First Selectman Clarifies Fairfield Hills Consultant Compensation

By John Voket

Reacting to what he classified as a rapidly spreading misconception, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal issued a memo and corroborating details this week addressing compensation to an environmental consultant overseeing state-mandated remediation at Fairfield Hills. The origins of the rumor, alleging the town paid a $1 million fee on a $3 million project, may be rooted in local blog website that lists a request made in October 2006 for information related to R.W. Bartley.

That specific request is among numerous documents and reports sought by Matthew DeAngelis, a local liquor store owner who said he is considering a run for the first selectman’s seat in November. Mr DeAngelis, and possibly other individuals loosely affiliated with the blog Insidenewtown.com, filed Freedom of Information requests going back to last fall.

Many of those requests are related to the operations or administration of Fairfield Hills, as well as other governmental functions and municipal financial management. Mr DeAngelis also filed a federal lawsuit last fall against several local officials and the town, seeking a cease and desist order stopping ongoing work at the campus and asking the court to compel a binding referendum on the master plan of development for the former state hospital and grounds that was acquired by the town in 2005.

As recently as last week, a letter in The Newtown Bee from Richard J. Cole refers to a “…$1 million fee…paid to a consultant on a $2.5 million project.” The letter went on to recommend providing greater transparency in local government affairs by using the municipal website to post contracts and expenditures.

Mr Cole also called for an ordinance forcing the town to maintain this level of information on the Internet. The first selectman, however, said he has been working for some time on expanding the breadth of details available to taxpayers and other interested parties using the town website.

The local site, newtown-ct.gov, now offers documentation including past budget details, the current budget proposal, local bidding guidelines, and a breakdown of bonded projects. In a cover memo provided to The Bee, and circulated to members of the Legislative Council, the finance board and his fellow selectmen, Mr Rosenthal said he was prompted to write because of the rumors circulating.

“Unfortunately, the fine work of our environmental consultant, R.W. Bartley & Associates, Inc. who managed the clean-up of ground contamination at Fairfield Hills, has been misrepresented either intentionally or through ignorance of the facts,” Mr Rosenthal writes. “For example, his charges were overstated by almost $300,000 [in The Bee letter of March 23].”

The memo states that Russell Bartley has worked on the Fairfield Hills property since 1999. And that he worked with the town’s environmental attorneys from Robinson & Cole to develop the Remedial Action Plan required and approved by the State Department of Environmental Protection.

“DEP regulations required us to have an environmental professional to direct thorough sampling, monitor, supervise and confirm the remediation performed by the winning bidder, Fleet Environmental,” the memo continues. “The remediation project was completed on time and saved us $500,000 by avoiding the need for environmental cost cap insurance.”

Mr Rosenthal said Mr Bartley’s invoices have traditionally included the most extensive explanation of all charges of any consultant the town has used in the past ten years. A copy of a typical invoice summarizing his work and charges for services, in excess of 40 pages, was attached to the memo to the town officials.

Besides the invoice, the first selectman provided a summary statement from Mr Bartley that explained in detail the extent of his duties ensuring Newtown conforms with mandated DEP requirements, which were stipulations pursuant to the town acquiring the property.

A blog entry from Insidenewtown.com posted March 5 states: “In discussing the $1 million management fee paid to Democratic campaign contributor Mr. Bartley for the $2.7 million remediation (on top of that $2.7 million, of course), Mr. Rosenthal said that the million paid to Mr. Bartley included ‘tests performed on the soil.’”

Mr Bartley’s summary, however, clarifies that the $2.7 million in question was paid to Fleet Environmental Services, the low bidder on that phase of the project, and not to the consultant. The balance of approximately $713,000 that was paid to Bartley included $387,000 for laboratory work analyzing thousands of soil samples, $30,000 paid for “geotechnical services” and a drilling subcontractor, and $266,000 for labor extending over the 17-month period of the project.

The subcontractor was retained to ensure the removal of soil and the backfilling new soil did not damage the structural integrity of the buildings involved, the memo states. In addition to saving taxpayers a half-million dollars in cost-cap insurance, the memo further states Mr Bartley may have affected millions more in concessions by the state by discovering insecticide contamination that the state environmental consultant overlooked, The memo also asserts that Mr Bartley’s company offered services that are deeply discounted from “industry standard rates.”

Mr Bartley estimates that he realized less than five percent of the total expenditure for his own contractor oversight and contract management.

Mr Rosenthal hoped that any concerns stemming from the misinformation circulating about erroneous amounts paid directly to Mr Bartley and his company would be alleviated by the facts. He added that all available documentation is available for review upon request, and electronic correspondence would be posted on the town website.

The first selectman reiterated that virtually all of the work in question was mandated by the DEP, and was conditional to the town receiving the property.

“If anyone has any questions regarding the scope of or necessity for the work performed by R.W. Bartley & Associates, I refer them to Dan White, the DEP project supervisor,” Mr Rosenthal said in his memo. “If he indicates that any of the work was inappropriate or unnecessary, I will seek restitution for same. However, I am confident that will not be the case.”