Prevailing Wage Issue
We could just as easily have focused this case on the prevailing wage controversy that surrounded the parking lot affair as on its financing. Although many charges have been made against Po Murray for her efforts to insure that the town was adhering to the law, her concerns were legitimate, as made clear by th eventual ruling by the state department of labor that the town needed to comply with the law. Po's a letter to The Bee on July 15, 2009 laid out a number of key facts:
Anyone reading last week’s article "Taxpayer Costs For FFH Complaints" may conclude that $662,217 costs were directly due to the one e-mail I sent to the Department of Labor last May. Not so. I must once again set the record straight.
In April 2008, some residents phoned me to question the prevailing wage law. It was my fiduciary responsibility as an elected council representative to ensure the town was following the law.
Mr. Borst’s statement "that answers to every concern brought up to the state level were available locally" is false. On April 25, 2008, I e-mailed the town attorney. "I have a question about the Ct. Prevailing Wage Law. I am not too familiar with it. Does the Prevailing Wage Law become void when the town signs lease agreements?" I gave the town attorney one month to respond to my inquiry. When I did not receive an answer, I sent an e-mail to the DOL on May 28th. The DOL wrote back on June 5th. "The Town Attorney for Newtown has contacted our department and we will be responding to that request for clarification when it arrives. I am sure the Town Attorney will share this information with you."
On June 12th, the town attorney sent a letter to the state. "The town does not believe that the demolition and construction are subject to the "prevailing wage" provisions because they will be for the benefit of and constructed by a private party who has a long term lease of the property." On June 25th, the state ruled that based on the information received," the demolition and construction is performed by a private developer and is not for public use" therefore the prevailing wage law did not apply. At that point in time, I had believed the concern was addressed and closed.
Months later, I was informed by a resident that the DOL and also the DPH launched a full investigation into the labor practices as well as environmental/health matters on FFH. On February 5, 2009, the DOL subsequently ruled that the demolition and parking was subject to the prevailing wage law when their full investigation determined that the "the parking was ‘shared’ by the Newtown Youth Academy, baseball field, future Parks and Recreation/Senior Center, and future town hall."
Apparently, the town paid $79,900 to adhere to the prevailing wage law.
I am not sure who requested and who prepared the cost overrun summary as this information was presented to the LC while I was away on my planned family vacation. There has been little to no detailed updates from the BOS, the FHA or the town attorney on the status of the DOL/DPH investigations and rulings. It would be wonderful if the Newtown Bee could provide this information to the public.
Rather than mudslinging in preparation for November, I would like to encourage the BOS candidates to spend more time and effort communicating and updating their vision, their plan and their goal for the 185-acre FFH property (with 17+ buildings and over 12MM square feet of space) to their constituents.
Po Murray
38 Charter Ridge