February 16, 2005

Mr. Cecil J. Picard

State Superintendent of Education

Louisiana Department of Education

P.O. Box 94064

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064

Dear Mr. Picard:

### This **Final Audit Report** (ED-OIG/A06-E0008) presents the results of our audit of the Title I Funds administered by the Orleans Parish School Board for the period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2003. Our objective was to determine whether the Orleans Parish School Board (Orleans Parish), through the New Orleans Public Schools, properly accounted for and used Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended[^1] (ESEA), Title I, Part A (Title I), funds in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

We provided a draft of this report to the Louisiana Department of
Education. (LDE). In its response to our draft report, LDE officials
agreed with our findings No. 1 and No. 3 and concurred with a portion of
finding No. 2. LDE officials provided additional support, not previously
provided during the audit, and we reduced the amount of unsupported
costs to \$51,884,155. We summarized LDE's comments in the body of this
report and included a copy of the response as an Attachment.

The Title I program is authorized under the ESEA, as amended by the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Public Law 103-382 and the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110. Title I grants are
intended to help elementary and secondary schools establish and maintain
programs that will improve the educational opportunities of
educationally disadvantaged children who live in school attendance areas
with high concentrations of children from low-income families. The funds
are intended to provide instruction and instructional support for these
disadvantaged children so they can master challenging curricula and meet
State standards in core academic subjects.

Title I funds are distributed from the Department of Education to States
based primarily on poverty data provided for the local education
agencies by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Louisiana Department of
Education (LDE) disburses Title I funds to the local education agencies
based on their request for reimbursement of Title I expenditures.

Our audit period covered July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2003. In
fiscal year 2003, the Department of Education allocated \$256 million in
Title I funds to Louisiana. During our audit period, Orleans Parish
requested reimbursement for \$71.8 million it disbursed for Title I
expenses. The amounts disbursed, by program year, were---

> 7/1/01---06/30/02 \$29,856,669
>
> 7/1/02---06/30/03 \$31,945,798
>
> 7/1/03---12/31/03 \$[10,021,838]{.underline}
>
> Total \$71,824,305

Orleans Parish did not properly account for and use nearly \$69.3
million of Title I funds in accordance with applicable regulations.
Specifically, Orleans Parish received reimbursement from Title I funds
for \$51,884,155 in unsupported expenditures for payroll (\$39,880,892),
fringe benefits (\$9,219,059), contract services (\$62,130), travel
(\$35,397), supplies (\$233,878), and equipment (\$2,452,799). Also, we
are questioning an additional \$17,407,118 in Title I expenditures due
to a scope limitation (see finding No. 3). Orleans Parish did properly
account for and use \$2,533,031 in Title I grant funds.

#### 

#### FINDING NO. 1 -- Payroll and Fringe Benefits Expenditures Were Not

####  Adequately Documented

Orleans Parish was unable to provide adequate documentation to support
the \$49.1 million in payroll and related fringe benefits claimed for
reimbursement from Title I funds.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, *Cost Principles
for State,* *Local,* *and Indian Tribal Governments,* *Attachment A,
Paragraph C.1* (1997) provides, in part, that ---

> To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must . . . Be necessary
> and reasonable for proper and efficient performance and administration
> of Federal awards . . . Be allocable to Federal awards . . . Be
> adequately documented.

Additionally, OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, Paragraph 11.h.3 (1997)
provides that---

> Where employees are expected to work solely on a single Federal award
> or cost objective, charges for their salaries and wages will be
> supported by periodic certifications that the employees worked solely
> on that program for the period covered by the certification. These
> certifications will be prepared at least semi-annually and will be
> signed by the employee or supervisory official having first hand
> knowledge of the work performed by the employee.

We requested a listing of Orleans Parish employees assigned to work on
Title I in order to select a sample of payroll costs for verification
and compliance with OMB cost principles. We were not provided with an
accurate or complete listing of Title I employees that matched the Title
I payroll amounts in the reimbursement claims or the project completion
reports. We initially requested the listing from the accountant who
prepared the Title I claims for reimbursement. She directed us to the
Information Technology Department, and we requested and obtained a
listing. Although the list provided to us by the Information Technology
Department contained names, we were unable to reconcile the salary
amounts listed with the Title I reimbursement claims. Subsequently, the
Consolidated (Title I) Program Director provided us with a list of names
with no salary amounts. Because this second listing did not have any
salary data, we could not verify or test this data against the amounts
in the reimbursement claims. We also requested but never received a
listing of Title I employees from the Human Resources Department.

During our audit fieldwork, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of
the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2003*,* was released. The certified public accounting firm
disclaimed an opinion on the OPSB 2002-2003 financial statements,
stating they could not certify the accuracy of the statements.
Furthermore, the accounting firm disclaimed an opinion on Federal awards
based on the significance of uncertainties and inability to rely on the
basic accounting systems. The audit report contained 29 findings in
which 23 had reportable conditions involving matters related to
"significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting
that . . . could adversely affect the School Board's ability to
administer a major federal program in accordance with the applicable
laws, regulations, contracts, and grants." The auditors concluded in the
last finding on Federal programs that, "There appears to be a serious
deficiency in the controls over coding of salaries and benefits to the
program."

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education instruct the Louisiana Department of Education to---

1.  Provide sufficient documentation to support expenditures for payroll
    (\$39,880,892) and fringe benefits (\$9,219,059) or refund that
    amount to the Department of Education.

2.  Require Orleans Parish to develop or improve its documentation,
    records storage, and records retention and retrieval procedures to
    ensure that adequate documentation of costs charged to Title I and
    other Federal grants is readily available.

3.  Require Orleans Parish to establish a formal system of management
    controls to ensure costs charged to Title I and other Federal grants
    are properly accounted for and used in accordance with applicable
    laws and regulations.

LDE concurred with our finding and recommendations. LDE stated in its
response, "LDE appreciates the seriousness of the issues raised in the
draft audit report and acknowledges the material weaknesses in OPSB's
current grants management system."

LDE further stated that the Orleans Parish staff have been working with
an expert consultant to identify the employees paid with Title I funds
and to obtain the necessary certifications, time distribution records,
or alternative documentation to justify charges to Title I.

#### FINDING NO. 2 \-- Non-Payroll Related Expenditures Were Not Documented

As part of our audit, we judgmentally selected 97 disbursements of the
largest transactions from non-duplicated vendors totaling \$5,317,235
for testing from four expenditure categories\--contract services,
travel, supplies, and equipment. Orleans Parish could not provide
adequate documentation to support 24 of the transactions totaling
\$2,784,204. Orleans Parish provided adequate documentation for the
other 73 transactions and we accepted the associated costs of
\$2,533,031.

OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, Paragraph C.1 (1997) provides, in part,
that ---

> To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must . . . Be necessary
> and reasonable for proper and efficient performance and administration
> of Federal awards . . . Be allocable to Federal awards . . . Be
> adequately documented.

**Contract Services** **-** Orleans Parish was unable to provide
adequate documentation to support five disbursements totaling \$62,130.
Specifically, they could not locate any documentation to support one
disbursement of \$13,000, approval documents for three disbursements
totaling \$36,130, and a Purchase Order or a Receiving Report for one
disbursement of \$13,000. Adequate documentation was provided for 20
disbursements totaling \$571,381.

**Travel Costs -** Orleans Parish was unable to provide adequate
documentation to support four disbursements totaling \$35,397.
Specifically, they could not locate approval documents or receipts for
two charges totaling \$25,832. For two additional charges, Orleans was
unable to provide any documentation to support charges totaling \$9,565.
Adequate documentation was provided for the other 21 charges totaling
\$294,303.

**Supplies --** Orleans Parish was unable to provide adequate
documentation to support five disbursements totaling \$233,878. Orleans
Parish was unable to provide documentation supporting that the charges
were Title I eligible or that the purchased products were received or
properly approved. Orleans Parish plans to provide adequate
documentation at a later date to the Department for evaluation. Orleans
Parish did provide adequate documentation for 20 disbursements totaling
\$1,275,966.

**Equipment -** Orleans Parish was unable to provide adequate
documentation to support 10 disbursements totaling \$2,452,799.
Specifically, one equipment charge was for the first of three annual
lease payments of \$2,322,500 per year. The lease was for 39 mathematics
workstations (inclusive of computer software, computer hardware,
computer furniture, and interconnecting wiring).

This lease was awarded without undergoing competitive bidding/purchase
procedures. Orleans Parish was unable to justify either the decision to
not use competitive bidding/purchase procedures or the decision that a
three-year lease was more cost effective than a purchase of the system.

Under the Louisiana State Purchasing Rules and Regulations, purchases
over \$25,000 shall be advertised as competitive sealed bid. The rules
and regulations also state that if the chief procurement officer
determines in writing that there is only one source, then a contract may
be awarded without competition, but this determination requires an
explanation as to why no other source was suitable or acceptable.

> Sections of OMB Circular A-87, provide, in part, that ---
>
> Attachment B, Paragraph 19 equipment and other capital expenditures
> are personal property with a useful life of more than one year and a
> value of \$5,000 or more. It also explains that Capital expenditures
> may be recovered through use allowance.
>
> Attachment B, Paragraph 38.d, "Rental costs under leases which are
> required to be treated as capital leases under GAAP are allowable only
> up to the amount that would be allowed had the governmental unit
> purchased the property on the date the lease agreement was executed.
> This amount would include expenses such as depreciation or use
> allowance . . . ."
>
> Attachment A, Paragraph C.1.a, "To be allowable under Federal awards,
> costs must . . . Be necessary and reasonable . . . ." Attachment A,
> Paragraph C.2 addresses reasonable costs and provides that, "A cost is
> reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which
> would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances
> prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost."

Orleans Parish was unable to locate approval documentation for four
equipment charges totaling \$88,558, nor was there any indication on the
purchase orders that the equipment was to be used for Title I purposes.
We could not determine the Title I need for two additional disbursements
totaling \$20,747, and Orleans Parish could not provide purchase orders
or receiving reports for these disbursements. We also found two
additional disbursements of \$13,747 for which no receiving reports were
provided, and one claimed disbursement of \$7,247 was found to be a
duplicate entry for which no documentation was provided. Orleans Parish
provided adequate documentation for 12 of the 22 disbursements totaling
\$391,381.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education instruct the Louisiana Department of Education to---

1.  Provide sufficient documentation to support expenditures for
    non-payroll transactions (\$2,784,204) or refund that amount to the
    Department of Education.

2.  Provide justification for sole source procurement or not allow
    future lease payments of \$4,645,000 for mathematics workstations.

LDE agreed with all aspects of our finding, except they disagreed with
our conclusions on the \$2.3 annual equipment lease payment. Regarding
Recommendation 2.1, LDE noted that Orleans Parish, ". . . has located
some documentation to support the questioned charges. Those documents
are attached as exhibits to this response. We request the opportunity to
submit additional documents and further request the OIG review this
documentation...."

