Countdown to April 29 to PERMANENTLY close M. R. Reiter. Ask the board to see the 6 point plan.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Special Meeting Recap

From the BCCT

District takes steps toward restoring schools
By MANASEE WAGH

After several decades, it’s time to initiate serious updates in Morrisville schools, say area residents.

The school board recently voted 7-1 to start preliminary work to replace the boilers in the high school building and Grandview Elementary.

Some school board members and residents call it the first step toward restoring the schools, which have been in need of repairs for years.

“This is the beginning of something. People should applaud this beginning,” said resident Sharon Hughes.

The district will use Vitetta, a Philadelphia-based architectural and engineering corporation, to begin assessing the work necessary to replace the boilers, as well as looking into two new burners for the elementary school.

Morrisville residents have been calling for a plan to get the deteriorating high school and both elementaries in better shape since the current board canceled plans to build a consolidated K-12 school.

But there’s a problem with taking action on the boilers now, the board minority said.

Evaluating the needs of two schools, designing a custom boiler for each and completing installation could take six months. That would put the project’s conclusion well into the heating season, according to Tim Lastichen, district facilities director.

The price tag for the boilers alone is more than $100,000, not counting the labor and any expenses that could crop up along the way, he said at the Tuesday board meeting.

Some residents and the board minority complained this is a poor time to start an expensive project without a long-term restoration plan that would take the schools’ many other problems into account.

In May, the board voted to hire Wick Fisher White, an engineering firm, to do a $30,000 study of the work needed at the high school and two elementaries. The next step was to advertise for several companies to do that work.

On June, 12 companies submitted proposals to work on all three school buildings. Bill Hellmann, the board president, later cut that down to five and removed M. R. Reiter from the equation without consulting the rest of the board, said board member Robin Reithmeyer at Tuesday’s board meeting.

She voted against going forward on the boiler replacements without a plan that included all three schools.

However, some board members and residents attending the meeting thought it was a bad idea to wait any longer.

“The reason for moving forward is to address an important item,” said board member Brenda Worob, referring to the boilers.

Plus, part of the original $30 million bond that the previous board borrowed to fund a consolidated school needs to be spent soon, Hellmann said.

Board member William Farrell suggested the district not delay the boiler project just because it would take a long time. Maybe the district wouldn’t complete it in time for this year’s cold season, but at least the preparation work would be done, he said.

As for the second elementary school, M. R. Reiter, Lastichen didn’t think it was worth investing in a new boiler, though residents complained that it was too cold for comfort there during the winter.

“Reiter’s so bad, I think it should be bulldozed. I wouldn’t spend money on it,” Lastichen said during the meeting.

M.R. Reiter’s future is still up in the air.

In May, Hellmann unveiled a tentative plan to save money by combining the schools somehow, but no clear action has been taken in that direction yet.

A temporary fix for providing heat in the winter may be to bring modular heaters into Reiter and the other schools, said board member John Buckman.

The district will hold a community action plan meeting at 7 p.m. July 22, in the LGI room of the high school to discuss the boilers and other issues. Residents are encouraged to participate.

9 comments:

Peter said...

"On June, 12 companies submitted proposals to work on all three school buildings. Bill Hellmann, the board president, later cut that down to five and removed M. R. Reiter from the equation without consulting the rest of the board, said board member Robin Reithmeyer at Tuesday’s board meeting."

Is it safe to assume the word "five" is a mistype, should've read "two" and that there's no hidden meaning here?

I must say, I am some what surprised by the selection of Vitetta. While they had the most professional presentation, they also seemed to be the one that could nickle and dime us. They proposed a very rigid schedule and any deviations (i.e. additional planning meetings, etc) would cost us. That said, they also seem very professional and capable.

Peter said...

OK, my wife explained [that I'm an idiot and] this is just a poorly constructed paragraph. I took it to mean, Hellmann cut down the number of schools to five, which clearly did not make any sense, when it actually means that he cut down the number of proposals from 12 to 5.

Brain Fart.

However, I give Ms. Wagh (and her editors) a D+ for turning in such an incoherent paragraph.

john ceneviva said...

Peter,

Sorry, but the subject of the sentence is companies, so "that" refers to the 12. The "and" works in parallel with school building and names MR.

However, I've got a problem with "On June, 12 companies". "In June" or "On June 25th". What is "On June"?

But my biggest complaint is Hellmann's unilateral filtering of the bidding process down to 1. There was no discussion of the alternative bids. No discussion of the other 7 companies. No reason given for why it was a simple up or down vote.

