(Ed. Note: The following letter was sent to School Board President Pam Morano, and is printed here at the writer's request.)
I am writing to you in regard to the payment of bills under the Orifici contract. The facts as described below show a pattern of unwise and unlawful expenditures of taxpayer monies.
Orifici Contract
The contract between the Board of Education ("Board") and J. Michael Orifici Associates ("Orifici") provides construction management services for the proposed $50 million bond issue and for monitoring and administering current school construction projects for a fee based on the hourly rates for employees in the contract.
Orifici commenced services on March 14, 1997. No contract was entered into until the board meeting on Aug. 11, 1997. The contract had been on the board's June agenda for approval, but was tabled because the board president said negotiations had not been concluded.
Orifici Bills
On June 10, 1997, Orifici submitted bills for various services amounting to $20,712.50. Even though Orifici's contract was still being negotiated, the board paid these bills on June 27, 1997. Before a board of education can lawfully spend taxpayers' monies, it must have entered into a contract which has been approved at a public meeting of the board. Therefore, this payment was unlawful. Moreover, how could the board pay these bills when the board was presumably negotiating what to pay Orifici for these various services?
On Aug. 13, 1997, the board paid Orifici $23,617.50 for bills Orifici submitted. Each of these bills misstates the hourly rates of the employees who worked on the construction projects. In each bill Orifici billed his employees at hourly rates different from the hourly rates in the contract. (Apparently Orifici has different hourly rates for each of the school districts for which it works.)
On August 13 and September 17, 1997, the board paid $5,745 for unitemized bills Orifici submitted. None of these bills indicate the employees who worked on the project, the hours worked or their hourly rate. Hence, they lack any specificity and fail to comply with the billing requirements of the contract.
Furthermore, none of these bills sets forth any detail as to the days employees worked, the time spent or the work performed. They are devoid of the specifics one would need to verify payment.
On Sept. 30, 1997, the board paid Orifici $5,500 for additional service for graphic presentation, including a visual entitled "Astound." The fee was based on hourly rates for employees who are not provided for in the contract. The only authorized contract payment for pre-planning services was $15,000 of which $12,500 had already been paid. Assuming the bill was for this purpose, the total payment amounted to $18,000 which was $3,000 more than was authorized.
Conclusion
1. How can the taxpayers of Garden City trust Orifici to manage and administer approximately 75 contracts when it cannot manage and administer its own contract with the district?
2. If the board of education has not been able to manage and administer the Orifici contract to date, how can the taxpayers of Garden City trust it to manage and administer the $50 million it asks us to authorize?
Thomas M. Lamberti
