Board Of Ed Asks Clarification Of Hawley Renovation Costs

By Susan Coney

The Board of Education met Monday, July 18, with the intentions of approving the selection of a new assistant principal for Newtown High School and to evaluate Superintendent Evan Pitkoff’s performance; however, an unanticipated item was added to the night’s agenda. Chairman Elaine McClure expressed concern for the increased costs projected for the Hawley School renovation project.

As reported in last week’s Bee, Superintendent Pitkoff hinted that the original number of $3.3 million already budgeted would be insufficient to cover the renovations and projected that an additional $1.2 in funding may be necessary. Board member Paul Mangiafico proposed that discussions pertaining to the Hawley renovation be added to the agenda. The board voted four to two asking for more clarification of the added expense to renovating the school.

Mr Mangiafico commented, “Last week some more information came forth and some changes in the numbers for the project. I would like, for the next meeting, that we receive a list of pertinent changes made to the project cost and why.” Fellow board member Thomas Gissen added, “We would like in a clear, concise manner what is to be done and the time frame. It would be helpful to everyone in the community.”

Superintendent Pitkoff reassured the board that he would be meeting with representatives from CES (Consulting Engineering Services, Inc) prior to the next board meeting scheduled for August 16 to get a breakdown of the figures and a schedule of events. He stressed, “We need to vote on this, implement it, and get it done in a timely manner.” Dr Pitkoff previously told The Bee that since the $3.3 million allocation was approved last year he has been informed there have been measurable increases that will affect the cost of the project.

After the meeting Ms McClure told The Bee that making such important decisions is especially challenging in the summertime when many people have scheduled vacations and it is often difficult to have everyone present at crucial meetings. She said that business director Ron Bienkowski had just returned the day of the board meeting from vacation and that his knowledge and comments are vital.

Ms McClure acknowledged questions about the project from the Board of Finance and that the school board will require clarification for the cost increase. “Obviously we want to know the numbers, the reasons for the numbers, and the timing of the project. We need to get clarification to see if we should move forward with the procedure,” she said.

Time will tell what the renovation costs will pan out to be as the project bids are due August 23. The students will be heading back to the classroom on August 30 and renovations will not begin until later in the school year.

In other business the board met to evaluate Superintendent Evan Pitkoff’s performance. Ms McClure met separately with Dr Pitkoff to go over the evaluation. “It is standard procedure for the chairperson to review the evaluation with the superintendent. It’s a polite heads up, rather than having him see it cold at the next board meeting,” she said. Each board member received a finalized copy of the evaluation, which they will discuss and review with Superintendent Pitkoff at the August 16 meeting.