LDE did not concur with Recommendation 2.2. Of the 33 procurement
transactions that we questioned in the draft report, LDE agreed with one
of our conclusions and agreed to refund \$7,247 to the Department.

LDE stated that Orleans Parish disagreed with our conclusion that
adequate documentation was not available to support an equipment charge
for the first of three annual lease payments of \$2,322,500 per year.
LDE argued that the contract did not consist of three annual lease
payments, but was an installment contract to pay the purchase price over
three years. LDE acknowledged that the Orleans Parish School Board's
resolution approving the contract did not use clear terminology. The
contractor originally offered to sell the software for a one-time
payment of \$2.3 million or to enter into a lease-purchase agreement for
\$2.5 million. Under the lease-purchase option, Orleans Parish would
make installment payments over three years but at the end would own the
software. Orleans Parish was able to negotiate a three-year agreement
for \$2.3 million.

LDE stated that the purchase was exclusively for software. It did not
include any hardware, computers, furniture, or wiring. "All such
equipment was funded through a direct appropriation from the federal
government to the vendor, not with Title I funds."

LDE stated that the software that was purchased with Title I funds was
proprietary software, available only from one source. The vendor holds a
copyright to the software and is the only vendor who sells it. Attached
to the LDE response was an Orleans Parish Purchasing Department Sole
Source Justification form approving the purchase.

Lastly, LDE stated the Orleans Parish School Board conducted an
appropriate price analysis before entering into a contract and
determined an installment contract was more advantageous than a lump sum
payment. The school board also determined the software was
advantageously priced as compared to other government sales by the same
vendor.

We reviewed LDE's response and while we have not changed our finding, we
did accept additional supporting documentation resulting in
modifications to our recommendations. Additionally, we asked LDE to
submit any additional supporting documentation obtained from Orleans
Parish to the Department of Education official responsible for audit
resolution and to provide copies to our office. We will assist the
Department in reviewing the supporting documentation when all
documentation available has been provided.

We disagree with LDE's assertion that Orleans Parish used Title I funds
to purchase software exclusively. We obtained and reviewed Municipal
Lease Agreement No. 3085, which was dated August 20, 2003, and signed by
the vendor and the Orleans Parish School Board. The lease agreement
called for the vendor to provide an education learning system to 39
classrooms. The system included the computers, other hardware,
furniture, software, and hardware and software maintenance for 1,170
workstations. Additionally, the vendor agreed to provide staff
development for the teachers and administrators and to "provide the
infrastructure to support this educational learning system, inclusive of
electrical wiring, computer wiring, computer furniture, computer
hardware, and peripherals." Additionally, the Orleans Parish Purchase
Order referred to the initial payment of \$2,332,500 as, "First Payment
of three payments for thirty-nine (39) ... classroom leases."

[]{.mark}

We disagree that Orleans Parish followed procedures and adequately
justified the sole-source procurement required by 34 C.F.R. §§
80.36(b)(9) and (c)(3) which state---

> Grantees and subgrantees will maintain records sufficient to detail
> the significant history of a procurement. These records will include,
> but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the
> method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor
> selection or rejection and the basis for the contract price. . . .
> Grantees will have written selection procedures for procurement
> transactions.

Additionally, 34 C.F.R. §§ 80.36(c)(4) states---

> Grantees and subgrantees will ensure that all prequalified lists of
> persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and
> services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure
> maximum open and free competition. Also, grantees and subgrantees will
> not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation
> period.

The Sole Source Justification Form, provided to us by Orleans Parish's
Purchasing Department and dated November 25, 2003, did not provide the
rationale for using the vendor selected. After we asked Orleans Parish
for the written details, the vendor sent a letter dated April 24, 2003,
stating, "JRL Enterprises is the sole manufacturer and distributor of I
CAN Learn© Education Systems." While the one-page letter stated that JRL
Enterprises was the sole source, Orleans Parish never provided us with
documentation drafted at the time the sole source occurred justifying
the procurement method used or the basis for the contract price.

[]{.mark}

Furthermore, the Orleans Parish's chief procurement officer did not sign
the sole-source justification provided by LDE nor did it contain a
written determination and justification by the procurement officer to
use sole source. The Orleans Parish Director of Compliance did not
approve the sole source justification, as is required by school policy,
and he refused to approve the purchase requisition. Additionally, the
Director of Purchasing stated in a letter to the Director of Compliance
that, "This contract was negotiated without any Purchasing involvement
and resulted in unusual terms and conditions outside normal Orleans
Parish School Board Operating Policies."

Orleans Parish was unable to demonstrate that it conducted the
procurement transaction in a manner providing full and open competition.
Therefore, we have not changed our recommendations.

**FINDING NO. 3 \-- Questioned** **Expenditures Due to Audit Scope
Limitation**

Other costs totaling \$17,407,118 were charged to Title I during our
audit period. We question these costs due to an audit scope limitation
and the possibility of significant unsupported costs based on the high
incidence of unsupported costs in the amounts we did audit.

At the completion of our audit fieldwork we requested a management
representation letter from Orleans Parish officials. The *Government
Auditing Standards*, paragraph 7.54, suggests that auditors obtain a
written representation letter in order to confirm representations and to
reduce the possibility of misunderstandings.

In his representation letter to us, the Orleans Parish Superintendent
made the following statements:

> "....In that connection, we confirm that to the best of our knowledge
> and belief:

-   There may exist irregularities involving management or employees who
    have or had a significant role in New Orleans' compliance with the
    Department's requirements contained in the Elementary and Secondary
    Educational Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended, Title I.

-   There may be irregularities involving any persons, outside
    consultants for example, that could have a material influence on the
    compliance with the requirements contained in the ESEA of 1965, as
    amended, Title I.

-   There are material transactions that may have not been properly
    recorded in the accounting records related to compliance with the
    Department's requirements contained in the ESEA of 1965, as amended,
    Title I.

-   We have furnished all documents and reports requested during the
    course of the audit but they may not be accurate nor complete.

-   We have complied or disclosed any noncompliance with all laws and
    regulations pertaining to the ESEA of 1965, as amended, Title I.

-   The computer-processed data and related records provided to your
    staff fairly present the administration of our computer system for
    July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003. However, the data and
    related records may not be reliable when used for their intended
    purposes."

The Orleans Parish Superintendent also informed us that because he had
recently implemented a task force to target corruption within the school
system, he could not possibly assure us that all Orleans Parish records
were accurate or that the unaudited \$17,407,118 in costs claimed were
reasonable, allowable, and allocable.

We believe several factors contributed to the cause of these serious
deficiencies including a lack of adequate controls in Orleans Parish's
accounting system. During our audit, we learned that over 50 employees
had open-system access to the Oracle Computer System. Open-system access
allows individual employees to change financial and operational data
outside of their functional department (Human Resources, Payroll,
Payables, and Finance).

We also learned that basic security features to track changes in the
Oracle system were either not set up properly or were overridden. As a
result, Orleans Parish has never made use of the auditing feature in its
Oracle software, which would be useful to determine who performed
specific actions or to detect any malicious or unauthorized activities.

Additionally, the 2002-2003 Single Audit described significant
deficiencies and the auditors disclaimed an opinion on Federal awards
based on the significance of uncertainties and inability to rely on the
basic accounting systems.

An audit scope limitation was encountered when the Superintendent could
not assure us that records provided were reliable, the payroll computer
system was accessible to over 50 employees, payroll records were not
provided to us, lists of Title I employees were not provided to us, many
expenditures sampled were not properly documented or were unlocatable,
and the Single Audit auditor disclaimed an opinion on Federal awards due
to significant deficiencies and the inability to rely on the accounting
system.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education instruct the Louisiana Department of Education to---

1.  Provide sufficient documentation to support \$17,407,118 or refund
    that amount to the Department of Education.

2.  Require Orleans Parish to establish adequate controls in its
    accounting system to ensure costs charged to Title I and other
    Federal grants are properly accounted for and used in accordance
    with applicable laws and regulations.

LDE concurred with our finding and recommendations. LDE stated in its
response that Orleans Parish takes this finding very seriously, as it
highlights significant problems that contributed to Findings 1 and 2.
LDE stated Orleans Parish would continue to investigate the finding and
to the best of its ability, develop a list of specific Title I charges
for the school's internal audit staff to review for allowability under
Title I regulations. LDE stated that it would then work closely with the
Department of Education to resolve any remaining claims for unallowable
expenditures.

On May 25, 2004, we issued Interim Audit Memorandum State and Local No.
04-03 to the Department\'s Chief Financial Officer and the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. In the
Memorandum we advised the Department of Education (Department) of the
need to designate Orleans Parish as a high-risk grantee and to impose
special conditions on all current and future awards to Orleans Parish.
We also recommended that the Department advise the LDE to consider
placing special conditions on grants it makes to Orleans Parish that
include Federal funds.

On July 16, 2004, the LDE notified the Department that beginning July 1,
2004, the Orleans Parish School District was considered to be in a "high
risk" status for all Federal grant programs. The LDE cited 34 C.F.R. §
80.12, which states that a subgrantee may be considered high risk if an
awarding agency determines that a subgrantee: "(3) has a management
system which does not meet the management standards set forth in this
part . . . ." The LDE also noted that, "\[a\]ccording to this law, an
acceptable financial management system must provide adequate financial
reporting, recordkeeping, internal controls, budget control, allowable
costs, and cash management."

The LDE required Orleans Parish to meet certain conditions before the
State would allocate Federal funds for fiscal year 2004-2005. These
conditions include requiring Orleans Parish to:

1.  Submit specific documentation to substantiate all expenditures for
    future requests for funds for all Federal programs.

2.  Engage an independent certified public accountant to conduct a
    performance audit in which the efficiency and effectiveness of all
    fiscal operations, including but not limited to payroll, budget,
    contracts, procurement, and grants management, are examined.

3.  Submit a detailed corrective action plan to specifically address all
    findings identified in the performance audit.

4.  Provide a report on the benefits of outsourcing all or a portion of
    the district's fiscal processes and duties, including payroll,
    budget, contracts, and grant management.

5.  Develop a structured system improvement plan containing timetables,
    measurable goals and priorities for, among other things,
    organizational and budgetary changes.

In response, the Orleans Parish Superintendent stated that he understood
the seriousness of the high-risk status and intended to adhere totally
and completely to all conditions, procedures and performances.

The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Orleans Parish,
through the New Orleans Public Schools, properly accounted for and used
Title I, Part A grant funds in accordance with the ESEA of 1965, as
amended, EDGAR, and the cost principles in OMB Circular A-87.

