‘1

F I

May 12, 2011

Mark Page
Director
NYC Office of Management and Budget
75 Park Place, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10007

Dennis M. Walcott
Chancellor
NYC Department of Education
52 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Mr. Page and Chancellor Walcott:

Last week during the briefing on the Mayor’s Executive Budget. I asked the Budget Director
to provide additional detail on the Department of Education’s (DOE) spending on outside
consultants. At that time he was unable to provide an adequate response. This came against
the backdrop of the Mayor’s plan to lay off more than 6,000 teachers, which will have
devastating impacts on the New York City public school system, and compound the
problems of worsening class size and capacity.

To get the requested information, I have conducted a preliminary analysis of the Mayor’s
FY 2012 Executive Budget, released on May 4 th
I was appalled to learn that the DOE is, in
fact, increasing spending on outside consultants, with total spending approaching $1 billion
dollars. Given the nature of the crisis at hand, the lack of transparency from City officials
around the DOE budget is extremely troubling. I find it impossible to believe that the $350
million needed to avert teachers layoffs cannot be found somewhere within the DOE’s total
spending plan of $19.2 billion. However, given that the budget documents published by the
City are so imprecise and lacking in detail, and because of the inadequate responses of
budget officials to queries on this topic, it is difficult at best for the public to evaluate how
taxpayer dollars are being spent.

My preliminary analysis of Executive Budget documents indicates that there is a planned

increase of $54.4 million dedicated to outside contractors. These line items referred to as
—
“professional services” raise the total amount of DOE spending on external consultants to
—

$982,269,859. This is nearly a 6 percent increase from FY 2011 levels. As the City comes
perilously close to spending $1 billion on outside consultants for professional services and —

faces the prospect of crippling teacher layoffs it is imperative that the public receive a
—

detailed breakdown of where this money is going. Parents deserve to know why the City is
drastically cutting more than 6,000 front-line teachers or one out of every 12 classroom
—

teachers within our system at the same time that it is ramping up spending on outside
—

contractors.

With that in mind, I am again requesting that you provide a detailed breakdown of the
DOE’s spending on external consultants in object codes for professional services including
but not limited to 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686 and 689. This description should include the
amount, name, scope, and start and end dates of every contract. Also, please provide a list
of all DOE contracts that were not competitively bid and the agency’s reason for bypassing
normal bid requirements. In particular, I will appreciate your providing specific information
about the following items:

1. Central administration computer services

a. Please detail how much of the $23,332,000 increase in central administration
computer services spending between FY 2011 and FY 2012 will be allocated
to system development projects.
b. What exactly are these projects?
c. How much of this increase is going towards Information Technology (IT)
support?

2. Pupil transportation General Education buses

—

a. Please provide a list of all DOE bus contracts that have not been
competitively bid and received a waiver from the Panel for Educational
Policy (PEP).

3. Recruitment
a. Please explain why the DOE is spending $12.7 million on recruitment —

including an increase of $951,526 in FY 12 at a time when some 6,000

—

teaching positions are being eliminated.

In light of our collective desire to ensure that DOE budget cuts have the least impact on day-
to-day learning in our classrooms, this information must be made available to the public.

I look forward to your response.

SinQIy,

Ii

Sc5tt I. Stringéf
Manhattan Borough President