Report: Board member was 'disrespectful, scolding' in talk with school superintendent

School Board member Sarah James berated School Superintendent Diane Gullett in a recent conversation, saying the superintendent is on her "sh-- list" because of the district's handling of a construction management contract, according to an outside investigative report.

An attorney from the GrayRobinson law firm, Julie M. Zolty, was retained by the school district to determine whether there were improprieties with the selection committee that interviewed and scored companies that wished to provide construction management services for the high school that will be built in Marion Oaks.

Zolty's report includes a description of the conversation between James and Gullett, during which James expressed dissatisfaction with the district's handling of the procurement process. Witnesses to the conversation said James was "disrespectful, scolding, and at times, threatening towards Superintendent Gullett," the report says. Those witnesses described being "uncomfortable just hearing the conversation."

In addition to finding fault with James' behavior, the investigator also accuses a local construction company, Ausley Construction, of engaging or trying to engage in improper and even threatening communications with school officials during the selection process. Ausley Construction has vehemently denied those accusations.

The investigator found no wrongdoing on the school district's part.

A new high school in Marion Oaks

The new high school, which will accommodate 3,500 students, is scheduled to open in fall 2026 and cost approximately $120 million.

On April 23, a seven-member selection committee interviewed and scored three finalists that were vying for the construction management contract. Wharton-Smith scored highest, according to the report. James was one of the committee members.

At issue is what happened after the committee meeting.

Concerns about the scoring process

According to the report, on April 24 the three finalists were notified of the results by telephone. In separate conversations with a school district employee and another committee member, James expressed concern about the scoring process.

On April 30, James met with Gullett; Barbara Dobbins, the district's senior executive director of operations; and committee member Harvey Vandeven to discuss what happened after the selection committee members finished their work on April 23.

James "expressed concerns about the 'perception' that the three members of the Facilities department were the last ones in the rooms with the scores and that the perception could be that the scores could have been altered to favor Wharton-Smith," the report says.

Dobbins denied any wrongdoing and said the selection process, which is the same one that has been used in previous cases, was proper and in fact had been praised by the school board. Vandeven said he saw no problems with the process, either.

"James also expressed that she did not believe that anyone did anything unethical or altered the scores in any way but that because of this perception, the process had gaps and should be redone," the report says.

Gullett, pursuant to legal advice, emailed the three construction firms on May 1 to inform them that the interview process would be redone. The new interviews were scheduled for May 6 and the evaluation criteria would remain the same.

'Extreme discontent'

On May 3, after learning of the new schedule and unchanged scoring process, James "reached out to Superintendent Gullett to share her 'extreme discontent' with the interview process and the way the process was being handled," the report says. "According to witnesses, the conversation was loud and contentious."

The report continues: "During this conversation, witnesses reported hearing Dr. James tell Superintendent Gullett (her subordinate), that Superintendent Gullett was on Dr. James’ 'sh-- list' and that Dr. James was prepared to 'bring down this house of cards.' Witnesses reported that Dr. James was disrespectful, scolding, and at times, threatening towards Superintendent Gullett."

Later that day, according to the report, Gullett met with James, staff attorney Daniel Blackman and School Board Attorney Jeremy Powers and decided to halt the interview process. The three finalists were notified. The process still remains on hold.

On May 6, Gullett sent School Board Chairwoman Nancy Thrower an email summarizing her conversation with James and recommending an outside investigation of the procurement process. That is how the GrayRobinson firm and attorney Zolty became involved.

In the email, Gullett also "also expressed her concerns from the harassment and threats that she and her staff have been subject to during this process," the report says.

'I find no grand conspiracy here'

The investigator found no fault with the selection committee's work. "I find no grand conspiracy here," Zolty wrote. "Nor do I find any intentional wrongdoing by any committee member during the investigation."

However, James' May 3 conversation with Gullett was "an inappropriate influence to the process," the report says.

Ditto for the multiple times that Ausley officials reached out to school district officials to inquire, directly or indirectly, about the status of the selection process during a time when a "cone of silence" was required to ensure the integrity of the procurement process.

Ausley Construction CEO Ken Ausley vehemently pushed back against that allegation.

"At no point did anyone from Ausley Construction threaten school system employees or attempt to influence the process in a manner that would have resulted in the project being awarded to Ausley Construction," he wrote in a May 31 email addressed to Gullett and the school board members. "That's preposterous. And anyone who knows us, and our firm knows this is simply not true. Rather, we objected to the fact that the school system was using criteria which were not included in the bid documents and that were applied in a manner that penalizes experienced firms and local bidders."

