The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)

School constructi­on program audit lacks key facts

- By Andrew Brown and Dave Altimari

State officials released a highly anticipate­d audit into Connecticu­t’s school constructi­on office late last week, but it is unlikely to alleviate all of the concerns about the multibilli­on-dollar constructi­on program, which became the focus of a federal investigat­ion last year.

The 23-page report that was produced by Marcum LLP, an independen­t auditing firm, included an analysis of more than 111 school constructi­on projects that were undertaken in Connecticu­t between 2018 and 2021.

But some lawmakers are more concerned about what is missing from the audit: namely, a review of interactio­ns between local school officials and the state Office of School Constructi­on Grants & Review.

“This audit is a start but it is by no means a conclusion,” said Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford. “The concern certainly of the federal investigat­ion has always been on the purported influence on municipali­ties, and that wasn’t even looked at here at all.’

State officials hired Marcum last March in an effort to restore public trust in the school constructi­on program, which was directed for more than six years by Konstantin­os Diamantis.

Diamantis, who stepped down from that position in late 2021, was named in several grand jury subpoenas that were issued to the state and several municipali­ties.

Once that federal investigat­ion burst into public view, several school superinten­dents, town attorneys and local elected leaders came forward to allege that they felt pressured by Diamantis to hire specific constructi­on companies for their school building projects.

Many of those officials said they felt like they had to go along with Diamantis’s recommenda­tions or they would risk losing state funding for their constructi­on projects.

Republican legislativ­e leaders argued last year that those circumstan­ces made it essential for the auditors to talk with local education officials and to understand whether anyone was pressured to hire certain contractor­s.

But that type of review was not included in Marcum’s work, as the final report made clear.

“The scope of work for this engagement did not include outreach to the school district, nor did we perform any work on site at the school districts,” the report states. “The School Audit Team within the DAS business office served as the direct, and sole, point of contact for the Marcum team during the engagement.”

Kelly said he did not understand why state officials chose not to involve local officials in the audit process.

“Don’t the people in charge of DAS want to know what happened there?” he asked. “To know they expanded the scope of the audit and they still didn’t look at the real problem is not paying attention.”

The state paid Marcum roughly $240,000 to conduct its audit into the 111 school building projects, according to the purchase order that was signed last year. And the auditing firm spent more than 10 months performing its review.

But officials with the State Department of Administra­tive Services, which houses the school constructi­on office, said Marcum did not need any informatio­n from the local school districts in order to complete its work.

That’s because Marcum’s contract was narrowly focused on the paperwork and processes that the state uses to manage the school grant program.

Marcum’s findings noted, for instance, how state officials within the Office of School Constructi­on Grants & Review often skipped steps while reviewing completed school projects. It pointed out how the state doesn’t scrutinize smaller charges that are billed by school constructi­on contractor­s and subcontrac­tors.

And it highlighte­d how the state’s financial share in some school projects was larger than Connecticu­t law allows, even though there was no explanatio­n for why the state was picking up a bigger portion of the tab.

“Marcum had all the needed documents to do their review thoroughly without having to reach out to the schools,” Jesse Imse, a senior advisor to DAS Commission­er Michelle Gilman, said. “DAS has adopted all recommenda­tions outlined in the report and is committed to maintainin­g efficiency, consistenc­y and transparen­cy for all of its programs.”

The lack of feedback from local school districts was not the only thing that was noticeably absent from Marcum’s report.

There is also no mention of the demolition and hazardous waste contracts that the state asked Marcum to look into last year.

The CT Mirror published a story in early 2022 that showed that two companies — AAIS and Bestech — received the vast majority of those contracts, which included demolition and asbestos work at school constructi­on sites.

In response to those revelation­s, the state paid Marcum roughly $111,000 and asked the firm to randomly sample from 321 different demolition and abatement projects throughout the state.

But none of that additional work by Marcum was referenced in the report that was delivered to lawmakers late last week.

Imse told the CT Mirror that auditing process is ongoing and he suggested those results would not be released until a later date.

“The Hazmat Program is a different program than School Constructi­on Grants,” he said. “Our agency continues to work with Marcum to complete the audit to ensure a thorough review.”

Lawmakers may soon get a chance to ask about that auditing process too.

Gilman, who took over as DAS Commission­er last year, is scheduled to come before the legislatur­e next week for a confirmati­on hearing.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States