Fullerton Joint Union High School District

The Fullerton Joint Union High School District has provided this link as a factual resource of information to staff members, students, parents, and community members about the actions and procedures related to construction modernization at Troy High School.

Troy High School (TRHS) students and staff members have expressed environmental concerns regarding construction at TRHS during the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years. You may have seen articles in the newspapers about these concerns. This letter is being sent to every TRHS household to provide parents and students with details of how the Fullerton Joint Union High School District (District) has managed construction projects to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all students and staff members, to inform you of results of testing and investigations regarding safety issues during construction, and to inform you of the next steps being taken by the District regarding this issue.

During the construction process, air quality and other environmental issues were controlled and monitored by inspectors approved by the State of California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), licensed construction management personnel, and District staff members. Subsequently, environmental issues were reviewed by Executive Environmental Services Corporation (EESC), which reported that “acting as an impartial third party, EESC reviewed air monitoring reports for Troy High School, ranging from October 2005 through June 2006.” The EESC report included the following findings:

“Based upon the documentation and steps taken by Winzler & Kelly (the DOSH-approved company hired by the District to monitor the removal of hazardous materials) and the District, EESC is pleased to report that the steps undertaken have resulted in the surrounding construction zone being maintained as required by all federal and State regulations without any risk of attendant health issues to the occupants in the adjacent spaces.” (The entire report may be accessed on the Internet as noted below.)

EESC will continue to provide specialized environmental monitoring to verify that appropriate safety and health requirements are met.

A meeting has been scheduled on Monday, June 18, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the TRHS Lecture Hall. The purpose of this meeting is to disclose all available information to date, to provide an opportunity for parents/guardians, students, staff members, and other interested parties to ask questions and/or express concerns regarding the construction process at TRHS and steps the District has taken, and will continue to improve upon, to ensure the health and safety of all students and staff members during the construction process at all District schools and sites.

A meeting was also conducted on June 12, 2007, at TRHS. Approximately 100 students, parents, and staff members attended and raised questions and expressed concerns. A panel presentation of experts in the fields of construction and hazardous material abatement answered questions, compared and contrasted the construction and abatement processes, and described how hazardous materials are identified and safely removed from schools.

Links to both the Troy High School (www.troyhigh.com) and District (www.fjuhsd.net) Web sites have been created. Linked to the Web sites is additional information regarding the construction and abatement processes, and the steps the District has taken to address health and safety.

Dr. Robert Singer, President of the Board of Trustees, has placed an item for approval on the agenda of the June 19, 2007, Board of Trustees meeting, authorizing independent investigations of environmental concerns related to reported separate construction incidents at Troy High School. The investigator(s) will report directly to the Board of Trustees. The purpose of the independent investigations is to have a third review of the processes to make sure that everything accomplished during the construction projects has been done according to federal and State safety and environmental regulations. The findings of the investigations will be shared publicly as appropriate.

The number and kinds of notifications to parents, students and staff members of planned abatement of hazardous materials, including asbestos, will be increased. Below is the notification for the 2007/08 school year.

This notification is pursuant to the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). During the past school year and continuing into the 2007/08 school year, the following asbestos management activities have been or will be completed at Troy High School (TRHS):

The Fullerton Joint Union High School District (District) has contracted with Executive Environmental Services Corporation to provide environmental assessments and consulting services for all asbestos management activities that are to be completed at TRHS for the 2007/08 school year.

The complete updated Asbestos Management Plan for the District is located at the District Education Center. The management plan can be viewed, without cost or restriction, during normal working hours. Copies can be obtained within 10 days of written notification to the Superintendent’s Office.

Any questions concerning this notice or explanation of our Asbestos Management Plan can be directed to Bill Nance, Director of Maintenance, Operations, and Transportation, at (714) 680-5603.

The District is committed to continuing to provide a safe and healthy environment for all students and staff members. If you are unable to attend the June 18 meeting, and have additional questions that are not answered in this letter or by the information contained on the Web sites, please contact Carl Erickson, Administrator of Human Resources, at (714) 870-2907. Thank you.