To accomplish our objective, we---

-   Reviewed the financial statements and OMB Circular A-133 audit
    reports for the years ended June 30, 2002 and June 30, 2003;

-   Reviewed Orleans Parish's Title I grant application and budget
    narrative;

-   Reviewed Orleans Parish's Grant Performance Reports;

-   Reviewed Orleans Parish's School Board Minutes for the meetings of
    November 26, 2003 and June 16, 2003;

-   Reviewed written policies and procedures for budgeting, accounting,
    procurement, payroll, and fringe benefits for the Title I grants;

-   Judgmentally selected 97 of the largest transactions from
    non-duplicated vendors and traced them to supporting documentation.
    The reviewed transactions account for \$5,317,235 or 23 percent of
    the total dollars expended to vendors. We reviewed 20 transactions
    for fiscal year 2001-2002, 60 for fiscal year 2002-2003, and 17 for
    part of fiscal year 2003-2004; and

-   Interviewed various Orleans Parish employees and LDE officials.

We were unable to obtain and verify the accuracy, completeness, and
reliability of computer-generated data documenting payroll charges for
employees assigned to work on the Title I grant program. Even though we
made several requests for data from Orleans Parish officials, they were
unable to provide us with a list of Title I employees and the amounts
charged to Title I for each employee. However, to achieve our audit
objective for reviewing non-payroll transactions, we relied, in part, on
computer-processed Title I funds request forms submitted to the LDE by
Orleans Parish. We verified the completeness of the data by comparing
source records to computer-generated request forms, and verified the
authenticity by comparing computer-generated request forms to source
documents.

We conducted our fieldwork at Orleans Parish Public Schools' Central
Office between February 9, 2004, and April 1, 2004. We discussed the
results of our audit with Orleans Parish officials on March 31, 2004. An
exit conference was held with LDE officials on August 31, 2004.

Except as described above and the scope limitation described in Finding
No. 3, our audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards appropriate to the scope of audit
described above.

Our assessment of Orleans Parish's internal control structure was
limited to those areas identified while conducting substantive tests of
costs charged to the Title I grant. Our audit disclosed a significant
lack of internal controls, which adversely affected Orleans Parish's
ability to administer Title I funds. Specifically, we concluded that
Orleans Parish needs to improve its internal controls related to the
maintenance and retention of payroll, personnel, and financial records,
reviews and approval of transactions charged to Title I, and using
competitive bidding practices for significant equipment purchases. Those
weaknesses and their effects are identified in the AUDIT RESULTS section
of this report.

Statements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other
conclusions and recommendations in this report represent the opinions of
the Office of Inspector General. Determinations of corrective action to
be taken will be made by the appropriate Department of Education
officials.

If you have any additional comments or information that you believe may
have a bearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them
directly to the following Education Department official, who will
consider them before taking final Departmental action on the audit:

> Raymond J. Simon
>
> Assistant Secretary
>
> Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
>
> U.S. Department of Education

###### 400 Maryland Avenue, SW

> Washington, DC 20202

It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Education to expedite the
resolution of audits by initiating timely action on the findings and
recommendations contained therein. Therefore, receipt of your comments
within 30 days would be greatly appreciated.

In accordance with Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C §552), reports
issued by the Office of Inspector General are available, if requested,
to members of the press and general public to the extent information
contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.

Sincerely,

/s/

Sherri L. Demmel

Regional Inspector General

for Audit

Attachment

Summary of Unsupported Costs, Other Questioned Costs, and Allowed Costs
of

Title I Funds Administered by Orleans Parish

For the Period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2003

Unsupported Costs

+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Fiscal Year | **2        | **          | **2003-2004 | ## Totals   |
|             | 001-2002** | 2002-2003** | through**   |             |
|             |            |             |             |             |
|             |            |             | **Dec 31,   |             |
|             |            |             | 2003**      |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |            |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Salaries    | \$17,      | \$16        | \$5         | \$39        |
|             | 713,393.64 | ,477,993.49 | ,689,505.34 | ,880,892.47 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Fringe      | \$3,       | \$4         | \$1         | \$9         |
| Benefits    | 320,717.49 | ,529,917.02 | ,368,424.09 | ,219,058.60 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Pa        | **\$21,03  | **\$21,0    | **\$7,0     | **\$49,0    |
| yroll Total | 4,111.13** | 07,910.51** | 57,929.43** | 99,951.07** |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|             |            |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Contract    | \$1,980.00 | \$60,149.63 | \$0.00      | \$62,129.63 |
| Services    |            |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Travel      | \          | \$5,964.79  | \$3,600.00  | \$35,397.11 |
|             | $25,832.32 |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Supplies    | \$0.00     | \           | \$0.00      | \           |
|             |            | $233,878.33 |             | $233,878.33 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Equipment   | \          | \$41,741.16 | \$2         | \$2         |
|             | $88,558.14 |             | ,322,500.00 | ,452,799.30 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Non-pa    | **\$11     | **\$3       | **\$2,3     | **2,7       |
| yroll Total | 6,370.46** | 41,733.91** | 26,100.00** | 84,204.37** |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |            |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Uns       | **\$21,15  | **\$21,3    | **\$9,3     | **[\$51,884 |
| upported Ex | 0,481.59** | 49,644.42** | 84,029.43** | ,155.44]{.u |
| penditures  |            |             |             | nderline}** |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Questioned Costs

+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Othe      | **\$7,96   | **\$8,8     | **\$5       | **[\$17,407 |
| r Questione | 1,842.05** | 58,752.45** | 86,523.79** | ,118.29]{.u |
| d Costs --  |            |             |             | nderline}** |
| Audit Scope |            |             |             |             |
|  Limitation |            |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

# Allowed Costs

+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           | **2        | **          | **2003-2004 | **Totals**  |
| Fiscal Year | 001-2002** | 2002-2003** | through**   |             |
|             |            |             |             |             |
|             |            |             | **Dec 31,   |             |
|             |            |             | 2003**      |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| #           |            |             |             |             |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Contra    | \$         | \           | \$ 7,080.00 | \           |
| ct Services | 197,084.55 | $367,216.10 |             | $571,380.65 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Travel      | \$         | \           | \$12,379.80 | \           |
|             | 96,502.49  | $185,420.99 |             | $294,303.28 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Supplies    | \$         | \           | \$17,224.85 | \$1         |
|             | 418,050.02 | $840,691.61 |             | ,275,966.48 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Equipment   | \$         | \           | \$14,600.00 | \           |
|             | 32,708.00  | $344,072.83 |             | $391,380.83 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| # Allowed   | \$         | \$1         | \$51,284.65 | **[\$2,533  |
| Costs Total | 744,345.06 | ,737,401.53 |             | ,031.24]{.u |
|             |            |             |             | nderline}** |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

*STATE **OF LOUISIANA***![](media/image1.png){width="1.25in"
height="0.7597222222222222in"}

***DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\
POST OFFICE BOX 94064, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9064***

Toll Free #: 1-877-453-2721\
http://www.doe.state.la.us

January 14, 2005

Sherri L. Demmel

Regional Inspector General for Audit U.S. Department of Education

Office of Inspector General

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2630

Dallas, Texas 75201-6817

Dear Ms. Demmel:

On November 17, 2004, the Louisiana Department of Education (LDE)
received Draft Audit Report, ED-OIGIA06-E00008, regarding the Orleans
Parish School Board. The Louisiana Department of Education appreciates
the opportunity to respond to the Office of Inspector General\'s (OIG)
findings outlined in its draft audit report. This response was
originally due thirty days after the date of the letter. On December 18,
2004, the LDE requested an extension to respond to the findings. The OIG
granted the extension and required that this response be submitted no
later than January 14, 2005.

Attached is a copy of the Louisiana Department of Education\'s response
to the findings. If you have questions, please contact Dr. Robin Jarvis,
Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Student and School
Performance, at 225-342-3513 or use the toll-free number listed above.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cec Picard

St. e Superinten nt of Education

> ![](media/image2.png){width="0.6430555555555556in"
> height="0.43333333333333335in"}

Enclosures

c: Marlyn J. Langley Robin Jarvis, Ph.D. Beth Scioneaux

***\"An Equal Opportunity Employer\"***

Submitted to:\
Sherri L. Demmel\
Regional Inspector General for Audit\
U.S. Department of Education\
Office of Inspector General\
1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2630\
Dallas, Texas 75201-6817

The Louisiana of Education (LDE) appreciates the opportunity to respond
to the Office of Inspector General\'s (OIG) findings outlined in its
November 16, 2004, draft audit report about the use of Title I funds
administered by the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB). This response
was originally due thirty days after the date of the letter; however,
OIG granted an extension and required that this response be submitted no
later than January 14, 2005.

LDE is working closely with OPSB to investigate the specific findings
described in the draft report. Additionally, LDE has hired Grover
Austin, an expert consultant with extensive prior audit experience, to
work with Orleans Parish staff to locate and/or reconstruct necessary or
missing documentation. Mr. Austin is a former state legislative auditor
who is familiar with federal fiscal and administrative requirements, as
well as with the Orleans Parish School System. Orleans Parish is
devoting significant staff resources to work with Mr. Austin.

As discussed in more detail below, OPSB has located some documentation
to support the questioned charges. Those documents are attached as
exhibits to this response. We request the opportunity to submit
additional documents and further request the OIG review this
documentation before issuing a final audit report. OPSB is gathering the
additional documentation and will send it to OIG promptly.

LDE appreciates the seriousness of the issues raised in the draft audit
report and acknowledges there are material weaknesses in OPSB\'s current
grants management system. Indeed, in response to these weaknesses and
well before the issuance of this audit report, LDE placed the Orleans
Parish School District (the District) on \"high risk\" status for all
federal grants on July 16, 2004. As part of this status, LDE has
attached special conditions to all allocations of federal funds to the
District. Under the special conditions, the District must:

> • Submit specific documentation to substantiate all expenditures of
> federal funds.

-   Engage an independent certified public accountant to conduct a
    performance audit to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of all
    fiscal operations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Provide a report on the benefits of outsourcing all or a portion of
    the District\'s fiscal processes and duties.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop a structured system improvement plan containing timetables,
    measurable goals and priorities for organizational and budgetary
    changes.

LDE and OPSB are committed to addressing these weaknesses and to
strengthening the District\'s controls so it can better administer
federal funds. In accordance with the special conditions, OPSB, under
the oversight of LDE, is drafting detailed workplans with specific
corrective action items. These workplans will focus on:

-   Payroll

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Procurement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Budget

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grants Management

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Financial Management, including recordkeeping, reporting, internal
    controls and cash management

In addition to the external expertise of Grover Austin, OPSB has
retained Deloitte & Touche to conduct a performance audit of the
District\'s fiscal operations. Deloitte and Touche will provide OPSB
with recommendations for systemic improvements. These recommendations
will lay a foundation for the District\'s corrective action workplans.
LDE will monitor this process and provide technical assistance where
appropriate.

