Way back in the summer of 2005, the Space Needs committee recommended that Griswold residents consider several alternatives to meet the growing number of students attending our public school. The next step was to appoint a School Building committee.
What happened with the recommendation??
The Board of Selectman that was elected in November 2005 did not act on the recommendation until Summer 2006, one full year later. Only the Board of Selectman can answer as to why it took nine months to appoint a committee to address the needs for the future of our students.
Building classrooms to teach our students is the right choice for Griswold.
[Opinion of Ron Ward, Founder of the Jewett City Party]
The following article published by The Day on May 9, 2007
Contract In Limbo For Griswold School Project
by Megan Bard - published by The Day - May 9, 2007
Griswold — With plans for a proposed $69.9 million school project still being finalized one month before a townwide vote, officials and the architectural firm that designed the school project have yet to sign a contract.
As attorneys continue to negotiate, the two sides have decided to put aside their “petty squabbles” for now to see how the $35.9 million new elementary school and $34 million renovated middle school proposals fare with voters.
At issue is a promise made to New Britain-based architectural firm Kaestle Boos Associates Inc. that it would continue working for the town if the projects were approved at the mid-June referendum.
The promise, made during an interview process in January, goes against a town ordinance that requires that most contractual work worth more than $3,000 be put out to bid. It also does not comply with the original request for qualifications the town solicited late last year, which only referred to work done before the referendum.
However, during the interview process, School Building Committee members informed the two finalist firms that the committee had a $29,900 budget, with $25,000 of that to be spent on an architect. At that point, someone — either from Kaestle Boos or from the committee — proposed that if the architect would do the work for that amount, the firm would be guaranteed the job, should the school projects be approved by voters.
Neither side disputes that the proposal was made, but who made the proposal is disputed.
Charles Boos, CEO and chairman of Kaestle Boos, said the committee made the suggestion. Committee Chairman Franklin Everett said it was proposed by the architect. Either way, both men agree that everyone at the meeting that night approved of it.
Within weeks, Kaestle Boos presented the town with a contract reflecting the firm's work from conceptual design to ribbon cutting. Attorneys for the town reviewed the contract, amending one section involving the amount of insurance required. This issue, however, has become nearly irrelevant.
In late March, attorneys again reviewed the contract, this time comparing it to what was required in the original request for qualifications. It was then they discovered the contract had gone beyond the scope of the request and is in violation of a town ordinance.
First Selectwoman Anne P. Hatfield, a member of the committee, said she remembers people discussing the promise but that no formal vote was taken. Based on the town attorney's recommendation, Hatfield has refused to sign the contract.
Hatfield has suggested revising the contract to pay Kaestle Boos for its services up to the referendum. As of Friday, the firm had not been paid for its work.
Charles Boos disagrees, saying he believes his firm has a binding verbal contract with the town and that he has worked in good faith based on this agreement.
In a legal opinion presented to the town by the firm Shipman & Goodwin, which is representing the architect, an attorney wrote that the ordinance does not apply to the work Kaestle Boos is providing the town because that work is considered contractual services. Town Attorney Michael Zizka disagrees with this interpretation.
In a conference call at a meeting on April 20, Zizka said the promise should never have been made. He said if voters approve the projects, the town is required to seek new proposals from architects to complete the job.
However, Zizka said the lowest bidder need not be chosen and that preference could be given to Kaestle Boos based on its involvement.
An alternative to following the ordinance is to include Kaestle Boos in the referendum question, identifying the firm as the chosen architect. Zizka said this is legal because an ordinance can be overridden based on an affirmative town meeting/referendum vote. Zizka did not recommend including the information on the ballot, however, saying that it puts the town at too much risk for litigation. Zizka said if the original request indicated that whichever firm was chosen would see the project through to completion a different group of applicants may have submitted proposals.
At a meeting between selectmen and building committee members Tuesday night with the town's bond counsel, the issue was not considered, according to Hatfield.
A second alternative would be to agree with Kaestle Boos and sign the contract, but to require the architectural firm's lawyers to defend the town against any litigation because of the decision. Zizka said if all firms who bid on the original request knew they would have an opportunity to see the job through to completion, there may have been more bidders.
Comments posted by Readers
u r kidding right. u don't have kids or pay taxes and u r tellin us what to do. get a grip.
May 9, 2007 3:12 PM