Hiring proposal sparks heated dispute at Frazier meeting
PERRYOPOLIS – The solicitor for the Frazier School District indicated in a letter to the school board president that litigation associated with an architect the board interviewed for an upcoming renovation project at two elementary schools would not place the district at financial risk if he is hired. Attorney James Davis stated in a letter to board president John H. Lowery that “N. John Cunzolo Associates is a validly licensed architectural firm,” and “the firm has requisite insurance, including a $2 million dollar errors-and-omissions policy for professional liability.”
Davis presented Lowery with a response after he questioned what impact, if any, Cunzolo would have on the district if they hired him for the project, despite a number of tax claims and pending litigation involving the firm.
The board is looking to hire an architectural firm for an $8.7 million renovation project at Central and Perry Elementary schools and has interviewed at least seven architects within the last year.
The board heard last month from Cunzolo for a second time when he defended his firm on the various litigation issues.
Cunzolo’s presentation sparked a heated argument among several members, with Lowery denying Dr. Frederick Smeigh, superintendent, an opportunity to speak on the matter until his superintendent’s report at the end of the meeting.
While Smeigh recommended three architects in an earlier report to the board, Lowery and Burkholder criticized Smeigh for not taking any tours of schools that were renovated or constructed by the firms, in addition to the schools they recently visited.
“I don’t have to sit here and listen to the superintendent’s report and make my judgment on that,” said Lowery, adding that he will look at buildings on his own accord.
While the board hired Smeigh to make recommendations, Lowery and Burkholder emphasized the board will make the final decisions.
Lowery and Burkholder also criticized Smeigh’s findings against Cunzolo that he compiled from various newspaper articles relating to the firm’s firing by the Brownsville Area School District and other school district court cases filed with the Allegheny County prothonotary’s office.
As the solicitor, Davis said he is not permitted to comment on the quality of Cunzolo, but said he did legally inquire as to whether or not Cunzolo possessed the required license and insurance to conduct business in Pennsylvania.
Although Cunzolo met both criteria, Davis said Frazier could encounter a problem if they hired Cunzolo and he did not pay a previous judgment entered against him in which the plaintiff then turned to Frazier and asked to garnish any money owed to him under contract. “To that extent, they could incur some fees to resolve it,” said Davis.
Davis said while the situation is unlikely to occur, as the solicitor, he is required to advise the board of any potential issues that could arise.
Davis added that in order for any garnishment fees to be collected, a judgment has to be entered and he said he is not aware of any records against Cunzolo indicating such.
On the other hand, Davis said if there was a contest over the garnishment, the school district would have to decide whether to pay the fees.
“Everything we’re talking about here is conjecture; none of this has happened,” added Davis.
“My job was to give him (Lowery) the possibilities and that’s what I did.”
In the event garnishment proceedings are instituted against Cunzolo seeking payment from Frazier, Davis stated, “It could result in some cost to the district, inasmuch as counsel may be needed.”
Instead of pointing the finger at Cunzolo, board member David Simmons suggested Smeigh look into the legal backgrounds of other architects the board interviewed.
The board took no action on having Davis research the other architects.