LDE and OPSB are also committed to addressing the specific issues raised
by the draft audit report. LDE has the following responses to the
auditors\' findings:

**Finding No. 1 --- Payroll and Fringe Benefits Were Not Adequately
Documented**

The auditors found OPSB did not have sufficient documentation to support
\$49.1 million in payroll and related fringe benefits claimed for
reimbursement from Title I funds. OIG recommended OPSB provide the
necessary documentation or return the funds to the U.S. Department of
Education. District staff have been working with Mr. Austin to locate
the documents necessary to support the questioned payroll benefits.
Unfortunately, a

hardware failure caused the loss of all electronic claims filed with
LDE. Thus, OPSB will be unable to reconcile expenditures in the general
ledger to the claim documents filed with LDE.

District staff will continue to work with Mr. Austin to identify the
employees paid with Title I funds and to obtain any necessary
certifications, time distribution records, or alternative documentation
to justify the charges to Title I. Although we initially believed the
District was missing critical payroll documents, District employees have
just located extensive documentation related to these expenditures.
These documents include a listing

LDE Response to Draft Audit Report ED-OIG/A06-E0008 Page 2

of teachers supported with Title I funds and associated time and effort
certifications. Mr. Austin is reviewing these documents to determine if
they are sufficient to support the questioned charges. If necessary, Mr.
Austin will also continue to review existing documentation to determine
whether any reconstruction is possible. Finally, OPSB will review its
current payroll procedures to identify areas that can be improved. OPSB
will pay particular attention to the following areas:

-   **Internal Controls --** OPSB will concentrate on increasing
    controls over its payroll system to ensure federal funds are
    properly allocated based on employees\' time and effort, consistent
    with appropriate federal cost principles. For example, OPSB will
    ensure employee functions are properly segregated.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Document Retention --** A vital component of OPSB\'s workplan will
    be developing an improved system for the retention, maintenance and
    retrieval of necessary accounting and other payroll records. Part of
    this system will include ensuring all necessary payroll
    reconciliations are performed appropriately.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Training --** OPSB will provide training to all employees involved
    in federal programs. Trainings will focus on appropriate payroll
    certifications, record retention, and crosscutting administrative
    and fiscal management (e.g., OMB Circulars, EDGAR, and other
    requirements).

OPSB will consider other areas in need of improvement, especially any
recommendations included in the Deloitte & Touche report.

**Finding No. 2 -- Non-Payroll Related Expenditures Were Not
Documented**

The auditors found Orleans Parish could not provide adequate
documentation to support thirty-three procurement transactions. These
transactions fell into the following categories: contract services,
travel, supplies, and equipment. OIG recommended OPSB either provide the
necessary documentation or return \$3,142,286 to the U.S. Department of
Education. OPSB disagrees with some of the conclusions reached by the
auditors.

*Contract Services*

The auditors concluded OPSB could not provide adequate documentation to
support disbursements made for contract services. Specifically, the
auditors noted:

-   OPSB could not locate any documents to support one disbursement of
    \$13,000. OPSB has located invoices and other supporting documents
    for this disbursement and will make them available to OIG for its
    review.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   OPSB could not locate approval documents for five disbursements
    totaling \$182,635. For two of these disbursements, OPSB has located
    the requisite approval documents. Attached as Exhibit A is an
    excerpt from the minutes of a November 12, 2001, OPSB meeting. These
    minutes reflect that OPSB approved a contract with Xavier University
    at a cost not to exceed \$70,000. The auditors

LDE Response to Draft Audit Report ED-OIG/A06-E0008 Page 3

> questioned a \$25,000, payment made under that contract. Attached as
> Exhibit B is an excerpt from the minutes of an August 12, 2002, OPSB
> meeting. These minutes reflect OPSB approved a contract with Sylvan
> Education Solutions in the amount of \$1,496,036. The auditors
> questioned a \$121,504.80 payment made under that contract. For the
> remaining three disbursements, OPSB will provide OIG with an
> acknowledgement from the appropriate supervisors that they approved
> the purchases and used the items for allowable Title I purposes.

-   OPSB could not provide a purchase order or receiving report for one
    disbursement of \$13,000. OPSB will provide OIG with an
    acknowledgement from the appropriate supervisor that District
    personnel purchased the item in accordance with the District\'s
    policies and procedures, received the item, and used it for
    allowable Title I purposes.

*Travel*

The auditors also concluded OPSB could not provide adequate documents to
support five disbursements made for travel costs. Specifically, the
auditors noted:

-   Orleans Parish could not provide approval documents for three
    charges totaling \$91,400. For one disbursement OPSB has located the
    requisite approval document. Attached as Exhibit C is an approval
    memorandum dated July 30, 2002. The memorandum reflects an
    appropriate OPSB official approved a contract with Radisson Hotel of
    New Orleans for meeting rooms and catering services for the Annual
    Special Education Conference for Exceptional Children\'s Services
    and Title I Pre-Service. The auditors questioned a \$65,568 payment
    under this contract. For the remaining two disbursements, Orleans
    Parish will provide OIG with acknowledgements from the appropriate
    supervisors indicating they approved the travel for allowable Title
    I purposes. For two of these charges, Orleans Parish will provide
    receipts that were obtained from the vendors.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Orleans Parish could not provide any documentation supporting two
    disbursements totaling \$9,565. Orleans Parish will provide OIG with
    acknowledgements from appropriate supervisors that they approved the
    travel for allowable Title I purposes and other supporting
    documentation.

*Supplies*

The auditors concluded OPSB could not provide adequate documents to
support ten disbursements for supplies. Specifically, the auditors
noted:

-   OPSB could not provide documents to prove eight disbursements
    totaling \$267,548 were for eligible Title I purposes or that the
    products were received or properly approved. For three of these
    disbursements, OPSB has located some supporting documentation.
    Attached as Exhibit D is a receiving report indicating supplies from
    Wright Learning were received on December 11, 2002. These supplies
    totaled \$9,842. Attached as Exhibit E is an invoice from Successful
    for All Foundation, Inc. for \$10,870. Sharon L. Paul signed the
    invoice,

LDE Response to Draft Audit Report ED-OIG/A06-E0008 Page 4

> acknowledging the supplies were received. Attached as Exhibit F is a
> purchase order and corresponding invoice for supplies totaling
> \$12,958. These supplies were purchased from Corporate Business
> Supplies. OPSB will provide additional supporting documents, including
> acknowledgements from the appropriate supervisors that they approved
> the purchases, the items were received, and they were used for
> allowable Title I purposes.
>
> • OPSB could not provide documentation justifying two sole source
> purchases totaling \$105,983. OPSB has located the requisite
> documentation. Attached as Exhibit G is an OPSB Purchasing Department
> Sole Source Justification form for the Race for Reading Program. The
> form is dated June 20, 2002, and approves a sole source contract with
> Project 59 for Youth Foundation, Inc. OPSB determined there are no
> regional distributors and that this is the only program that would
> meet the department\'s specialized needs. A letter from the vendor
> certifying it is the only vendor selling the reading program is also
> included. Attached as Exhibit H is a sole source approval for a
> contract with Lightspan Partnership, Inc. for additional Lightspan
> program instructional materials. OPSB determined a sole source
> contract was appropriate because the school already had an existing
> Lightspan program in place, but wanted to expand the program to other
> grade levels. Lightspan holds all relevant copyrights and is the only
> vendor that could provide the additional material. A letter from the
> vendor confirming its intellectual property rights is included.

*Equipment*

The auditors concluded OPSB could not provide documents to support three
annual leases for thirty-nine mathematics workstations, including
computer software, hardware, computers, furniture, and interconnecting
wiring. These contracts were sole sourced. OPSB respectfully disagrees
with the auditors\' conclusions. The contract did not consist of three
annual leases, but was an installment contract to pay the purchase price
over three years. OPSB acknowledges its resolution approving the
contract did not use clear terminology. JRL originally offered: (1) to
sell the software for a one-time, upfront payment of \$2.3 million; or
(2) to enter into a \"lease-purchase\" agreement for \$2.5 million.
Under the lease-purchase option, OPSB would make installment payments
over three years but at the end would own the software. OPSB negotiated
with JRL and was able to enter into the three-year agreement for \$2.3
million. Attached as Exhibit I is a memorandum from an LDE attorney
describing the background of the contract.

This purchase was exclusively for software. It did not include any
hardware, computers, furniture or wiring. All such equipment was funded
through a direct appropriation from the federal government to the
vendor, not with Title I funds. This is confirmed by LDE\'s attorney in
Exhibit I.

The software that was purchased with Title I funds was proprietary
software, available from only one source. The vendor holds a copyright
to the software and is the only vendor who sells it. Attached as Exhibit
J is a letter from JRL confirming it holds

LDE Response to Draft Audit Report ED-OIG/A06-E0008 Page 5

exclusive patents to the software.^\'^ This software is listed on the
U.S. Department of Education\'s website, \"What\'s Working in
Education,\" as a best practice in Education. The Louisiana Public Bid
Law (Title 38 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes), as well as the
policies and procedures adopted by OPSB, allow the school board to enter
into non-competitive contracts for proprietary software available from
only one source. These rules are consistent with federal regulations,
which allow grantees and subgrantees to use non-competitive procedures
when \"the item is available only from a single source.\" 34 CFR §
80.36(4). Attached as Exhibit K is an OPSB Purchasing Department Sole
Source Justification form approving the purchase.

The auditors also questioned why OPSB entered into a three-year
agreement with the vendor. Under the contract, the vendor absorbed all
interest costs. The school board only paid for the direct cost of the
software. Before entering into the contract, the school board conducted
an appropriate price analysis and determined the installment contract
was more advantageous than a lump sum payment. The school board also
determined the software was advantageously priced as compared to other
governmental sales. Attached as Exhibit L is a price analysis reflecting
the price paid by OPSB compared to the prices paid by two other states.
Based upon this comparison, it is evident OPSB paid a competitive price.

The auditors also noted:

-   OPSB could not provide adequate documents to support four
    disbursements totaling \$88,558. OPSB will provide OIG with
    documents indicating the items were properly ordered in accordance
    with District policies, the items were received, and were used for
    approved Title I purposes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   OPSB could not identify how three equipment charges totaling
    \$27,103 benefited the Title I program. For two of these charges,
    the auditor concluded OPSB could not provide purchase orders or
    receiving reports. For one of these charges, OPSB has located an
    invoice and acknowledgement of receipt. Attached as Exhibit M is an
    invoice from Audio Visual Mart for equipment totaling \$6,356. An
    employee signed the invoice to acknowledge the items were received.
    For another charge, OPSB has located an invoice, which is attached
    as Exhibit N. OPSB will provide OIG with a letter documenting the
    Title I program\'s need for the questioned items. Further, OPSB will
    provide acknowledgements from the appropriate supervisors indicating
    the items were purchased in accordance with the District\'s
    policies, the items were received, and they were used for allowable
    Title I purposes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   OPSB could not provide receiving reports for two disbursements
    totaling \$13,747. OPSB can provide acknowledgements from the
    appropriate supervisors indicating

Please note, the letter was emailed to OPSB. The word processing
software contains a macro that automatically updates the date in the
document. Although the document is dated December 8, 2004, it was in
fact signed in April 2003. This is confirmed by the accompanying
printout of the email from JRL to OPSB, which is dated April 24, 2003.

