Did the P & C reporter ask the obvious questions when Bill Lewis, the person responsible for the district's building program, made this statement?
"It should be a simple problem to fix, except that the manufacturer who created the massive pieces of equipment has gone out of business. To replace each of the gym's three units will cost a total of $450,000."
That's right. What is the name of the manufacturer? When did it go out of business?
How about this statement: ". . .the Wando high school gym is the only one [in the district] with this type of faulty unit."
How about this question: Why? Who chose this unit?
Then there's the question of timing:
"The district last year hired a third party to do an engineering review and troubleshoot the unit, and the company found that a number of bad decisions were made when the machines were assembled, Lewis said."
Question: Was the manufacturer already out of business at that time? And, more importantly, who assembled the machines? [note the use by Lewis of the passive voice to avoid naming the responsible party].
And then the punch line (that would be a punch of $450,000 in the wallet to taxpayers):
"The school district has ordered new, nearly 2 1/2-ton machines, which are expected to arrive at the end of August. Lewis expected the new units to be installed by the end of September.
"'These are not window units,' he said. 'We have to structurally reinforce the roof, and all that is being finalized."
The roof is deficient also?
According to the story, "The 4-year-old cooling system has been working inefficiently since it was installed."
Well, did the installers gone out of business too?
If it worked poorly from the beginning, did Lewis contact the responsible parties, or did both go out of business as soon as they were paid?
1 comment:
Sounds like Bill Lewis is the real problem here. He's the one who is supposed to be watching out before these things become problems, not just give excuses and assign blame after the fact.
Post a Comment