Letter Was Rife With Misinformation

The Bee has received the following letter to Ruby Johnson for publication.

Dear Ruby:

Your letter to The Bee of July 9, 2005, caught my attention. You made numerous accusations most, if not all of which, are incorrect and create the false impression that we are dishonest.

The allegations and responses are as follows:

1. The Charter states that the Public Building Committee is charged with the “control of supervision and construction of building projects…” This is true but the Charter goes on to say that they have “powers and duties germane to the office and not inconsistent with the General Statutes or prescribed by ordinance.” There is a Public Building Committee Ordinance #19A still in effect from July 18, 1979, that in essence states that the Public Building Committee renders such services which the Board of Selectmen or Board of Education “may at any time and from time to time request in writing.”

2. The town attorney “ruled the Charter could be ignored.” No such ruling has been given by the town attorney.

3. “That ruling allowed the Board of Education and Legislative Council to hire Connecticut Building Solutions to oversee the Reed School construction for about $1 million.” The Board of Education, in consultation with the Public Building committee, hired a company called Strategic Building Solutions to act as the staff of the Public Building committee, which is a volunteer commission. SBS worked on the Reed Intermediate School project under the supervision of the Public Building Committee which was in control of the project at the request of the Board of Education.

4. “More recently, the FFH Authority bypassed the Public Building Committee again by hiring Bartley and Associates to oversee the removal of hazardous soil and O&G Associates to oversee other demolition work at FFH.” The Fairfield Hills Authority did not hire either of these firms. The Purchasing Authority hired them in accordance with the Town of Newtown’s purchasing regulations.

5. “All were no-bid contracts.” Once again, this is incorrect. All three firms were hired in full compliance with Board of Education and town purchasing regulations. There were newspaper advertisements requesting proposals in accordance with town prepared specifications. Many firms responded to each advertisement and all proposals were reviewed by subcommittees. Numerous firms were interviewed before the contracts were awarded. In the case of R.W. Bartley and Associates, seven environmental firms were interviewed. In the case of O&G Industries, five firms submitted proposals and three were interviewed. The environmental soil remediation is governed by a remedial action plan required and approved by the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in July 2004. The firm or firms who submit bid proposals for the actual work will be chosen in accordance with Town purchasing regulations. They will be supervised by R.W. Bartley and Associates, an LEP (licensed environmental professional), as required by the DEP.

It is really shocking to read as much misinformation in one letter as contained in yours. This does a real disservice to the unsuspecting public who you purport to inform. In the future, I hope that you will more carefully research the facts.

Sincerely,

Herbert C. Rosenthal

First Selectman

45 Main Street, Newtown                                     September 13, 2005