D'Alusio told me that his understanding was that DCAM and the Department of Developmental Services were both on track to renovate two buildings at Wrentham and have them ready to accept as many as 60 Fernald residents by May. But he acknowleged that the project still hasn't gone out to bid. The design is complete, he said. But the bids were supposed to be solicited in September. The cost of the renovations is reportedly $1.6 million.
As I noted in a previous post, I had filed a request with DCAM on July 9, seeking the feasibility study and a documented cost estimate for the Wrentham renovations. Under the state's public building construction bidding statutes and policies, those feasibility documents should be completed and approved before the design is done.
But after first writing to tell me I should make an appointment to come in and review the records, Peter Wilson, DCAM deputy general counsel, wrote to me on August 21, denying my request. Wilson's denial letter cited an exemption to the Public Records law relating to those ongoing policy deliberations.
The exemption, however, says that it does not apply to “resonably completed factual studies or reports.” The same day I received Wilson's denial letter, I also received a letter from DDS Commissioner Elin Howe, stating that bidding on the Wrentham project was scheduled for September, with a contract award scheduled for October. If that was the case, any feasibility study on the project would have had to be completed by the time Wilson was denying my request.
The Public Records Divsion took more than two months to decide my appeal. Yet, their attorney never talked to me about the case, never asked for Elin Howe's letter, which I had offered to provide him, and never called D'Alusio or apparently anyone else to verify DCAM's exemption claim. The Public Records attorney also apparently never asked DCAM for a copy of the feasibility study for the renovations to decide for himself whether it was reasonably complete.
In his letter to me on Tuesday, Public Records Supervisor Cote stated that Wilson had stated in an October 30 email to his office that there were “ongoing discussions…as to whether 'the building [slated for renovations at Wrentham] can be used' for the contemplated purpose.”
“That's totally new to me,” D'Alusio said, when I read him the passage above from Cote's letter. “I have no information that there are still discussions over the use of the buildings.”
So, here we are. It's already November, with seven months to go until DDS's announced June deadline of closing Fernald, and six months to go until its announced deadline for having Wrentham ready to receive some 60 Fernald residents. A design for the renovations is complete; yet, DDS and DCAM have apparently not even decided that the buildings in question at Wrentham can even be used for “the contemplated purpose.”
Meanwhile, DDS is laying off staff at Fernald and letting conditions deteriorate there — a situation which is putting pressure on remaining family members and guardians of the residents to get them out quickly. No wonder those folks aren't getting much sleep at night these days.
It’s a possibility that we could pursue the request in court. But it’s an expensive and time-consuming road to take. You have to pick your battles, and we’ve already lost a few of them in the court system. Also, by the time we did get a ruling, the case might be moot, or the Patrick administration might be long gone, or both.
I had to read this post twice. You really have to be kidding.
<
p>ON-GOING policy discussions! What? NOT BEEN FINALIZED! What?
<
p>In a Fernald League meeting on October 4th, the Deputy Commissioner for facilities, Diane Enochs, stated that the renovation project at Wrentham HAD been put out to bid and they were anticipating signing a contract that week. She stated that the design was beautiful and later in that meeting she said if you drive there you will see that work was underway. But on October 30th, it has not been determined that these buildings can be used for their contemplated purpose. What? The Facility Director at Wrentham knows nothing about it. What?
<
p>Maybe it just me, admittedly I am a skeptic, I suspect the feasibility study you requested has in fact been completed and the results indicated the buildings were “not suitable for their comtemplated purpose” and/or the costs to make them “suitable for their contemplated purpose” was/is far greater then the $1.6 million figure. It appears that DCAM deputy general counsel Wilson just let a fact slip out that the DDS did want you to know. Its just one explanation for the run around and ridiculous reasons for the denial of your requests.
<
p>
This is a horrible and unjustified decision by Secretary Galvin’s Public Records Office. Is there any possibility of reaching out to the Mass. ACLU, a local law school professor, legal aid clinic, or a local liberal legal activist attorney such as Harvey Silverglate who would be willing to help you reverse this decision by Secretary Galvin on a pro bono basis?