LDE Response to Draft Audit Report ED-OIG/A06-E0008 Page 6

> the items were purchased in accordance with the District\'s policies,
> the items were received, and they were used for allowable Title I
> purposes.

-   OPSB made duplicate disbursements of \$7,247. OPSB agrees with the
    auditors and will refund \$7,247 to the U.S. Department of
    Education.

OPSB acknowledges the auditors identified weaknesses in its procurement
procedures. OPSB will review its current procedures to identify areas
that can be improved. OPSB will pay particular attention to the
following areas:

-   **The Approval Process ---** As part of strengthening its management
    controls, OPSB will review each \"decision point\" to ensure the
    appropriate supervisors approve appropriate decisions. If necessary,
    OPSB will document these levels of review and train employees on how
    to get approval of purchase requests.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Justification of Purchases ---** OPSB has adopted policies and
    procedures that are consistent with state and federal law. However,
    OPSB will review those procedures to determine if they need to be
    clarified or improved. Specifically, OPSB will review its procedures
    related to sole source contracts. OPSB will also provide training to
    ensure employee properly implement all procurement procedures.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Document Retention ---** As discussed in Finding No. 1 above, a
    vital component of OPSB\'s workplan is to develop a process to
    retain and safeguard all necessary documentation.

**Finding No. 3 --- Questioned Expenditures Due to Scope Limitation**

The auditors questioned an additional \$17,407, in Title I expenditures
due to an audit scope limitation. OPSB notes there is no evidence these
expenditures were inappropriate. OPSB takes this finding very seriously,
as it highlights significant problems that contributed to Findings 1 and
2. As described above, OPSB is forming a task force and drafting
detailed workplans with specific corrective action items to dramatically
improve the District\'s financial management system.

District staff will continue to investigate this finding. To the best of
its ability, OPSB will develop a list of the specific Title I charges
and the OPSB internal audit office will audit the list to ensure all
expenditures were allowable under Title I. LDE will then work closely
and cooperatively with the U.S. Department of Education to resolve any
remaining claims for unallowable expenditures.

LDE Response to Draft Audit Report ED-OIG/A06-E0008 Page 7

> SECTION C, CONSENT ITEMS![](media/image3.png){width="1.6in"
> height="0.7763888888888889in"}
>
> **VI) UNIVERSITY COURSES LEARNING ACADEMIES and HIGH PRIORITY
> SCHOOLS**
>
> Seventy-five participants including teachers and principals from the
> Learning Academies and high-priority *schools will be selected to*
> participate in specifically designed graduate-level university
> courses. The selection criteria for participants will be based on the
> first seventy-five teachers and principals who wish to enroll in the
> program. All participants must meet the university requirements and
> standards. If the enrollment falls below seventy-five, teachers and
> principals from the remaining corrective action schools will become
> eligible to participate. This initiative will become operational at a
> cost not to exceed \$70,000.00 per semester.
>
> IASA, Title I/Consolidated Programs and Professional Development, in
> collaboration with Xavier University and the Department of Curriculum,
> Instruction and Educational Support Program, have identified courses
> that align with the district\'s instructional focus, State and Local
> Standards, high-stakes testing, and other initiatives that promote
> student learning. Course syllabi, textbooks, instructional materials,
> follow-up and support services will be selected and/or developed to
> complement the curriculum for the New Orleans Public Schools. The
> courses will be structured in a *way that offers teachers* and
> principals the opportunity to:

-   become a certified reading specialist;

> apply and assess learned research-based practices;

-   increase knowledge in the areas of reading, writing, mathematics,
    and technology;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   participate in a teacher-exchange program, peer coaching and
    *focus/study groups sessions; and*

> **a** receive school-site support and assistance from university
> professors as practices taught in the courses are implemented in the
> classroom.
>
> Additionally, teachers and principals will gain effective teaching and
> learning practices through proven professional *development* that has
> an impact that is far reaching. Participation in the courses will
> ensure sustained learning opportunities and the potential to increase
> academic performance for thousands of students. The course offerings
> wilt begin during the upcoming spring session.
>
> Instructional Technology Teaching Reading and Writing in the Content
> Areas
>
> Adv. Inst. Tech LA INTECH Mathematics the Workshop Way
>
> Foundation of Reading Practicum in Reading
>
> (Methods of Teaching Reading) Special Problems in Research for
> Administrators
>
> Diagnostic and Prescriptive Reading (Clinical Supervision and
> Supervisory Approaches to Instruction)
>
> RECOMMENDATION: That the Orleans Parish School Board approve the
> graduate courses to be conducted at Xavier University for teachers and
> principals from the Learning Academies and High-Priority Schools
> during the Spring 2002 semester at a total cost not to exceed
> \$70,000.00.
>
> Funds are available in the Title 1 Accountability Grant.
>
> SECTION D - PAGE 6 August 12, 2002

**DIVISION OF FINANCIAL *SERVICES***

03-2.02i [**THIRD PARTY** CONTRACT FOR **SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES**]{.underline} [FOR **TITLE** I NON **PU BLIC** **SCHOOLS
(REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL** NO 7732)~,~]{.underline}

> *Two proposals were received* from firms to provide educational
> services for Title I non public schools. The proposals were reviewed
> by a Screening and Evaluation Committee composed of representatives
> from Purchasing, the Archdiocese of New Orleans and Title I. Sylvan
> Education Solutions was selected because of its experience, prior
> performance and cost.,
>
> Funds are available in the Title I Budget. The total cost of this
> contract is not to exceed \$1,496,036.00 for the period September 1,
> 20^0^2 through August 31, 2003 with the option to renew for three (3)
> additional years if mutually agreeable under the same terms and
> conditions.
>
> The Purchasing and Procurement Committee has reviewed this
> recommendation. The Board General Counsel will prepare the contract.
>
> **RECOMMENDATION;** That the Orleans Parish School Board accept the
> proposal to
>
> enter into a contract with Sylvan Education Solutions in the
>
> amount of \$I,496,036.00 as previously listed. (Item #03-2.021
>
> is funded in the Title I Budget).
>
> ![](media/image4.png){width="2.6430555555555557in"
> height="1.7930555555555556in"}
>
> [RENTAL OF MEETING ROOMS & CATERING SERVICES FOR ANNUAL]{.underline}
> [SPECIAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN\'S]{.underline}
> [AND TITLE I PRE-SERVICE ON AUGUST 7-9.2002 PROPOSAL
> #7739)]{.underline}
>
> [Requestors):]{.underline} Leila Eames, Executive Director, Title I
>
> Dr. Rosalynne Dennis, Executive Director, Exceptional Children\'s
> Service
>
> [Approving Administrative Officer:]{.underline} Mrs. Ollie Tyler,
> Interim Superintendent
>
> [Designation by Compliance Officer:]{.underline} General Bid
>
> [Advertisement Dates:]{.underline} Times Picayune July 19, 2002
>
> [**Opened:**~,~]{.underline} Monday, July 29, 2002
>
> [Vendors Receiving Bids;]{.underline} 13 **[Vendors
> Res^p^onding:]{.underline} 1**
>
> [Principal of the Company:]{.underline}
>
> [RADISSON **HOTEL**]{.underline} **(N**EW *ORLEANS., LA*
>
> President: Creighton Smith
>
> Vice-President: Karl Munster
>
> [Background **Information**]{.underline}
>
> These services are needed to facilitate the Annual Special Education
> Conference held by Exceptional Children\'s Services and the
> Pre-Service held by the Title I Department. The Radish Hotel of New
> Orleans submitted the only bid meeting the specifications. Funds are
> available in the Exceptional Children\'s Services and Title I
> Accounts. The total cost of this purchase is \$97,126.50.
>
> **PREPARED ON 7/29**/02 BY:
>
> REVIEWED ON 7/30/02 . BV
>
> *AUTHORIZED BY 102 BY:*
>
> ![](media/image5.png){width="2.1597222222222223in"
> height="0.5034722222222222in"}
>
> ![](media/image6.png){width="3.9965277777777777in"
> height="0.5868055555555556in"}

### ACCOUNTS PAYABLE SECTION![](media/image7.png){width="0.9298611111111111in" height="0.9430555555555555in"}![](media/image8.png){width="0.8534722222222222in" height="0.2in"}

> Dear Principal/Dept. Head:
>
> We have not received approvals on the purchase orders listed below:

![](media/image9.png){width="7.456944444444445in" height="4.24375in"}If
delivery is complete and merchandise is satisfactory, please forward
green copy of purchase order (or if the green copy has been sent, please
send a signed copy of the purchase to the attention of the undersigned
in the Accounts Payable Section. **WE THANK YOU FOR. YOUR
COOPERATION.**![](media/image11.png){width="3.4368055555555554in"
height="0.6597222222222222in"}![](media/image12.png){width="2.966666666666667in"
height="0.8263888888888888in"}

> If approval is being withheld, please state the reason below and
> return [this cop^y^ only]{.underline} at once to the Accounts Payable
> Section. Also, please specify whether you contacted vendors concerning
> any difficulties.
>
> If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours,

FORM NO.: AP 001 **(5195)**

**White -\'School/Dept. *Response Co^py^ Approval* Withheld**

SEP. 23. 2002 12:22PM^;^ \~x\~.a\~\~ *n-+f
,iu+l*![](media/image13.png){width="2.6368055555555556in"
height="0.5in"}![](media/image14.png){width="5.033333333333333in"
height="0.5333333333333333in"}

SUCCESS FOR ALL FOUNDATION, INC.P.O. Box 17484\
BALTIMORE, MD 21297-1484\
EIN \*52-2051820\
(410) 616.2300

Bill To:

Barbara C. Jordan Elementary

4348 Reynes Street

New Orleans LA 7 0126

Ship To:

