Greenport utilities chief, Village Board spar over monthly report

05/04/2011 10:23 AM |

Greenport utilities chief Jack Naylor said Friday he doesn’t understand criticisms voiced by Greenport Village Board members at their April 25 meeting since they had his monthly report in hand for a week and failed to ask any questions about its content.

He said that although he didn’t stay for the meeting, he did ask board members before he left if they had any questions and no one raised any issues.

At the April meeting Trustee Mary Bess Phillips said she wouldn’t approve Mr. Naylor’s report because she was dissatisfied with information pertaining to work on the wastewater treatment and electric plant upgrade projects. Board members have previously complained that Mr. Naylor failed to move fast enough in getting work out to bid.

Ms. Phillips also complained that while Mr. Naylor has continued to say there isn’t a new work schedule to reflect time lost on the wastewater treatment plant, she saw a revised scheduled that moves the finish date from September 2011 to January 2012.

That schedule hasn’t been negotiated between the Village Board and the contractor, Mr. Naylor said. There’s a lot of “gamesmanship” that goes on between contractors and those who hire them, he said. But for a contract to legally be extended, it has to be negotiated and signed off by both parties so both know if date changes are incurring any additional charges.

The original contract set a $750 a day fee for each day that the contractor fails to meet the target date. But the village wouldn’t exact such payments for days lost when weather made it impossible to work, Mr. Naylor said.

The state Environmental Facilities Corporation, which funneled federal stimulus funds to the project, is aware the work won’t be finished until January and isn’t threatening to cancel any grant funds because of delays, he said.

[email protected]



One Comment

  • The report is the report, not to accept it, as opposed to just questioning the content seems like a petty way to make a point. What possible motive could a trustee have to publicly comment about and reject something as perfunctory as a monthly report. You would think a singular trustee would pick a more private setting to admonish a superintendent if they had concerns about his job performance and then only after the concurrence of the full board and the mayor. I have no comment on the quality of the employee’s work, but do take exception to trustees who do not hold themselves to the same standards as they expect from the rest of village personnel, personal agendas have no place on the VB.