at-large, appointed) argued, “Our children deserve the best schools possible and they deserve them now. I’m really irate that I can hear a member of our county council make a threat, because we are an independent governing body.” The “whole process reeks of politics and nothing else.” “Build these damn schools!”
Urgency
“Our kids can’t wait … Our buildings are crumbling. We have children in swing space. We risk this entire timeline if we delay this,” argued Board Member Pamela Boozer-Strother (District 3). She said the board had made it clear they expected their partner to make a PLA and work out details because developers would know the impact of finances.
Call to Delay
Shayla Adams-Stafford (District 4) called to delay the vote. Judy Mickens-Murray (at-large, appointed) said she’d support a week’s postponement to allow the administration to receive the MOU and come back with a recommendation. Adams-Stafford objected to asking the superintendent and administration for a recommendation, asking only for a delay. Murray stepped in to “add some clarity to my colleague,” stating they believed they’d have the votes to pass the MOU in a week when missing colleagues could attend and vote.
Outcome
The vote to postpone ultimately failed as did the motion to amend the approval to proceed to commercial and financial closing for Phase Two to include the MOU, with five in favor, six opposed and two abstentions. A motion to approve the Phase Two items as they were on the agenda also failed to garner majority support with six for, four against and two abstentions. There were cheers from the crowd of union representatives in the audience as the vote tally was summarized.
Campaign Funding Ties
Four board members voted to pass the funding that evening with the inclusion of the MOU: Adams-Stafford, Mickens-Murray (appointed), Murray and Route (appointed). Of the two elected members in favor (Adams-Stafford and Murray), LiUNA was a direct donor of $6,000 to both campaigns (the maximum allowed). Those who voted against approving the Phase Two funding (without an amendment) were again Murray, Route but also Jackson and Briggs. Briggs received $500 from LiUNA to his campaign.
Other donors to these board members include Progressive Maryland or its variously named PACs, which themselves receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from different unions, including the LiUNA/Baltimore Washington Construction and Public Employees Laborers PAC. For example, in March 2022, Progressive Maryland’s Liberation Alliance PAC received $50,000 directly from the Baltimore Washington Construction and Public Laborers PAC (the PAC of an affiliate of LiUNA) and a further $35,000 two months later. Progressive Maryland also has a New Era Slate entity, whose finances show a $15,000 contribution from Citizens for Tom Dernoga in 2022. Though Progressive Maryland didn’t donate directly to Adams-Stafford’s campaign, she is the spouse of its CEO. She did receive $1,000 from Dernoga.
Understanding where considerable financial injections into campaigns come from is difficult, particularly when it comes from a PAC itself receiving money from other PACs and entities. Some of these donations are filed as out-of-state-non-federal committee, federal committee, or PAC Committee or Business Group rather than the category of labor union. Some donations come from entities that are unclear, like the Political Action Together Political Committee, which is a PAC that shares an address with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. Individuals and entities also donate in multiple ways, as individuals and as businesses they own, and Progressive Maryland paid $21,419.92 for campaign mailings for Briggs, for example, which doesn’t appear as a campaign donation in the same way as the maximum allowable $6,000 they donated directly (it doesn’t appear as a campaign contribution but in a Political Disclosure Report Summary for the PAC).
Briggs
The Greenbelt News Review asked Briggs, who represents Greenbelt, whether there was unusual pressure on the board from the county council to get a particular MOU with a specific union through at the board level. Briggs said he couldn’t speak to anyone’s intentions but agreed it was “unusual.” We raised the unusual nature of a union emailing board members directly with their MOU and asked Briggs if he thought it was problematic for those board members who receive sometimes large donations from LiUNA or the Baltimore Washington Construction and Public Employees Laborers PAC to then vote on an MOU with this particular union. “I definitely personally think that we should recuse ourselves,” said Briggs. “If we’re going to receive a donation from a union, particularly one that is involved in this process then, yeah, absolutely I don’t think that’s something in any reasonable sense makes sense … It is a conflict of interest. I received a small amount from LiUNA and of course did receive quite a significant amount from Progressive Maryland, to your point with them receiving money.” The connection didn’t occur to him until after last week’s meeting, said Briggs. He said his priority is making sure the process is fair and equitable and that workers are being treated fairly. He’s also visited Springhill Lake Elementary School and says there’s a significant need for the new school, though he wants to balance that need with ensuring fair treatment for workers.
The board is expected to vote again on funding for the Phase Two schools at a special board meeting the evening of Thursday, September 28.