Barbara C. Jordan Elementary

4346 Reynes Street

New Orleans LA 70126

> #0181027

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 23%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>PURCHASE ORDER NO-</strong></td>
<td>CUSTOMER ID</td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>SALES ID'</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>SHIPPING METHOD</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="4" rowspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>QUANTITY</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>DESCRIPTION</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">UNIT PRICE</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="11"><p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>1</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>1</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>2</p>
<p>3</p>
<p>3</p></td>
<td colspan="3" rowspan="11"><blockquote>
<p>791-3135</p>
<p>791-3136</p>
<p>791-3137</p>
<p>791-3124</p>
<p>791-3091</p>
<p>791-2992</p>
<p>791-2937</p>
<p>791-3069</p>
<p>791-3003</p>
<p>791-2948</p>
<p>791-3080</p>
<p>791 -2497</p>
<p>791-2959</p>
<p>791-1408</p>
<p>791-2970</p>
<p>79<sup>1</sup>-1<sup>4</sup>19</p>
<p>791-2981</p>
<p>791-1420</p>
</blockquote>
<p>~.</p></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Teacher Matls Lev K 19604 Consum
Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Grade K - Manipulative Kit</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4"><strong>e Kit</strong></td>
<td rowspan="11"><sup>i</sup>._</td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Olt 0000</strong></td>
<td rowspan="11"><p><strong>423,00</strong></p>
<p><strong>5996.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$128.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>5698.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>545,000</strong></p>
<p><strong>5698.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>5551,00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$138.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$598.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>5559.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>5128.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>5213.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$1,398.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$38.00</strong></p>
<p>$1.398.00</p>
<p><strong>$48.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$2,037.00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$117.00</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"
rowspan="10"><p><strong>$499.0</strong><sup>0</sup><strong>00</strong></p>
<p><strong>$64.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>5349.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$64.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$349.0000.</strong></p>
<p><strong>$499.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$69.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$349.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$499.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$64.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$219.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$699.000</strong></p>
<p><strong>515.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$699.000</strong></p>
<p><strong>520.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>$699.0000</strong></p>
<p><strong>535.0000</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Grade K - Consumable Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Teacher Matrls Lev K</strong> 15 MM</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">MW Teacher Matl Primar<strong>y School
Manipulative</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">"reacher Matl Lev <strong>A</strong> 18 <strong>Min Math
Bulletin Board</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>Kit</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>MW Grade 1 Manipulative Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Grade</strong> 1 <strong>Consumable Manipulative
Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Teacher Matl's Level a 15 MM</strong></p>
<p><strong>MW Grade 2 Commercial Manipulative Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>MW Grace 2 Consumable manipulative Kit</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="6"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>MW Intermediate School Manipulative
Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>MW Grade 3 Consumable Manipulative Kit</strong></p>
<p><em>MW <strong>Gr 3</strong></em> <strong>Consum</strong>
Manipulative Kit</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>MW Grade t Commercial Manipulative
Kit</strong></p>
<p><strong>Grade 4 Consumable manipulative Kit</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Grade 5</strong> Commercial Manipulative
Kit</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>MW GR.5: - Consum manipulative</strong> Ric</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>AP</strong></p>
<p>/</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8" rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>If you have any questions concerning your account,</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><em>Subtotal</em></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2"><em>5O.00</em></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><em><strong>Misc</strong></em></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="8"><blockquote>
<p>Please call i-800-546-4998,</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>Tax</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2">$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="7"><blockquote>
<p><sup>'</sup>J</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>Freight</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2">40.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7"><blockquote>
<p><strong>~s.Jkla</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>~ou</td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>Discount</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2">`$0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="8"></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p>Total</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2">$10,870.00</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> *a*
>
> *^.^98\': P.11*
>
> ![](media/image15.png){width="4.376388888888889in"
> height="1.0131944444444445in"}^l^ifn6lA.4^.^ORilir **NU.**
> 4^,^111\'^.^113,i\"\' VOtitt\'S.\'\'O\'
>
> ,..:.MS11S. 11AF~T~SFONLIENCSFIE1:11EDIDTARS~.~\'\'D

SHIP TO:

> Title I Department
>
> 3500 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114
>
> United States

BILL TO:

> Accounts Payable
>
> 3510 General DeGaulle Drive Suite 487
>
> New Orleans, LA 70114
>
> United States

***TOM ER ACCOUNT NO.** **VENDOR NO.***

5334 [\'et 30]{.underline}

FREIGYHT TERMS

*\'aid*

**DATE *OR* ORDER/BUYER**

29-JUN-02 Fordjour,

**SHIP VIA**

Freight Carrier

***REQUESTOR/DELIVER TO***

*[Eames, Leila M]{.underline}*

+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | REQ#55748 MARK FOR LEI              |   | LEILA J. EAMES ROOM |      |
|   |                                     |   | 319                 |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | > CONNEC TABLES TOP                 | 2 |                     | 8.00 |
|   |                                     | 9 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | J |                     |      |
|   |                                     | U |                     |      |
|   |                                     | L |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 0 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 2 |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | > CNR2460 FINISH (ACM)              | 2 |                     | 1    |
|   | >                                   | 9 |                     | 6.00 |
|   | > CHERRY                            | - |                     |      |
|   | >                                   | J |                     |      |
|   | > CONNEC TABLE FOLDING              | U |                     |      |
|   |                                     | L |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 0 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 2 |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | > LEGS CNTELEG24-218                |   |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | > CONNEC TABLES GANGING             | 2 |                     | 1    |
|   |                                     | 9 |                     | 2.00 |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | J |                     |      |
|   |                                     | U |                     |      |
|   |                                     | L |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 0 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 2 |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | > FLUSH PLATE CNGFP                 | 2 |                     | 3    |
|   | >                                   | 9 |                     | 2.00 |
|   | > CONNEC TABLES BRAKING             | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | J |                     |      |
|   |                                     | U |                     |      |
|   |                                     | L |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 0 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 2 |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
| 5 | > CASTERS CNCB                      | ~ |                     | 4    |
|   | >                                   | 2 |                     | 0.00 |
|   | > SALERNO 4371-4 CHAIR              | ~ |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 9 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | J |                     |      |
|   |                                     | U |                     |      |
|   |                                     | L |                     |      |
|   |                                     | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 0 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 2 |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
| 6 | > COLOR: HUNTER GREE                | 2 |                     | 1.00 |
|   | >                                   | 9 |                     |      |
|   | > LEARHER/MOCK LEATHER              | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | J |                     |      |
|   | \'.458/558-COLOR CODE               | U |                     |      |
|   |                                     | L |                     |      |
|   | > SALERNO 4370-3 CHAIR              | - |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 0 |                     |      |
|   |                                     | 2 |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+
|   | COLOR: **HUNTER GREEN**             |   |                     |      |
|   |                                     |   |                     |      |
|   | LEATHER/MOCK LEATHER                |   |                     |      |
|   |                                     |   |                     |      |
|   | > 458/558-CLOR CODE                 |   |                     |      |
+---+-------------------------------------+---+---------------------+------+

**12,808.72**

Prices Indicated are not to exceed\" without prior approval from the
P[^u^rchasing]{.underline} [Department]{.underline} Unapproved Increases
will not be honored.

The Orleans Parish School Board is Exempt From All Federal Taxes and
City Sales Taxes.

![](media/image16.png){width="0.5534722222222223in"
height="1.2166666666666666in"}**UPPLIES,
INC**.![](media/image18.png){width="0.3763888888888889in"
height="1.1534722222222222in"}![](media/image19.png){width="0.40694444444444444in"
height="0.5701388888888889in"}![](media/image20.png){width="0.46319444444444446in"
height="0.35694444444444445in"}![](media/image21.png){width="0.7736111111111111in"
height="0.6430555555555556in"}

*^\"^Your Single Source Supplier\"*

> 273 PLAUCHE STREET
>
> *HARAHAN, LA* 70123 INVOICE NO. 45043 --A

***PHONE* (504) 734-3072 FAX *(504) 734-3035***

**ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (2)**

**3510 GEN. DEGAULLE DR.**

*ACCOU*NTING DEPARTMENT

![](media/image22.png){width="7.966666666666667in"
height="2.4194444444444443in"}NEW **ORLEANS,** LA **70114**

> ![](media/image23.png){width="6.05625in"
> height="5.343055555555556in"}E^:^ A 1 112% SERVICE CHARGE, will be
> added to PAST DUE ACCOUNTS., This is an ANNUAL \`\'Ph ^PERC^ENTAG^E^
> RATE of 18% Our responsibility ceases n are delivered and signed for.
> Returned merchandise will not
> be![](media/image24.png){width="0.9930555555555556in"
> height="0.42986111111111114in"}![](media/image25.png){width="6.070138888888889in"
> height="5.343055555555556in"}
>
> accepted without prior appro^v^a^l,^
>
> **(-1 ORIGINAL**
>
> ![](media/image26.png){width="3.5166666666666666in"
> height="1.2902777777777779in"}**SOLE SOURCE
> JUSTIFICATION**![](media/image29.png){width="3.3131944444444446in"
> height="0.2in"}![](media/image30.png){width="0.5534722222222223in"
> height="0.2965277777777778in"}![](media/image31.png){width="3.270138888888889in"
> height="0.6902777777777778in"}![](media/image32.png){width="1.7131944444444445in"
> height="0.30972222222222223in"}![](media/image33.png){width="2.3in"
> height="0.8333333333333334in"}

School ***I*** Department:

Requester Name:

![](media/image34.png){width="5.623611111111111in"
height="0.4395833333333333in"}Commodity or Services:

Estimated expenditure or annual expenditure for the above commodity or
service: \$ 68,000.00 Vendor Name and Address:

*V*

[Initial all entries below that apply to the proposed
purchase.]{.underline} Attach a memorandum containing complete

justification and support documentation as directed below. (More than
one entry will apply to most sole source products I services requested).

1\. [j,.]{.underline} SOLE SOURCE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER
OR PROVIDER, THERE ARE NO REGIONAL DISTRIBUTORS. (Attach the
manufacturer\'s written certification that no regional distributors
exist; the certification will be valid for one (1) calendar year. item
No. 4 also must be completed).

2.  SOLE SOURCE REQUEST IS FOR ONLY THE METRO (NEW ORLEANS) AREA
    DISTRIBUTOR OF THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER OR PROVIDER. (Attach the
    manufacturers - not the distributors-written certification that
    identifies all regional distributors. Item No. 4 also must be
    completed).

3\. THE PARTS / EQUIPMENT ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE WITH SIMILAR PARTS OF
ANOTHER MANUFACTURER. (Explain in separate memorandum).

4\. [J/]{.underline} THIS IS THE ONLY KNOWN ITEM OR SERVICE THAT WILL
**MEET** THE SPECIALIZED NEEDS OF THIS DEPARTMENT OR PERFORM THE
INTENDED FUNCTION, (Attach memorandum with details of specialized
function or application).

5.  THE PARTS/EQUIPMENT ARE REQUIRED FROM THE SOURCE TO PERMIT
    STANDARDIZATION. (Attach memorandum - describing basis for
    standardization request).