Does the board feel like consumers of the Model-T when Henry Ford said they could have any color as long as it was black? Do they only like grape jelly? Do they like only one type of breakfast cereal? Why do the tolerate being told that they can only have Vitetta? And that they can only have the high school and Grandview? They wouldn't shop at a store that only had one flavor of ice cream, why do they put up with an up or down vote?

Now I've gone and made myself hungry. I'm getting a snack.

Peter said...

OK, John, on a technicality I'll raise my grade to a C. But journalism is about conveying ideas in an unambiguous manner; regardless of grammatic nuances, I'd say this one missed the mark. Of course, it could just be me.

I too am interested to know what happened with the other seven proposals.

john ceneviva said...

I agree that writers tend to make things sometimes harder to understand. I was reading the Sunday Inquirer when I noticed that a reporter said that

"At the same time, military prosecutors at Guantanamo agreed to comply with a military judge's directive that Hamdan's military attorney be allowed to interview the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks before tomorrow to determine whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has any testimony that might help Hamdan's case."

I had two problems with it. 1. Why Khalid is named after his "title" of alleged mastermind is dumb and
2. Lawyers must interview him "before tomorrow". This is better known as "today".

Why can't it be easier to read? You're guess is as good as mine.

Ken said...

Grammar aside, why is it that when Wm. Hellmann does something illegal, no one barks or bites?

Apparently, according to this article and board minutes, the board approved the scope of the RFP. Once the responses were received, the president unilaterally changed the scope. Not only is this ill-advised, I believe it is illegal. No board action was taken to approve this change. Further, it sets the board up for legal action from the respondents because the original request was changed (without board approval) after responses were received and the respondents were not given the opportunity to adjust their responses. It is very likely that a contractor could bring suite for unfair practices.

Why isn't the solicitor keeping things in check? Why aren't board members keeping the president in check? Why isn't the public bringing the board to task for illegal actions?

john ceneviva said...

My opinions follow:

The former solicitor was told that the scope of his job was going to change. He was told that he no longer represented the public good but now had to make sure Mr. Hellmann's actions were not technically illegal. Let the spirit of the law be damned, it's the letter we're following now. He quit.

Time and again we have watched while Mr. Fitzpatrick squirmed and stammered to explain how the actions on Mr. Hellmann were not illegal, many times defying the simplest of logic.

I don't know the law, but one thing seems clear - if the rest of board was as upset over the filtering practices (from 12 to 5 then 5 to 1) of Mr. Hellmann as Ms. Reithmeyer, they have made no public statement. I'm assuming they agree with the practice. The public has raised their objections, but it doesn't seem to matter.

If this board can hear the cries of special education parents and the success of those students and still not allocate district projected funds (underfunding in the future), then I can assume there isn't blood in their veins but ice water.

They will lower taxes and will do it in whatever way Mr. Hellmann advises, let the law, the public, the special education parents and students be damned.

Jon said...

I believe solicitor Mike Fitzpatrick said that these are "professional services" that technically aren't required to go through the competitive bidding process. I think he then went on to explain something vague and non-committal about good practices, etc. - the kind this board generally doesn't follow - but what he says seems to just evaporate into the ether. To my ear, he tends to come off as defending what Hellmann does from a minimalistic legal standpoint, but without any deeper value-added legal or ethical insight, which it's beginning to be clear he doesn't have or won't share. For example, it would have been good to hear him say something to the effect of "A good practice would be to follow the PlanCon bidding process. While what you're doing may be technically legal, if you do things this way, you aren't following the PlanConthe process and will lose state reimbursement, which will cost taxpayer money." How a former US Congressman can have so little "gravitas" is beyond me.

When the July 15 meeting started, Hellmann attempted to call yet another exec session without proper prior notice (24 hrs.). Fitzpatrick was supposed to look into the legal aspect of this. The exec session didn't happen, but I don't remember hearing anything about the why or why not, and I was there for the whole meeting.

My Spider Sense tells me that although he's polite and cordial, Fitzpatrick is in over his head when it comes to school law. He doesn't seem to have the chops. Depending on your viewpoint, this could be a problem. It could also become a problem for him and his law firm if this board goes too far.

Peter said...

"I believe solicitor Mike Fitzpatrick said that these are "professional services" that technically aren't required to go through the competitive bidding process."

This is only partially true. About 1/10th of the overall cost is professional services, but the rest would be capital, which is required to go through the process. Not sure how this works if Vitetta is not selling the hardware directly and is only acting as a GC.