Why I feel the board is obligated to explore outsourcing custodial services

by Dan Stulberg, Member
Marshall School Board

As a member of the Marshall School Board, I’ve received a number of letters from concerned citizens who are mildly to vehemently against considering outsourcing custodial services. I’ve also received a few letters from those who believe it DOES merit looking into, but most of the letters that I’ve received have opposed privatization. I’m writing this letter so that I can share my thoughts on this subject to all of my constituents. I’m not writing this to “represent” the board’s opinion, I’m writing this to represent “one board member’s opinion” and hopefully to better inform many of you who have not had the opportunity to research this as I have.

I am puzzled by the lawn signs that state: “Privatization Hurts Everyone.” This is the first time I’ve experienced an outcry for “more government” and less “private enterprise.” Some have written me that turning it over to private-owned companies will certainly cost us more. Quite frankly, I’ve always heard that if you want something done in the most expensive manner possible, have government oversee it. How many stories have we heard of government contracts that list exorbitant prices for items that in the private sector cost very little? I know a manufacturer who bids government issued contracts and the agent who is soliciting the bid for the government keeps telling him his prices are too LOW. Folks, I can guarantee you that I will NOT vote to outsource custodial services if there are not big savings to be had.

I can also guarantee you that I will NOT vote to outsource custodial services if the company that has impressed us the most doesn’t have glowing recommendations from other school districts that have already used them. The safety of our students and staff is of our utmost concern. We would not hire a company to replace our current custodial team if that company didn’t have a very good reputation for the quality of employees that they hire. The companies that the board has chosen to interview not only do criminal background checks on all their hires, but also do drug and alcohol testing. Their level of screening is every bit as stringent as the District’s, and in some instances more stringent.

I have been struck by the number of writers that have insinuated that replacement custodians will be of inferior character to those we presently employ. Many are suggesting that they will be less honest and trustworthy, less caring or helpful to students and staff, and will take less pride in their work. Please know that I think we have some wonderful people serving as our custodians right now, but to assume that anyone who would work for these private contracting companies couldn’t possibly be as caring, honest, or prideful as school hires is a terribly disrespectful attitude to take towards people you don’t even know. And even if you have had a personal experience that backs that perspective, I find it, well, highly inappropriate to generalize one bad experience onto all others in that field.

We are not the first district to explore this route. I spoke with a former Marshall teacher/coach who is a principal in Arizona, now, and he said his school has been outsourcing custodial services for 15 years.
Some Michigan schools have been at it for more than five years. Every year more districts are moving to it, not less. Have some schools had unsatisfactory experiences with it? Yes, and some districts have tried it and gone back to hiring their own people. But the vast majority of districts that have gone to it have stayed with it, and many have liked it so much they’ve outsourced other areas of their employment.
I am not going to tell you that there aren’t some shaky firms out there trying to get into this business.
It’s such a growing field that some custodial firms now franchise their businesses and any Mom and Pop couple could choose to purchase and run one of those franchises. Marshall Public Schools is NOT interviewing those companies.

In reading over the three finalist proposals (which are 50+ pages of facts, philosophies, references and figures) I have been very impressed with what they “say” they bring to the table. These are companies that have 12-to-over 30 years experience in the field. Two of the companies employ over 500 people across the state and into neighboring states, and they always try to hire locally.
These are firms that have been in the commercial cleaning business for years and years, and have adapted to school custodial services over the past five to 10 years.
Two of them often are asked to give presentations at training seminars and provide their employees far more training than Marshall Schools does, and also can afford to provide their employees much better equipment than we’re able to.

These companies have grown through the years because they’re providing a quality product, not an inferior one. The letters of reference that appear in their proposals are impressive. Writes one principal “After several years of working with your firm I am still impressed with your workers’ willingness to go the extra mile to ensure the work is complete and to everyone’s satisfaction. I still hear the phrase, ‘not a problem, I’ll take care of it’ on a daily basis.”
Another administrator wrote “I have every confidence that your firm will continue to grow your business in the school sector because of your high commitment to quality service.”
An employee of one of these firms had his school district’s yearbook dedicated to him. An employee of a different firm was voted “support staff person of the year” in 2005 by her district’s teachers.
“You always see the custodians cleaning;” “they never sit still;” and “Andy goes out of her way to help students before school and during lunch,” were all comments from teacher ballots.

I realize these proposals have been carefully assembled and designed to sell us on their services. That’s why I think it imperative to not only personally interview the firms, but also to visit or contact school districts where they’re already working. And during these contacts I’d want to talk with teachers of those districts, not merely the administrators and finance directors. If we don’t come away from our interviews and background checks impressed or excited about the chance to work with these firms, then I would not be inclined to vote to outsource. But IF we’re impressed with their work, and IF we could save $200,000-to-$300,000 PER YEAR for the next three years (and beyond), wouldn’t it be my obligation as a school board member to vote for the change?

Let me close by reiterating my belief that I think we have some wonderful people serving as our District’s custodians and realize that they have loyally cared for our students, staff, and community for many, many years, and rarely receive the thanks and gratitude that they deserve. In my mind this move is a sign of the times and not a reflection on their quality of work or service. IF it turns out that we go with a privatized service, I would want a guarantee that if any of them were interested, that they’d be allowed the opportunity to apply for positions with the hired contractor.

No one on our board wants to create a hardship for them or their families. I know the outsourcing of the custodial team would be unfair to them, and I truly am bothered by the thought of it. But it would be managerial neglect of the highest form to pay that much more every year for the same service. We clearly would not be acting in the District’s best interest. IF these private contractors can provide dependable, safe, attentive, and skillful custodians to continue taking care of the District, and at the same time save $250,000 PER YEAR, then I think voting against privatization would be a “recallable” offense.

There are a lot of “Ifs” in the comments that I’ve made, and until I’ve had an opportunity to learn whether or not those “Ifs” can really be fulfilled, I plan to remain open to the idea that maybe it’s not yet a good fit for Marshall. I’ve written this long piece merely to better inform those of you who have only heard rumors and hearsay of the terrible plight that would befall us if we privatized our custodial staff. There are very good reasons to explore this option. I hope more of you now understand why.