Staff members and students have expressed environmental concerns as a result of construction at Troy High School (TRHS) during the construction and modernization process in the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years, and separate construction incidents that reportedly took place at TRHS in 1997 and 1999. The information presented in this memo responds to concerns and explains how the Fullerton Joint Union High School District (District) managed the construction projects to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all staff members and students, and will continue to improve upon the oversight of construction projects.

I have already provided a letter which responded to concerns and questions. For the purpose of this memo, I have, in some cases, summarized and clarified information from the letter provided on May 23 and June 1 and 5, 2007.

Summary

A letter from Executive Environmental Services Corporation (EESC), which responds to concerns was provided to TRHS staff members on June 13, 2007. In part, the letter states, “Acting as an impartial third party, EESC reviewed the air monitoring reports for Troy High School, ranging from October 2005 through June 2006.” Two important findings of this review include:

- “Based upon the documentation and steps taken by Winzler & Kelly (the AQMD approved company hired by the District to monitor the removal of hazardous materials) and the District, EESC is pleased to report that the steps undertaken have resulted in the surrounding construction zone being maintained as required by all federal and State regulations without any risk of attendant health issues to the occupants in the adjacent spaces.”

- On June 9, 2006, a meeting was held at TRHS attended by 15-20 TRHS staff members. “This meeting centered on concerns about construction dust from the work area that may have entered occupied spaces and what hazardous materials the dust may have contained. Staff members were invited to contact Ms. Rosenberg directly by telephone to discuss confidential health concerns. As of July 28, 2006, no specific staff member has contacted EESC requesting any information or otherwise communicating health allegations.” (Note: On May 31, one TRHS staff member made a written allegation of health-related concern.) I continue to encourage anyone who has specific health-related concerns to contact Carl Erickson, the District’s Administrator of Human Resources, at (714) 870-2907 to discuss the matter or to obtain Ms. Rosenberg’s contact information.
In verbal and written comments made at the May 1, 2007, Board of Trustees meeting, a TRHS staff member stated, “Knowing these issues makes the article that appeared in the O.C. Register last June 16th ironic. As it gave accolades to this District for cutting construction costs, one should wonder, ‘At what health cost to the students and staff?” The staff member also shared with the Superintendent that there is a “pervasive belief at Troy High School that the District put people at risk to save money.” Please allow me to state that neither the Board of Trustees nor the Superintendent would ever, nor will ever, knowingly make decisions that put the health and safety of staff members, students, parents, and community members at risk for any reason.
The number of air monitoring assessments was increased. The District hired EESC, a third-party expert, to conduct air studies in the 300 and 500 buildings to validate that the health and safety of staff members and students was not compromised during the modernization process and to ensure that AQMD standards were adhered to properly. For example, when it was discovered that a construction worker mistakenly used oil-based primer sealer, construction and modernization work was immediately stopped for three days to make it very clear to the contractors that such failures and mistakes would not be tolerated. The District also constructed barriers as recommended by EESC to segregate the construction areas in the 300, 400 and 500 buildings from students and staff members.
Dr. Robert Singer, President of the Board of Trustees, has placed an item for approval on the agenda of the June 19, 2007, Board of Trustees meeting, authorizing independent investigations of environmental concerns related to separate reported construction incidents at Troy High school in 1997, 1999, and during the construction and modernization process during the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years. The purpose of the independent investigations is to ensure that everything accomplished during the construction projects has been done according to all federal and State safety and environmental regulations. The investigator(s) will report directly to the Board of Trustees. The findings of the investigations will be shared publicly as appropriate.
Out of an abundance of caution, the District is working with the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to assess environmental questions in the mechanical room (900M), north gym/dance room and the trophy case in the 500 building.
Links to both the Troy High School (www.troyhigh.com) and District (www.fjuhsd.net) Web sites have been created. Linked to the Web sites is information regarding the construction and abatement processes, and the steps the District has taken to address health and safety. The links will be activated by June 15, 2007, and will be updated periodically.