The report lists several times when company officials directly or indirectly mentioned the selection process to school officials. In one case, according to the report, an Ausley official called School Board Chair Thrower's husband on the phone and suggested that Nancy Thrower's political fortunes could be hurt because of the selection process.

In a response to that allegation, the Ausley official said in a statement to the Star Banner: "The Throwers have been friends of mine for years. I've coached their kids and been to family functions. I would never threaten them. It's ridiculous. I mean, Nancy made a beeline to me at the school board meeting last week, gave me a big hug and thanked me for all the great things we do for the district? It's confusing and disheartening."

Suggested changes in the process of awarding contracts

The investigator recommends changes in the school district's contract awarding process. Among them: interviews with bidders should be recorded; the selection committee should have a moderator who's a non-voting member; before the interview process, the award committee should receive clear instructions on the "cone of silence" that prohibits certain communications during the procurement process.

In addition, committee members should be advised on when and how to score the rubric and should be required to stay in the room until all scores are collected. Also, the scores should be calculated and announced with all committee members present.

The investigator's report concludes, in part: "I make no findings on the interview scoring rubric, the local preference evaluation, the equitable distribution points, or the legalities of the procurement process. These are outside the scope of my investigation. I simply recommend that the construction firms be provided the proper process for evaluation and seek to ensure the integrity of the existing process as it currently stands."

'A thinly veiled hit piece'

In his email to the superintendent and school board members, Ken Ausley said the report's failure to address the procurement system itself is unfortunate. He said the system is flawed, biased against local firms, and needs to change.

He also said that his firm is no longer even seeking the high school contract. However, the firm will compete for future work, and his complaints and suggestions are designed to help everyone going forward.

Ausley's specific complaint is that the school district's scoring criteria "penalizes firms that have successfully done work for the School Board, including local firms like Ausley Construction."

Ausley said that after the most qualified firm for a job is determined, additional points are given to firms that have not done work for the school system: two points for every firm that has done less than $10 million of work and 1 point for a firm that has done less than $15 million of work.

"This method of scoring, which I will call the 'experience penalty,' penalizes experienced firms that have done a good job for the school system, and rewards out of town firms with whom the school system has had no prior experience," Ausley wrote in his email.

"While I understand that Florida law permits criteria that encourages an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, governments are not permitted to violate the principle of selecting the most highly qualified firm," Ausley wrote.

Ausley said his firm was "unaware of the experience penalty until we saw the scoring sheet on this project." He said the company has since learned that the scoring system was implemented in 2023 and that it was "not set forth in any pre-bid documents."

In a statement to the Star Banner, Ausley said the report is "disturbing and obviously written not to address the issues within the facilities department but as a thinly veiled hit piece against those who are trying to point out real deficiencies in the process and procedures."

James gives Gullett low scores on her annual evaluation

According to the report, James scored Gullett lower this year than she did last year in the annual evaluation process. James' total average score for Gullett was 3.1 in 2022-23 and dropped to 2.29 for 2023-24. Meanwhile, the four other board members' scores for Gullett "either improved or remained the same."

When evaluating Gullett's professionalism, James' average score in 2022-23 was 3.5. She said the superintendent "models respectful behavior to all employees" and "works to foster a health environment with all board members."

For 2023-24, Gullett received a 1 from James. The board member said Gullett "fails to model professional, ethical, and respectful behavior," pointing to the superintendent's failure "to maintain positive relationships with at least one school board member."

At the May 28 school board meeting, James explained her evaluation. She noted that the county is still in the bottom third of the state for student achievement. She said the fiscal year hasn't concluded and already 544 people have resigned, there are more than 360 vacancies on the job boards, and two principals have stepped down to work in non-instructional capacities.

James said the ceilings leak on rainy days at some schools and some of the buildings are in poor condition. James said the board's lawyer is not supposed to be serving as Gullett's special legal counsel against a board member.

Gullett spoke after James at that same board meeting. She said when she took the job, she knew it would be hard work and education comes first. She said she's proud of the work she has done and gave examples of some of her accomplishments. They include getting impact fees back in play to support new schools and expanding programs for students.

The superintendent said while they're doing good things, there's more work to be done and she is looking forward to working with board members.

Contact Austin L. Miller at austin.miller@starbanner.com

This article originally appeared on Ocala Star-Banner: Report shines light on contentious school contract drama in Ocala Florida