<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://projects.newsobserver.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>newsobserver.com projects - Department of Administration - Comments</title>
 <link>http://projects.newsobserver.com/tags/department_of_administration</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Department of Administration&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Re: No parking on Capitol lawn</title>
 <link>http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/free_parking_for_maintenance_vehicles#comment-21858</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;In all seriousness, why has it taken them over 5 1/2 months to fix the freaking sidewalks!  The construction really is a disgrace.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:00:38 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>dahedgehog</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 21858 at http://projects.newsobserver.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Re: Marshal Goodwin forms new posse</title>
 <link>http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/marshal_goodwin_forms_new_posse#comment-17065</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I do not see this as a good move.  This will not save money overall and will increase the liability of the state.  The problem is that this is a conflict of interest; the job of State Construction is to oversee the construction of state owned buildings, i.e. make sure the cost is low.  The plan reviewers’ job is to make sure state owned building comply with building codes, which includes safety issues and handicapped accessibility among other codes.  So if state construction oversees the plan reviewers and there is a conflict in which state construction wants to save money and not have enough exits or sprinklers in case of a fire, then the code reviewers will have less power to go against state construction and keep the building safe.  The plan reviewers need to remain an independent agency within the Office of the State Fire Marshall, only as an independent agency can they ensure that the dorms your children live in at state run colleges will not be cheaply built and fail to meet the safety requirements set up to keep your child from dieing in a fire.  Put another way, this conflict of interest will also increase the chances that the accessibility code will not be enforced, so that an elderly man in a wheelchair won&#039;t be able to go to the bathroom when he takes his grandson to a state park.  This is a conflict of interest that must be reversed.  It will cost the state more money when the parents of dead college students sue the state for not providing a safe college campus, or when disabled people sue for not being able to get inside a court room to stop their mortgage broker form foreclosing on their house.  Our country is based on the idea of checks and balances, removing the independence of the plan reviewers, the heroes who keep buildings safe for all of us, will certainly result in needless loss of life if a state building burns.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:44:40 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>DrKnow123</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 17065 at http://projects.newsobserver.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