Concerns were expressed in the May 8, 2007, letter from TRHS staff members to the Superintendent. As stated earlier, for the purpose of this memo, I have, in some cases, summarized and clarified information from the letter of response provided on May 23, and June 1 and 5, 2007. This letter provides information which has previously been provided or has been available from the District to all staff members at TRHS. In the following paragraphs the District responds to each request for information. For convenience, the questions in the
May 8, 2007, letter have been reproduced then followed with the District’s corresponding answers. The District appreciates the opportunity to provide all TRHS staff members with further clarity regarding the information requested.

The air study reports have been available in the TRHS main office, beginning in May, 2006, as the reports were completed. The reports include air studies conducted during abatement beginning in October, 2005. The testing done during abatement is highly regulated and must be monitored by an independent consulting firm whose sole job is to oversee the work done by the abatement contractor regarding health and safety to ensure compliance with all regulations. The air sampling completed during abatement measures the air inside as well as outside of the containment area. Once the abatement is completed, an air clearance certification is granted before further work can continue in the area.

The abatement of potentially hazardous materials and the air clearance certification signify that the area is safe for occupancy and the remodeling process can continue because there is no risk to health and safety. It is well established standard practice within the construction industry that air samples are not taken during the period of construction, between abatement projects. As established through construction practices and in compliance with the legal requirements, since identified hazardous material(s) has been removed and the air has been certified to be clean, there is neither a legal requirement nor need for further air sampling.

Once staff members expressed concerns about conditions in the buildings under construction, measures were put into place that went beyond established standard practice. Air sampling was done on a regular basis between abatement phases. The tests done measured the amount of nuisance dust and particulates in the air with the intent to check for any levels that may pose a hazard to staff members or students. The findings of the air studies, as included in the reports, state that there were no findings of any health and safety risks. These detailed reports have been, and continue to be, available to anyone who wishes to review the reports, including TRHS staff members, students, parents, and community members. The larger abatement reports have been available at the District Service Center and have been forwarded to the TRHS main office. In addition, the District will provide a copy of the specific report(s) within 10 days after a written and signed request is received.

As staff members have been informed, Executive Environmental Services Corporation, an impartial third party under the direction of Ms. Susan Browne Rosenberg and Mr. Daniel H. Ginsborg, conducted a comprehensive investigation of the work conditions impacted by modernization at TRHS. On June 9, 2006, Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Ginsborg met at TRHS with approximately fifteen (15) TRHS staff members to discuss concerns about construction-related dust and the potential of any hazardous materials the dust may have contained.

A review of the various types of reports available of the buildings undergoing modernization was presented. A copy of the Executive Environmental Services Corporation report dated July 28, 2006, has already been provided to all TRHS staff members

The Material Safety Data Sheets for the materials used for modernization have been provided by Erickson-Hall Construction as required. This information has been available and continues to remain available on-site at TRHS.

Effective June 11, 2007, the District has made arrangements for Sunday only spraying for all scheduled applications with increased postings at all District schools and sites. School-sponsored activities on a Sunday may only take place with the approval of the Superintendent.

The District complies with all laws pertaining to chemical applications on-site. This information has been available and continues to be available through on-site postings, the contracted application provider, and at the District Service Center.

The District will also consider the suggestion to use Integrated Pest Management systems rather than the chemicals currently being used.

The list of chemicals is provided annually to all parents and students in the Summer Update District publication, which is mailed to the addresses of all District students each August and provided personally to those who enroll after August. Beginning in the fall, 2007, this information will be included in the staff member handbooks provided to all District staff members at each school and site.

This information has been available and continues to be available through the contracted application provider and at the District Service Center.