The attached requisition has been reviewed by the Compliance Officer.

ned request that competitive procurement be waived and that the
vendoridentified as the supplier or material described in this sole
source justification is authorized as a sole source for the service

> NOTE: [PLEASE]{.underline} [FORWARD]{.underline} [THIS]{.underline}
> [COMPLETED]{.underline} [FORM]{.underline} [AND]{.underline}
> [SUPPORT]{.underline} [DOCUMENTATION]{.underline} [TO]{.underline}
> [THE]{.underline} [PURCHASING]{.underline} [DEPARTME]{.underline}

![](media/image35.png){width="6.2034722222222225in"
height="1.1770833333333333in"}![](media/image37.png){width="1.7666666666666666in"
height="0.2in"}

10 2002 11:20AM FUJITSU PC
770-323-5166![](media/image38.png){width="1.0965277777777778in"
height="0.3701388888888889in"}![](media/image39.png){width="1.770138888888889in"
height="1.7097222222222221in"}

> ![](media/image40.png){width="1.6368055555555556in"
> height="1.176388888888889in"}

PROJECT 59 FOUNDATION P.O. B0X 7704a ATLANTA, GA **30357 •
404^.^659-READ FAX: 770-343-5165**

> *Ms. Tessin Idewu June 1 0, 2002\
> Ne^w^ Orleans Public Schools*

*3500 General Degaulle*

*New Orleans, LA 70114*

> Re: Sole Source Declaration Dear Ms. Idewu:
>
> Per our conversation, the Project 59 Race for Reading Program is
> exclusively provided by Project 59 for Youth Foundation, Inc.

The program contains:

School Fact Survey

Skill Assessment Forms

*Parent Guide*

Teacher Instructions

> Program Implementation Guide Car Assembly Kits
>
> Please contact if you have questions or require additional
> information. Best Regards,
>
> Jeff Buchanan Executive Director
>
> JB;sb

![](media/image41.png){width="2.5527777777777776in"
height="0.6034722222222222in"}![](media/image42.png){width="0.40694444444444444in"
height="0.3in"}![](media/image43.png){width="0.6868055555555556in"
height="0.3798611111111111in"}![](media/image44.png){width="1.5402777777777779in"
height="0.2in"}

[**ADDITIONAL LIGHTSPAN PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONAL** MATERIALS
FOR]{.underline} [LITTLE WOODS **ELEMENTARY SCHOOL**]{.underline}

**[Reguestor:]{.underline} Leonard Parker. Principal of Little** Woods
**Elementary** School **[Approving Administrative Staff
Officer:]{.underline} Leila Eames.** Executive Director of **Title I
[Designation by Compliance Officer:]{.underline}** General **Bid**

**[Principals of the Company:]{.underline}**

**[LIGHTSPAN PARTNERSHIP. INC (San Diego. CA)]{.underline} Vice-
President:** Franklin L. Smith

At the regular meeting, Au^g^ust 13. 2001. the School Board approved the
purchase of Lightspan Program for Little Woods Elementary through the
CSRD Grant. The Principal is requesting the purchase of additional
materials to expand the Lightspan Program to other grade levels. Funds
for this purchase are available in the Little Woods-IASA Instructional
Supplies Account. The total cost of this purchase is S37,983.00.

![](media/image45.png){width="2.2131944444444445in"
height="0.65in"}**REVIEWED** ON 03104/ 02 BY:

> James Lloyd. Ed.D Compliance Officer

**AUTHORIZED** ON 03/ 04/ 02 BY: [!?.\']{.underline}

> Roger Reese. Jr. Chief Operatin^g^ Officer
>
> ![](media/image47.png){width="1.6in" height="0.7465277777777778in"}
>
> L GHTSPAN

September 5, 2003

Michael Honore Principal

Sylvanie William\'s EIernentary School 3127 Martin Luther King Blvd.

New Orleans, LA 70125

Subject: Sole Source Letter Dear Mr. Honor;:

Lightspan, Inc. is the sole source and provider of Lightspan products
and services.

Lightspan, Inc.\'holds and retains sole and exclusive ownership of, and
all rights, title, and interest in and to, (i) Lightspan Achieve Now,
Lightspan\'s K-8 Interactive curriculum software product, (ii) The
LIghtspan Network Lightspan\'s educational activity and resource
Internet service, and (MX Lightspan eduTest Assessment, Lightepan\'s
educational assessment Internet service (collectively referred to as
\"Lightspan Product). Lightspan holds sole and exclusive title to and
ownship of, and/or holds all necessary and requisite rights, licensee
and authority to distribute, all standard and optional features,
functionality and services associated with the Lightspan Products.

> Lightspan solely and exclusively owns all copyrights, trademarks,
> patents, trade secrets and any and all other intellectual property
> associated with the Lightspan Products. Lightspan is the sole source
> and sole provider of the Lightspan Products\_ Lightspan Achieve Now,
> The Lightspan Network and. Lightspan eduTest Assessment are not
> available for purchase, licensing or distribution, directly or
> indirectly, from any third party OEM or reseller. Lightspan holds and
> retains any and all necessary licenses, permits and other
> administrative authorizations required to distribute and provide the
> Lightspan Products‑
>
> Very truly yours„
>
> ![](media/image48.png){width="1.4930555555555556in"
> height="0.5798611111111112in"}
>
> Carla Hawkins
>
> Business Operations Associate
>
> LIGHTSPAN, INC.
>
> 10140 Campus Point Drive
>
> San Diego, CA 92121-1529 568-1 ALL KIDS PHONE 856-824-8001FAX
> vrwvtlgtstspan.corn

![](media/image49.png){width="1.6in" height="0.74375in"}Enterprise
Contract 2003

Introduction:

JRL received a direct appropriation from the Congress/USDOE for the
ICanLearn System on behalf of the Orleans Parish School Board. The
direct appropriation was for hardware and installation. ORL SB was to
pay tor the software from Title 1 funds. The proposal to the SB for
software was \$2.3 million for 3 years in an outright purchase, or \$2.5
for a 3 year lease-purchase. JRL intended to sell the lease purchase
agreement on the open market, to derive its sale price of 56.9 million.
However, the resolution adopted by the ORL SG was miswritten. and the
board adopted the lower amount as a lease-purchase. JRL decided not to
pursue the interest amount and absorded the interest charges.

Sole Source:

Orleans School Board has sole source provisions in its purchasing
practices that mirror provision in the state procurement code. The
effect is to adopt in part state purchasing regulations.

The purchase was of proprietary software, available only from one
vendor, JRL JRL has provided a sole source letter, and ORL SB created
certification of sole source. JRL has provided additional sole source
documentation from TX and AL

The student software (electronic textbook) was on the state approved
list of textbooks. The additional remedial textbook (pre-Algebra) and~.~
management software (Explorer) is only compatible with the approved
textbooks. All of the software is proprietary and is not sold through
retailers.

Competitive Pricing:

JRL provided a summary of its contracts for GA and MS, as well as its
pricing. My review of the pricing indicates it is competitive, even
advantagous, when compared to the GA/MS contracts.

Interest:

In that JRL absorbed the interest, Title I was not charged interest
costs.

RG39:1554 (E) \[state procurement code) provides, \"E. Political
subdivisions authorized to adopt this Chapter. The procurement of
supplies, services. major repairs, and construction by a political
subdivision of this state shall be in accordance with the provisions of
RS 38:2181 through 38:2316, except that it poliltcal subdivisions are
authorized to adopt ail or part of this Chapter and its accompanying
regulations,\"

RQ39:14Y0.00C1(local government finances) provides, \"As used in this
Section, the term \"debt\" or \"evidence of debt\" shall not include a
lease of a movable or an installment purchase agreement contains a
nonappropriation clause, and does not contain an anti-substitution or
penalty clause, provided that if such lease or installment purchase
agreement is entered into in conjunction with the issuance of bonds,
notes, certificates, or other obligations which would otherwise be
required to be approved by the State Bond Commission, State Bond
Commission approval of such financing transaction shall continue to be
required.\"

RS 39:1596 \[state procurement. code\] provides,. \"Any procurement not
exceeding the amount established by executive order may be made in
accordance with the small purchase procedures.\" The relevant

executive order provides, \'No competitive bidding is required
Publications and/or copyrighted materials purchased directly from the
publisher or copyright holder;^\"^

School board purchasing regulations state, \"A contract may be awarded
for a required supply, service, or major repair wile, under regulations,
the Chief Executive Officer/Superintendent or designee determines in
writing

> **Grover Austin**![](media/image50.png){width="7.413194444444445in"
> height="0.75in"}
>
> From: Jay Wehrer (JWehrer@icanleam.com) **Sent:** Wednesday, December
> 08, 2004 10:24 AM
>
> **To: gcaustin@etigers.net**
>
> **Cc:** Jay Wehrer
>
> **Subject:** FW: Tony Amato SoleSource42403

Grover,

Please find attached 2003 sole source letter and email trail.

Let me know if you need anything else. I can be reached at (504)
689-0724.

Regards, Jay Wehrer

**From:** Jay Wehrer

**Sent:** Thursday, April **24,** 2003 8:56 AM **To:** Johnson-Muse,
Edwine

**Subject:** Tony Amato SoleSource42403

Electronic copy of sole source document attached. Jay

**JRL Enterprises, Inc.**

I CAN Learn^®^

**Education Systems**

![](media/image51.png){width="0.9131944444444444in" height="0.9in"}

3520 General DeGaulle Dr.. Suite 1100. New Orleans, Louisiana 70114.
(504) **263-1380** • Fax: (504) **263-1545** Toll Free: **(888)
263-1390.** Email: info@icanleam.com. Website:
www.icanleam.com![](media/image52.png){width="0.7631944444444444in"
height="0.4166666666666667in"}

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| December 8, 2004                                       | *^j^a/*     |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| Mr. Anthony Amato                                      | \`.\~       |
|                                                        | (-)\^\' •f  |
| Chief Executive Officer                                |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

> New Orleans Parish Public Sc1{ools 3510 General DeGaulle Drive New
> Orleans. LA 70114
>
> Dear Mr. Amato:
>
> Please accept this letter as our affirmation that JRL Enterprises,
> .Inc. is the sole source for I CAN Learn^\`^ Education Systems. The
> \"Interactive Computer Aided Natural Learning\" ° Education System, I
> CAN Learn° for short, and I CAN Learn^\'^\' is protected against
> imitations by U.S. Patents 45,267,865, #5,441,415, #5,788,508,
> 46,604,856, Des. 385,431, European 40 656 139 and 12 foreign patents.
>
> *JRL* Enterprises\_ Inc. is the sole manufacturer and distributor of I
> CAN Learn° Educational Systems. An independent study by the University
> of New Orleans Department of Educational Leadership and a Louisiana
> Certified Pro^g^ram Evaluator concluded:
>
> \"Students in the I CAN Learn^\"^ classes significantly outperformed
> students in the teacher-only classes regardless of ability level or
> gender. There is no doubt in my mind that students will learn more-and
> at an accelerated pace-if provided one-on-one, computer assisted, and
> teacher supported instruction that your product offers. The controlled
> conditions under which we validated this approach provide compelling
> evidence of its *usefulness in improving* student achievement. I am
> aware of no other product that is supported by such empirically-based
> evidence of success.\"
>
> I trust that this is sufficient information to certify our sole source
> qualifications. Please call if there are any questions or if further
> information is required.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John J. Wehrer Jr.
>
> State/Federal Programs Director JRL Enterprises, Inc.

