A Shaved Duck? wrote: » The civil service had to sign off on the builds, so questions quite rightly have to be asked and evidence of any due dilligence provided. People simply cant blame the builders here...somebody in the department of education has to sign off.
AGC wrote: » The builders could self certify in many cases. If the government/civil service are to be involved it should have been the OPW. To try and lay the blame at a civil servant of whatever grade who may not know one end of a hammer to the next is not correct. Department of Education looks after education not construction.
Professional and Technical Section The section is responsible for: providing specialist technical advice and assistance as required to all sections within the Planning and Building Unit development of policy and procedures in relation to capital works research - planning and design of education facilities, energy efficiency etc. and development of design guidance and standard room templates provision of assistance to schools and Design Teams at all stages in the progression of projects through the design and construction stages production of a suite of documents to facilitate school design including design, procurement, construction and procedural advice.
Pat Dunne wrote: » You might want to have a look at the following brief from the Dept of Education and Skills, in regards of their Planning and Building Unit.https://www.education.ie/en/The-Department/Management-Organisation/Planning-Building-Unit.html The last section mybe of interest
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » So your saying that not one person from either the civil service or department of education should at the very least inspect building works for a school that taxpayers money if funding and children will be sitting in 5 days a week? I find this very hard to believe. Edit... just noticed you have been educated on this..my bad
AGC wrote: » And my original post stated I felt it should be done by OPW. I never said it shouldn’t be inspected by the civil service.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » Which was wrong, department are explicitly responsible.
blanch152 wrote: » We can't be paying civil servants to stand around and watch every bricklayer to see that they are doing their job properly. This looks like a clear situation of a private sector company seeking to shortcut a public job.
Former Former wrote: » This, a million times over. You pay someone to do a job, you expect them to do it properly. If you got a builder to do your own house and three years later it's falling down, you wouldn't say "ah well, I've only meself to blame". In this specific case (as I understand it), the defect is that the outer wall is not properly joined to the inside wall. So any inspector would have to be on-site as that job is happening, arriving the day before or day after would be useless. That's not reasonable. I'm baffled by the response of WBS which was pretty much "well, the department signed off on it" - not that the work was up to code, not that they'll fix any defects, but that because the department didn't catch them in the act, tough sh1t... The bigger worry is what else is lurking in these buildings.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » Two wrongs dont make a right, when the department is spending multiples of millions on a building project at the least there should be a dedicated resource signing off on any and all milestone in the project. Its this attitude of we cant expect a civil servant to be on site thats in my opinion nonsense, its the least that we should expect there is a whole department specifically for this and they are getting paid well.
Former Former wrote: » Ah listen, there's a chip on your shoulder about civil servants that's completely tainting your view on this. There should be a basic expectation that a contractor is going to perform the job he's paid to do. Foundations, steelwork, roof - I'd expect an engineer to sign off on those. To detect any and all faults like this, you'd need multiple inspectors on site at all times, and then people like you would be b*tching because bureaucracy is adding to the cost of projects and driving up the cost to taxpayers. The builder is at fault here. They didn't do their job. I don't know why people have to defend and make excuses for cowboys stealing their taxes.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » What chip? expecting some responsibility on a department to actually fuflill their remit in terms of oversight for major building projects? In the last 15 years its been obvious that the private sector has taken advantage of the light touch regulation and we are still seeing the same behaviours by all parties. If you can accept that then thats fine but at least be mature enough to see an alternative view. What do you mean by "people like me"?
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » expecting some responsibility on a department to actually fuflill their remit in terms of oversight for major building projects?
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » ...If you lads are satisifed that the same lackluster approach to regulation is applied because its deemed to expensive or how can we expect people to do their jobs..then your entitled to your view.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » Clearly a lot of civil servants reading this thread. Im not suggesting that there is an infinite pot of cash nor that there isnt blame on both sides. It does seem that making the point that the department responsible is partly culpable here is pretty unpopular. If you lads are satisifed that the same lackluster approach to regulation is applied because its deemed to expensive or how can we expect people to do their jobs..then your entitled to your view. It doesnt change the fact that schools had to temporarily closed down as the system is still broken..but sure carry regardless there is always a grey area or excuse.
LorelaiG wrote: » The parents voted that the schools remain closed because they weren't guaranteed that they were safe, as a result, children were bussed to different accommodation off site this morning. I'm not a parent of kids in the school so no idea where they've been moved to during the works. If I find out I'll update.
miamee wrote: » From what I understand both schools were to continue housing the smaller children on their ground floors with older children being sent off-site. That is still up in the air for St. Lukes after they had parents visit on Wednesday, not sure if it's the same for TET. For one school they are walking to the nearby Le Chéile secondary school to use empty classrooms there and for the other they are to be bussed to another school though I can't remember where that one is, possibly Ongar.
advertsfox wrote: » Correct, our girl is in TETNS Junior Infants and has went in the last 2 days. There is no support beams in her classroom at all, the media who were showing all the scaffolding outside and in didn't mention that the pictures were from two different schools. TETNS is not as near as bad as portrayed but St. Lukes is.
LorelaiG wrote: » How can you be sure of that.