The District appreciates the opportunity to provide additional clarity in each of the above areas. Thank you for acknowledging a continued effort on behalf of the District to provide follow-through on workplace concerns. We have demonstrated our commitment to staff members through numerous site-based safety meetings with both staff members and modernization contractors. Further, extensive air monitoring analysis has been consistently performed. Both site-based and District administrative staff members have been, and will continue to be, available on an individual and group basis to discuss any workplace or safety-related concerns.

The District will continue to make modernization or chemical application information available to all staff members and other interested parties. The District will continue to meet with staff members as needed to discuss concerns and provide additional information as available.

Thank you for your commitment to working together as we continue to provide a healthy and safe educational environment at Troy High School and all District schools and sites.

In order to better communicate the actions that have and will take place to address your questions and concerns regarding the construction at Troy High School, the following information is provided to you.

A meeting will be held at Troy High School (TRHS) on Monday, June 18, 2007, in the Lecture Hall. Meeting attendees will be provided with asbestos abatement and construction information. Staff members, parents, students, and community members are invited to the meeting.

This notification is pursuant to the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). During the 2007/08 school year, the following asbestos management activities have been or are currently being completed at Troy High School (TRHS):

o 100 Building (A Building – administration building, staff lounge, café staff restrooms)

The Fullerton Joint Union High School District contracted with Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers to provide Environmental Assessments and consulting services for the 2006/07 school year. In addition, the District will contract with Executive Environmental Services Corporation to provide environmental consulting services for all asbestos management activities that are to be completed at TRHS for the 2007/08 school year.

The complete updated Asbestos Management Plan for the District is located at the District Education Center. The management plan can be viewed, without cost or restriction, during normal working hours. Copies can be obtained within ten days of written notification to the Superintendent’s office.

Any questions concerning this notice or explanation of our Asbestos Management Plan can be directed to Bill Nance, Director of Maintenance, Operations, and Transportation, at 714/680-5603.

The communication of construction activities consists of weekly meetings with the Erickson-Hall Construction Management Company (CM), contractors, District staff members, school administrative representatives, architects, and the inspector of record. Activities are scheduled by the CM, and then reviewed in these weekly meetings so that the types of work are coordinated with each construction trade and with the school as to not disrupt the educational process. Relevant information is relayed to school staff members as deemed necessary by the school representative.

In modernizing TRHS, the work is done in two distinct phases. The first is the abatement of hazardous materials, followed by general construction work. The abatement process is highly regulated by the State of California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). The abatement process, taking approximately five days, is followed by 12 weeks of construction. The abatement process begins with full containment of the area to be abated. This full containment includes surrounding the rooms in plastic material that is sealed and placed under negative air, which is called an “envelope.” The negative air system is set up to prevent the flow of air out of the containment area. The air that is in the containment area is filtered through HEPA filters and exhausted out of the building. The air that leaves the HEPA filter is 99.5 percent clean. I understand the air leaving the abatement area to be generally cleaner than normal outside air. Once the containment system is in place and tested, the actual abatement begins and the hazardous materials are removed and disposed of following regulatory standards. During this time, the air inside and outside of the work area is continuously sampled and must be maintained at regulated levels. At the conclusion of the abatement, the work area must reach acceptable levels to be cleared as clean and ready for occupancy. Once that clearance is received, all work that follows is being done without any hazardous material present. Any dust that is stirred up during the general construction would not contain hazardous material, as validated by the abatement reports taken prior to that construction beginning. The amount of dust outside of the construction work zone was not monitored from October, 2005, to May, 2006, as this is not required by DOSH. Beginning in May, 2006, air samples have been made periodically inside and outside of the work zones to see that the levels of nuisance dust and particulate material are acceptable for those in the building.

The construction company doing the construction was selected through the process that is required by the Public Contract Code. The District, with the assistance of the Construction Management company, publishes the project scope of work in the appropriate newspapers and trade journals and receives sealed bids. The District is required to select the lowest responsible and responsive bidder from those submitting bids. To determine a responsible bidder, the contractor must have their license verified; bonding must be in place; references checked; and not have been irresponsible and unresponsive in other projects. By law, for the District to reject the bid of any contractor, there must be evidence that one or more of the above items are out of compliance.

