155 Washington Street, Suite 205
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 624-1815
TTY (973) 624-4618
Fax (973) 624-7339
September 26, 2002
Edward Neafsey, Inspector General
Office of Government Integrity
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 063
Trenton, NJ 08625
Re: Paterson School #6
Dear Inspector General:
As counsel for the plaintiff-class in the Abbott v. Burke litigation, I am writing to request that your office conduct a full and thorough investigation of health and safely repairs at School #6 in the Paterson school district. This work was performed over summer 2002 pursuant to a contract authorized by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) pursuant to the Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act (EFCFA), N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-1 et. seq.
In particular, it is our understanding that EDA authorized a contract to remove and replace the boiler and roof at School #6, with work to be completed before the start of school in September 2002. We further understand that this work included the removal of asbestos from the boiler room area, and that the contractor failed to undertake this activity in a timely and proper fashion. Despite this failure, the Paterson school district authorized teachers and students to begin the school in the building on September 3, 2002.
School #6 in Paterson is presently closed as a result of serious concerns raised by teachers and parents about the failure of the EDA and the Paterson school district to properly complete asbestos removal work at the school. As a result of the school closing, students from School #6 have been transferred to School #21, and students in both schools are now on split sessions due to the lack of space at School #21. This situation has disrupted the education of students in both schools, and has placed hardships on teachers and parents.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-43, your office is authorized to "investigate, examine, and inspect the activities of the [EDA] and [school] districts related to the financing and construction of school facilities" and "implementation of the provisions of [EFCFA]." Accordingly, we ask you to exercise this authority and to promptly investigate the health and safety work at School # 6, including the activities of EDA and the Paterson school district in ensuring proper and timely completion of this work. In particular, we ask that your investigation address, at a minimum, the following questions:
- What was the scope and terms of the contract(s) for asbestos and other heath and safety work at School #6 authorized by the EDA? Was the contractor approved by EDA? How was the contract awarded? What was the timeframe for completion of the work? When did work begin under the contract?
- When did EDA notify the district of the contract, and the work to be performed?
- What protocols did EDA have in place, if any, to guide contractor(s), project management firms (PMF), and the Paterson school district concerning the performance and completion of this contract, and the undertaking of construction work in the schools when teachers and students may be present (including after hours)?
- Did EDA have a PMF in place to manage the construction contract at School #6? If so, what are the terms of the contract, and what responsibilities did the PMF have to ensure proper and timely performance? Did the PMF properly execute its responsibilities for project management in this situation?
- Were all construction permits in place – state and local -- to undertake removal of a boiler and replacement of a roof in School #6? Were permits in place to remove asbestos from the school, and was the contractor licensed and trained to undertake that work?
- Did the School #6 school have a Certificate of Occupancy from the state and/or the City of Paterson on September 3, at which time students and teachers were authorized to enter the school?
- Was any testing for asbestos done before the opening of school? If so, what were the results, and were the results reported to EDA, the PMF and/or the school district?
- Did the teachers’ union request that the New Jersey Work Environment Council conduct asbestos testing at the building, and what were the results? Were those results reported to EDA, the PMF and/or the school district?
- Did the construction company follow the requirements for asbestos abatement in K-12 schools under the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)?
- What information was reported by the contractor, EDA and/or the PMNF to the Paterson school district about the work at School #6? Was the school district made aware of the asbestos removal or other problems and, if so, when?
- Have any state contracts been breached in this situation, including the EDA’s contracts with the PMF and contractor, and, if so, what steps will be taken to address such contract violations?
These are just some of the questions that the School #6 events raise, and we ask that your investigation examine every element of the situation that transpired over the last several months at the school. We ask that you particularly focus on the performance of management and oversight responsibilities by the EDA, the PMF and the Paterson school district.
We ask that you promptly confirm that your office will conduct the requested investigation, and provide us with a schedule for its completion. We further ask that you issue a report of your findings, conclusions and recommendations to the public, particularly the students, teachers and parents at School #6 and School #21, and the Paterson school community. It is essential that your office act quickly and thoroughly in this matter in order to restore confidence that the school construction program will be implemented by EDA in a manner that does not jeopardize the health, well-being and education of Paterson students.
Thank you and we are available to assist you in your investigation of this matter.
Sincerely,
David G. Sciarra, Esquire
Executive Director