Dear Editor, The Item,

From the beginning WeLoveMillburn.com has seriously questioned the stance of the BOE's Property Committee to rely solely on one architectural firm for all its needs. This means that a single firm provides a solution in terms of the facilities plan, and then also oversees construction; the net effect is that the firm is in a position to write its own ticket, i.e., it is paid higher fees the more expensive the solution is...and this in a prosaic field where the Board understandably lacks the technical knowledge to question the architect. We wouldn't create this conflict of interest in our personal affairs...we wouldn't have brain surgery without a second opinion, and most of us wouldn't have a house built without interviewing various builders to get competitve bids. In fact this State does not allow the architect to be employed by the home builder in an attempt to protect consumers.

We've been looking for someone to protect us in this way. Our kudos go out to Board Member Scott Kamber who in last week's BOE Meeting proposed a resolution to at least seek out an Advisory Architect who could act as a consultant on an hourly basis to help advise and resolve architectural issues on behalf of the BOE.

As with any professional services, when you look for an architect you should be looking for competence, capabilities and value. So what has this confidence in one firm (essentially acting as an Architect of Record) produced in the past? These are the same people who brought us the new one-story wing at the Middle School which we now discover to have been designed in a way that precludes building upward to three floors...we now would like to have that ability. Also, where the addition was laid out at an angle to the existing structure, the result is poor use of valuable real estate that cannot be used well for subsequent additions. In an ongoing professional relationship like this we should expect some strategic thinking toward our needs including flexibility. Oops. Interestingly this new wing was virtually identical to a wing built in West Orange previously by our architect. Was the design of this wing appropriate for Millburn or just expedient (and profitable) for the architect? I'm no architect but the question is an obvious one.

These are also the people who brought us the window fiasco at Glenwood School--they chose a new window design that did not fit the space over replacement windows, despite the contractor's objection. When they finally came to re-ordering the proper windows, the School District was left paying for the error. The Item reported that the District settled the issue with an "agreement to pay $200,000 to two subconstractors who are reportedly feuding with the general contractor about construction at the school." So much for accountability.

At least Mr. Kamber's resolution was ahead of the most recent architectural faux pas. With the flooding of the new wing at Hartshorn this past Thursday, a reasonable person might once again question the competence of our "Architect of Record". Unquestioned loyalty is often an admirable trait, but not where you've set up an inherent conflict of interest...and especially in light of questionable past performance. Engaging an advisory architect would be a good first step toward empowering the Board to be able to supervise architectural services more ably. Separating the functions of facilities planning and construction among architects, thus removing a conflict of interest, would be next.

The architect's new plan — the $40.2 Million solution — calls for construction on 6 sides of the Middle School while kids are in the building over the course of 2 years, with exposure to dust, noise and danger. By all means please, Remember the Children.

Respectfully,

Dave Graziano
121 Slope Drive
Short Hills, NJ 07078

| Back to top | Back to Reports & Letters |