The companies working for the District must meet the requirements of DOSH and OSHA as well as maintain a safety record that will allow them to maintain the levels of insurance required for them to be bonded.

The length of time from when I was first made aware of air quality issues was partially extended because of a misunderstanding of the area of concern in February, 2006. In referring to “air quality in the air system in the science rooms,” the first response from staff members was to look into the newly finished science rooms, the result of which produced a report addressing air flow in the new science building. Once it was clarified that the questions were directed to the rooms that used to be science rooms in the 300 building, information was requested on those rooms. As District staff members were gathering information, both old and new systems were providing adequate ventilation as required. Engineering and architectural consultants were brought in for specific advice. Some of the time delay was in the time of response of the consultants that needed to be contacted through the architect on the project. In April, 2007, a major change in the appearance of the 300 building with removed ceiling tiles and clouds of dust reported by staff members brought about changes in the general construction phase of work as described above. The improvements to the barrier and air system in the work zone have continued forward from that point. While there may not have been the communication with Ms. Flavell that you are referring to, there were actions on the part of the District and Erickson-Hall Construction Management Company in and around the construction area that were responsive to the concerns.

Through information provided in meetings to which all TRHS staff members were invited on May 16, 2006, and June 9, 2006, and in memos to all TRHS staff members dated May 19, 2006 and June 13, 2006, it is my understanding that the questions and concerns raised in February, 2006 were addressed. It is apparent to me now that the concerns and questions were not addressed satisfactorily over a year ago, as the concerns and questions were again raised in April and May of 2007.

The role of the campus administration is to be informed of the construction process and to relay pertinent information to school staff members and the construction team. The Principal is now being directed to take a more active role in questioning any potentially disruptive activity and is given the authority to stop work until any questionable activity is explained or corrected.

On May 11, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., a TRHS staff member showed the bags labeled “asbestos” to me. The asbestos bags found on campus were in a room (700m) that has not been part of this modernization project. The source of the material in those bags is unknown at this time, and why they were left in that room is also unknown. As required by DOSH regulations, the bags were properly labeled. Per DOSH regulations, the bags were six milliliter polyethylene material, stored upon a drop cloth of 6 milliliter polyethylene and then covered with another layer of six milliliter polyethylene sheeting. The bags were under an air handler, which is a sealed system that draws air from outside the room. The air in the room is not distributed into other rooms or areas, unless the door to the room is opened. The reason why and how the bags were in room 700m is being investigated by the District, Executive Environmental Services Corporation, and the Air Quality Management District. The only other known related event would be the panels left in the trophy case in the 500 building, showed to me by the same TRHS staff member before the staff member showed me the bags. These were placed in the case, a self-contained area, to be disposed of during the abatement of that wing, but were overlooked in the abatement process. The bags and the panels were safely removed within four hours after I was notified.

As stated above, the hazardous materials were abated under regulations and procedures as developed and approved by DOSH throughout the modernization phases in the 300 building. The air you were exposed to was cleared prior to moving into the rooms, and anything in the air would have been created as part of the nuisance dust from general construction. Any other odors or chemicals related to construction are identified in the Material Safety Data Sheets on file for the project and would need to be coordinated with the time period that you were in the room.

You asked about the District policy and process for awarding contracts, especially in relation to a sole source, no-bid contract. For construction work, the District follows the Public Contract Code and is required to select the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. However, your question of sole source seems to be directed to the selection of consultants which is done through a Request For Proposal or Request For Qualifications. In the more specific reference to Executive Environmental Services Corporation (EESC), that firm was not contracted by the District and was providing services through an agreement with the District’s insurance company. EESC is well recognized in the field. The impartiality is determined by the standards and regulations as established by the State of California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH).