![](media/image53.png){width="1.5034722222222223in"
height="0.47708333333333336in"}![](media/image54.png){width="0.4131944444444444in"
height="0.3368055555555556in"}![](media/image55.png){width="0.4736111111111111in"
height="0.40694444444444444in"}![](media/image56.png){width="1.0833333333333333in"
height="0.34652777777777777in"}![](media/image57.png){width="2.073611111111111in"
height="0.4263888888888889in"}

\'\"f -(Budget Unlit H ad) .

..Estimated expenditure or

[/^i^-\'-Ri\']{.underline}

the above goods \'\'Or ~servic~ tit \'\'

Vendor Name and Address: A^r^~,~:L~,s,~

[Check all entries below that apply to the proposed
purchase.]{.underline} (More than one entry will apply to most sole
source products services requested). Attach a memorandum containing
complete justification and support documentation as directed below.

2\. SOLE SOURCE REQUEST IS FOR ONLY THE METRO (NEW ORLEANS) AREA
DISTRIBUTOR OF THEORIGIN.AL MANUFACTURER OR PROVIDER. (Attached the
manufacturers - not to distributors - written certification that
identifies all regional distributors. item No. 4 also must be
completed).

THE PARTS / EQUIPMENT ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE WITH SIMILAR PARTS OF
ANOTHER MANUFACTURER. (Explain in separate memorandum).

4, THIS IS THE ONLY KNOWN ITEM OR SERVICE THAT WILL MEET THE SPECIALIZED
NEEDS OF

THIS DEPARTMENT OR PERFORM THE INTENDED FUNCTION. (Attach memorandum
with details of specialized function or application).

5\. THE PARTS / EQUIPMENT ARE REQUIRED FROM THE SOURCE TO PERMIT
STANDARDIZATION. (Attach memorandum-describing basis for standardization
request).

The attached requisition has been reviewed by the Compliance Officer.

The undersigned request that competitive procurement hewaived and that
the vendor identified as the. supplier of the service or material
described in this sole source justification is authorized as a sole
source for the service or material.

(IMMIpA /

(DATE

NOTE: PLEASE FORWARD THIS COMPLETED FORM AND SUPPORT DEPARTMENT\
[SOLE]{.underline} [SOURCE^\'^..AUTHORIZATION]{.underline}
[-]{.underline} [PURCHASING]{.underline} [DEPARTMENT:]{.underline}

:~t~ \~r

tte rata (^:^E7^.^ \'^i^l

[rtt,ir.r]{.underline} [\"]{.underline}

3Ai

DISAPPROVED:

REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL:

![](media/image58.png){width="2.209722222222222in"
height="0.7034722222222223in"}

+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| **JRL Cost      | New Orleans Public   | State of         | State   |
| Comparison**    | Schools 03           | Mississippi 03   | of      |
|                 |                      |                  | Georgia |
| **Client**      |                      |                  | 02      |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| **Cost per new  | 39                   | 20               | 9       |
| class           |                      |                  |         |
| purchase**      |                      |                  |         |
|                 |                      |                  |         |
| Quantity of     |                      |                  |         |
| classrooms      |                      |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| I CAN Learn     | \$150,000.00         | \$150,000.00     | \$150   |
| Software        |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Utilities       | Grant/In kind        | Grant/In kind    | \$2     |
| Software        |                      |                  | ,500.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Hardware        | Grant/In kind        | Grant/In kind    | \$48    |
|                 |                      |                  | ,850.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Furniture       | Grant/In kind        | Grant/In kind    | \$28    |
|                 |                      |                  | ,650.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Implementation  | na                   | \$5,000.00       | na      |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| 3 yr Service    | Grant/In kind        | \$45,000.00      | \$50    |
|                 |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| 3 yr Service    | Grant/In kind        | Grant/In kind    | \$10    |
| (comm link)     |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| 3 yr Summer     | na                   | na               | \$7     |
| Conference      |                      |                  | ,166.50 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Installation    | Grant/In kind        | Grant/1n kind    | \$10    |
|                 |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Sub-total       | \$150,000.00         | \$200,000.00     | \$307   |
|                 |                      |                  | ,166.50 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Total           | \$5.850,000.00       | \$4,000,000.00   | \$2,764 |
|                 |                      |                  | ,498.50 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| **Cost for      | 12                   | na               | na      |
| service         |                      |                  |         |
| existing        |                      |                  |         |
| class**         |                      |                  |         |
|                 |                      |                  |         |
| Quantity of     |                      |                  |         |
| classrooms      |                      |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Upgr            | \$33,125.00          | na               | na      |
| ade/Maintenance |                      |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| 3 yr Service    | \$60,000.00          | na               | na      |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Sub-total       | \$93,125.00          | na               | na      |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Total           | \$1,117,500.00       |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
|                 |                      |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Contract totals | \$6,967,500.00       | \$4,000,000.00   | \$2,764 |
|                 |                      |                  | ,498.50 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| **Software cost | license qty          | cost/license     | e       |
| breakdown**     |                      |                  | xtended |
|                 |                      |                  | class   |
| I CAN Learn     |                      |                  | cpst    |
| Software        |                      |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Classroom       | 1                    | \$25,000.00      | \$25    |
| Explorer        |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Algebra         | 30                   | \$2,500.00       | \$75    |
|                 |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Pre Algebra     | 20                   | \$2,500.00       | \$50    |
|                 |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
| Pre Algebra (in | 10                   | \$0.00           | \$0.00  |
| kind)           |                      |                  |         |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+
|                 |                      | Total            | \$150   |
|                 |                      |                  | ,000.00 |
+-----------------+----------------------+------------------+---------+

> ![](media/image59.png){width="1.5965277777777778in"
> height="0.8798611111111111in"}

+----+-------+--------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| >  | P^Ro  | IMMINENMI          |                 |                |
|  i | m\ c\ | ^Pu^\              |                 |                |
| \" |  ATE^ | '^ccn^\'^tsE\ No^‑ |                 |                |
| D* |       |                    |                 |                |
| *^ |       |                    |                 |                |
| EP |       |                    |                 |                |
| iN |       |                    |                 |                |
| G^ |       |                    |                 |                |
| ** |       |                    |                 |                |
| ![ |       |                    |                 |                |
| ]( |       |                    |                 |                |
| me |       |                    |                 |                |
| di |       |                    |                 |                |
| a/ |       |                    |                 |                |
| im |       |                    |                 |                |
| ag |       |                    |                 |                |
| e6 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 0. |       |                    |                 |                |
| pn |       |                    |                 |                |
| g) |       |                    |                 |                |
| {w |       |                    |                 |                |
| id |       |                    |                 |                |
| th |       |                    |                 |                |
| =" |       |                    |                 |                |
| 4. |       |                    |                 |                |
| 72 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 98 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 61 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 11 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 11 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 11 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 11 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 1i |       |                    |                 |                |
| n" |       |                    |                 |                |
| >  |       |                    |                 |                |
|  h |       |                    |                 |                |
| ei |       |                    |                 |                |
| gh |       |                    |                 |                |
| t= |       |                    |                 |                |
| "0 |       |                    |                 |                |
| .9 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 5i |       |                    |                 |                |
| n" |       |                    |                 |                |
| }! |       |                    |                 |                |
| [] |       |                    |                 |                |
| (m |       |                    |                 |                |
| ed |       |                    |                 |                |
| ia |       |                    |                 |                |
| /i |       |                    |                 |                |
| ma |       |                    |                 |                |
| ge |       |                    |                 |                |
| 61 |       |                    |                 |                |
| .p |       |                    |                 |                |
| ng |       |                    |                 |                |
| ){ |       |                    |                 |                |
| wi |       |                    |                 |                |
| dt |       |                    |                 |                |
| h= |       |                    |                 |                |
| "1 |       |                    |                 |                |
| .7 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 59 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 72 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 22 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 22 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 22 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 22 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 22 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 2i |       |                    |                 |                |
| n" |       |                    |                 |                |
| >  |       |                    |                 |                |
|  h |       |                    |                 |                |
| ei |       |                    |                 |                |
| gh |       |                    |                 |                |
| t= |       |                    |                 |                |
| "3 |       |                    |                 |                |
| .0 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 76 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 38 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 88 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 88 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 88 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 88 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 89 |       |                    |                 |                |
| in |       |                    |                 |                |
| "} |       |                    |                 |                |
+----+-------+--------------------+-----------------+----------------+
| >  | Feb   | > 15020 18 0190192 | UPS Regular     | > Net 30 Days  |
| 11 | 17 03 |                    | Ground          |                |
| 09 |       |                    |                 |                |
| 71 |       |                    |                 |                |
+----+-------+--------------------+-----------------+----------------+

> ,e.

![](media/image62.png){width="7.897222222222222in"
height="4.603472222222222in"}*^.^MISC
AV~I~!^.^!,-Mlc*![](media/image64.png){width="0.38680555555555557in"
height="0.2in"}

*rial Numbers 1 EYri02ZI115K. EN?\'*

[1:)t..SC]{.underline} [R1PT)ON]{.underline}

smartboard

Epson 53 projector

**or projectors,**

> **L.rnti s 11101 I \.../\''Pi I \'140 %J^r^**

PURCHASING DEPARTMENT\
SUITE 450\
3510 GENERAL de GAULLE DRIVE\
NEW *ORLEANS, LA 70114*

> PHONE: (504) 304.5649
>
> FAX: (504) 365.5509
>
> FAX: (504) 365.5511

VENDOR: APPLIED BUSINESS CONCEPTS 2829 VIRGINIA STREET KENNER, LA 70062

> United States
>
> ![](media/image65.png){width="3.1902777777777778in"
> height="0.3263888888888889in"}*~i~* RACK *RtG*
> ^.wTs^.^,^410^07^\'^Au^1^\'^} cG^.^FtHE \'sPoouEt.1c,e
> 114^AI^C^a\ -f^ont^s^
> ()W^m^![](media/image66.png){width="0.9763888888888889in"
> height="0.2in"}
>
> . . . . . .

SHIP TO:

> Carver Senior High School 3059 Higgins Boulevard *New* Orleans,LA
> 70126
>
> United States

![](media/image67.png){width="3.3402777777777777in"
height="0.5895833333333333in"}![](media/image68.png){width="0.3in"
height="0.2in"}![](media/image69.png){width="0.6131944444444445in"
height="0.30694444444444446in"}

Acc 11.172.6101.51510.04 0.0000.0000 Reg 0 12 TRAY
FINISHER![](media/image70.png){width="7.9534722222222225in"
height="3.290277777777778in"}

lo SHIP TO: Address at top of page

[^1]: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 reauthorized the ESEA on
    January 8, 2002, and the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994
    reauthorized the ESEA on October 20, 1994.