Members of the Maine Department of Education and the Bureau of General Services toured Scarborough High School with school administrators Wednesday morning to review the construction now under way, but members of the media were not allowed on the tour.

The team was there to review the school’s construction in light of concerns that have been raised regarding the quality of the project. Dale Douglas, of the Education Department, said the department does not to allow media on the tours because members wanted to be able to speak freely about the construction and were concerned about having their comments misconstrued by reporters.

The state has conducted more than 60 such tours around the state this year and has not had any media on any of the tours. Superintendent William Michaud said it was a similar circumstance to an executive session or an internal investigation.

The district expects to have a report from the state sometime next week, before the Town Council takes up the issue again.

Councilors gave preliminary approval to spend $20,000 to hire an independent engineer to review the high school construction project in a 4-3 vote at a special meeting March 30. The final decision will be made at the council’s April 20 meeting.

Council Chairman Jeffrey Messer had originally planned to ask the council for final action March 30, but after discussing the issue with school officials agreed to delay the final vote. That would give the school board a chance to discuss the issue tonight, April 7, and at its April 14 meeting and report to the council whether or not it feels hiring the outside engineer is necessary.

At the March 30 meeting, Messer gave a presentation on some of the problems at the school, which included 36 photographs of the construction, showing what he said were deficiencies and shoddy workmanship. Messer said it was disturbing to him that the school department had the same information, but had not acted on it.

While the school department had answered many of his questions in a 300-page reply, Messer said the response raised as many questions as it answered. In addition, he found some of the responses incomplete. For example, the school’s reply to questions regarding the anchor bolts indicated they were isolated problems, but Messer’s presentation showed many examples of what he feels were widespread problems with the anchor bolts, which hold down large structural beams inside the building.

But the presentation was not enough to convince Councilors Carol Rancourt, Sylvia Most and Patrick O’Reilly to vote in favor of the expenditure. Each said they felt the council was overstepping its bounds and the school board should deal with the issue before it comes to the council.

“I don’t believe this is the role of the council at this time,” Most said, adding the issue was not being handled in the right way. “Now we have a crisis of confidence with the public where we didn’t necessarily need one.”

Both Most and O’Reilly said that while the presentation was compelling the photographs were out of context and represented just a small shot of a particular moment in time and the problems could have been fixed.

Those in favor said an outside engineer should review the building construction to identify any maintenance issues that may arise due to poor workmanship, and also put to rest public concern surrounding the issue.

“I think whether it’s real or perceived we have a problem,” Councilor Shawn Babine said, adding that the review is a way to avoid litigation. “This is about getting what we asked for, period.”

Michaud said the schools’ architects, Harriman Associates, “are providing superb oversight.” Michaud also said bringing in an outside evaluator may slow down the project. He also expressed concern that the council was overstepping its bounds.

“We really believe there is a serious jurisdictional issue here,” he said.

School Board Chairman David Beneman agreed with Michaud and said that while the project is not perfect it is “fine.”

“It upsets me we let ourselves to deteriorate into what I think is a witch hunt mentality,” he said. “I just think the Town Council tonight in lay terms is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.”

Some board members are waiting until tonight’s meeting, which will include discussions with Harriman Associates and Pizzagalli Construction, before they decide whether they want to hire an engineer or not.

“I can’t see throwing money away until we see exactly what occurred,” said board member Bob Mitchell, adding that he is unsure of how much work an engineer will do for $10,000 or $20,000.

On the other side is board member Dianne Messer, who said she is in favor of the move and will vote for it when it becomes an action item at the board’s April 14 meeting. Messer is the wife of Council Chairman Jeff Messer, who has been the primary voice of concern about the project.

“There seems to be problems with this project and I think we need an outside person to review it,” she said. “I think its time somebody else stepped in and takes a look at the project.”

Jeff Messer said he is hoping that the board will recommend the expenditure, but even if it does not the council can still choose to move forward. The $20,000 request would require five affirmative votes in the Town Council because it is an expense outside the regular budget.

However, if that number were reduced to $10,000 – for a less-thorough review – the council would need only a simple majority. Messer said he would ask the council to spend the $10,000 if enough of his colleagues did not support spending $20,000.

Copy the Story Link