The structure of the District construction program is under the auspices of the District Business Services Division, which coordinates the District’s facilities needs using firms that have specific expertise and have been hired to handle the day-to-day operations of the modernization at each of the sites. The firm that handles this management of duties is a construction management (CM) firm that provides the District with the expertise in the areas of planning, bidding, verification of references of the bidder, supervision of construction, and close-out of projects. The CM firm becomes the conduit between the District, architect, contractors, and various State agencies that regulate school construction. The CM consists of a senior project manager, project engineer, clerical staff, and a site construction superintendent that is assigned one to each District site. At the site level, the construction superintendent is responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the contractors, seeing that plans and schedules are followed, ensuring that safety meetings are held, alerting contractors to any safety concerns, and ensuring that the construction areas are secure. District staff members work with the CM to ensure that District plans are followed and to communicate any additional needs. A representative from the school site is involved in the weekly construction meetings with the CM, contractors, and District staff members. The hiring of a CM firm would be the equivalent to hiring an on-site project manager representing District interests and student safety. The CM is not a low-bid choice, but was selected through the Request For Qualifications and an interview process. The choice was made just as the selection of any District employee would take place: checking qualifications, interviewing, and reference checks. The answer to your question is that one more person supervising will not stop human error, only everyone being aware and vigilant can contain it.

There will be an increase in the notification process in future abatement phases of the construction process. The District has made it known since 1988 that asbestos is present at the school sites and there have been updates on asbestos removal through reports and annual publications presented to the Board of Trustees; however, these have not reached the specific populations at the sites being abated and more direct communication methods have and will be put into place. Just as a point of clarification, the reported event of 1999 that refers to carpet removal was not part of the District facilities program begun in 2002. The removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials is done under stringent regulations controlled by the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health in modernization and construction at all sites in the District.

The District will improve upon communication in the areas of safety, health, and construction processes and I appreciate your concern in these matters. I hope that through our correspondence we will gain a better understanding of our common goals to provide a safe and healthy environment for students and staff members at TRHS.

June 21, 2007

To: All Troy High School Staff Members, Parents/Guardians, and Students

As you are aware, questions and concerns have been raised regarding the construction and modernization process at Troy High School (TRHS) between 2005 and 2007, and separate construction projects that took place at TRHS in 1997 and 1999. In response to the concerns and questions, the Board of Trustees authorized an independent investigation(s) at the Board meeting on June 19, 2007,

The primary goal of the investigation(s) is to provide an independent and thorough examination of the specific incidents, documents, and actions related to environmental concerns that have arisen during construction and modernization.

It is the expectation of this investigation that a review of existing documentation and statements of involved parties will identify both appropriate and improper actions that occurred at TRHS during the specified timeframes.

The assigned investigator(s) will report directly to the Board of Trustees. The investigator will conduct comprehensive interviews with contractors, consultants, witnesses, and current or former District personnel. The findings of the investigation (s) will be shared publicly as appropriate.

A work group is being organized to develop the recommended criteria for the Board’s consideration in selecting the independent investigator(s). Meetings to develop the criteria are scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, June 27 and 28, 2007, at the Education Center in Conference Room 2 from 9:00 to 10:30 a.m. The Education Center is located at 1051 West Bastanchury Road in Fullerton. Participation is open to all interested TRHS staff members , students, and parents. If you are interested in participating on this work group, please call Diana Dorado at 714/870-2881, or simply plan on attending the first meeting on June 27.

In addition, as you may recall, a meeting was held at TRHS on Monday, June 18, 2007, to address concerns and questions regarding the construction and modernization processes. During the meeting, a TRHS staff member expressed serious questions about how expressing such concerns are addressed and how one’s expression of concerns could have a negative impact on the complainant. Please understand that State law and the District’s own Administrative Regulations state that “the complainant shall be protected from retaliation.” I continue to encourage anyone who has questions and concerns to please share those concerns with the full knowledge that complainants will be protected from retaliation.

The following information is provided in response to questions (noted in italics) posed by a Troy High School (TRHS) staff member in a letter dated June 12, 2007.

The purpose of the questions is to determine how contracts are selected and monitored by District staff in order to ascertain if there have been potential breakdowns in oversight and project management. They also seek to determine the level of stakeholder involvement, including teachers, parents, and students.

“Bid process conforms to law: – Still, there is some latitude in establishing the process. What exactly is the District’s process? How are qualifications and construction proposals evaluated? Is the community involved in the selection process? The $68 million construction budget is substantial. How much has been allocated to overhead (District administration and consultant) and how much to direct services?

The District follows the Public Contract Code for the bid process. Competitive bidding law and District policy require the award of a publicly-advertised contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid unless it is in the best interest of the District to reject all bids, which would require a re-bid process. Responsible bidders refer to a prospective bidder's ability to satisfactorily perform the work. Selection of the lowest responsible bidder does require an award to the bidder submitting the lowest dollar bid unless that bidder is deemed not to have such ability to perform. Responsiveness refers to the conformity of the form and content of a bid as to what is specified in the bidding documents.

The community is not directly involved in the selection process. However, the community is involved through the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees approves the call for bids and awards contracts to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, as required by the Public Contract Code. The selection process is spelled out in the Public Contract Code.

Construction contracts are received through a sealed-bid process and are not proposals. If your question on evaluation of construction proposals refers to the validation of being a responsible and responsive bidder that is capable of fulfilling the contract, then that process is completed by the construction management (CM) company working as a consultant for the District. The District’s CM checks references to ensure that all bid documents are properly completed and licenses are current and appropriate for the work to be completed.

The language of the Bond funds limits the type of overhead that can be charged to those funds. The District pays part of the cost of two clerical staff and one non-supervising Director with expertise in project management per article XIIIA of the California Constitution, section 1, subdivision (b)(30)(A). Part of the requirements of doing public works projects is to provide a Labor Compliance Program (LCP) to monitor that all contractors are paying prevailing wages to all workers. The funds provided by the State to support the LCP must be matched by the District, and the funds for this program are for personnel and payroll verification tracking software. The total amount spent for administration on each of the 12 projects has been less than 15 percent of the total project budget, which is typical for similar projects which range from 11 to 19 percent.

“School officials alerted the community…through public meetings…” When were these meeting held? Where were they located? What was the attendance (sign-in sheets)? What did the noticing entail (where were meeting notices posted or published)?

The District has made both public and on-site notifications regarding hazardous material abatement for Troy high School:

a. Board of Trustees public meetings – Abatement projects at each site are listed for public review or discussion. Attendees are not required to sign in.

b. Bond Committee meetings – Members of the community serve as representatives from each campus. Dates of these meetings are posted in the Superintendent’s office 72 hours in advance. Notification and discussion about hazardous material abatement for all sites undergoing modernization are included as discussion items. Periodic summary status reports are completed and are available for public review. Attendees are required to sign in.

c. On-site construction meetings where staff members attend these meetings include a review of hazardous material abatement schedules that will be occurring at each site. Attendees are required to sign in.

d. On May 16 and June 9, 2006, meetings were held at TRHS to which all TRHS staff members were invited. Approximately 40 TRHS staff members attended the May 16 meeting and approximately 15-20 TRHS staff members attended the June 9 meeting.

e. Annual public meetings on “Five-Year Deferred Maintenance Plan” review – These public meetings include each site’s hazardous material abatement schedule. Attendees are not required to sign in.

f. Construction and Modernization Plan Update meeting – These are public meetings of the Board of Trustees that review abatement and individual construction progress including any hazardous material abatement projects. Attendees are not required to sign in.

g By law, the Contractor who is abating hazardous materials physically posts written notification in multiple locations within 20 feet of the abatement zone.

h. The Contract Code prescribes that during the bid process for removal of hazardous materials that all hazardous materials to be abated at each site are listed and published in local newspapers.

i. A listing of all asbestos on campus is updated every three years and is given to each campus Principal who is instructed to make the document available for public review.

What are the stated goals of the District’s Citizen’s Committee? How was the committee established (were members appointed or did they apply)? Why are the minutes on the District’s webpage only from November 6, 2006? What kind of material is given to the committee members (not presentations, but handouts). Does this material include quarterly financial reports matched with contract milestone achievements?

The Board of Trustees established a Citizens' Committee (Committee), as required by law, so that the voters and taxpayers in the District are assured that their money from the Bond will be spent prudently to address specific facility needs of the District in compliance with legal requirements. The Committee monitors the District's Bond-financed projects, ensures that all Bond funds are spent as they are intended, and reports to parents and community members on the progress of the Bond projects.

An application was developed and distributed requesting interested community members to apply to serve as a member of the Committee. No applications were received. Therefore, all members of the Committee were invited to participate and appointed since no one voluntarily expressed an interest to serve by filling out an application.

Pursuant to Education Code Section 15264, vigorous efforts are undertaken to ensure that the expenditure of bond funds are in strict conformity with the law. Taxpayers directly participate in the oversight of bond expenditures. Parents and community members have been and are encouraged to apply. Per Education Code and Board action, the Committee has seven members, five of whom must be represented by the following individuals:

1. One member shall be active in a business organization representing the business community located within the District;
2. One member shall be active in a senior citizens’ organization;
3. One member shall be active in a bona fide taxpayers’ organization;
4. One member shall be the parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the District; and
5. One member shall be a parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the District and active in a parent-teacher organization.

In an effort to fully represent all comprehensive campuses (as a best practice, not per regulation or Board action), the last two positions are assigned to “at large” members of the community with knowledge of which ever campuses are not represented in the positions above so that each campus has a representative.

The members of the Committee are to alert the public to any waste or improper expenditure of school construction bond money. The Committee has met with its own legal counsel, which is available at all times for advice as well as having its own audit performed on the school bond projects. Audits were performed on 78 percent of the 2005/06 expenses.

Committee minutes can only be posted when they are formally approved by the Committee, and the Committee generally does not have summer meetings. Currently minutes are posted through March 26, 2007. In addition to verbal updates on the current status of construction at each campus, the District Program Management firm produces a monthly Summary Status Report which includes a Cost Report Summary, a Schedule Report Summary and Specific Project Status which the Committee receives. The Cost Report Summary is reconciled monthly to the Accountability Software tracking system, which is generated from actual District disbursements and used to generate District and State financial reports.

What type of construction contracts have you been using? Especially, how are change orders administered? Why is it that the first action you took when alerted to the potential environmental hazards at Troy, you called your insurance broker to determine if you had any liabilities with the construction workers? Teacher complaints of ill health seem to have been dismissed once your insurance folks told you the liability of the workers was limited.

In order to better control the construction process and protect District construction projects from being too dependent on one contractor, the District uses a Construction Manager and contracts with Prime Contractors utilizing a prime contractor agreement that has been approved by legal counsel. The change order process begins with a Request for Information (RFI) that is submitted for approval and then becomes a Chang Order Request and then a Notice to Proceed. No Change Order is made without the express approval of the contractor, construction manager, the architect, and the District. The change orders are all approved by the Director of Construction, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, and the Board of Trustees at one of the regular meetings of the Board of Trustees.

District employees had no background and professional expertise to evaluate allegations regarding environmental hazards in the work place caused by construction. ASCIP is a full service insurance cooperative made up of over 120 school agencies statewide. ASCIP’s services may include consulting, risk management services, and hazardous materials training for districts which are too small to have employees specialized in these areas. ASCIP was contacted to request assistance. ASCIP recommended that a report conducted by a neutral third party may be preferable to the District selecting a consultant to perform the review. No draft report was received by District or ASCIP staff prior to publishing the findings and recommendations. Potential liabilities related to construction workers have not been an issue with the District and would likely be handled by legal counsel rather than an insurance carrier.

A meeting was conducted at TRHS after school by Susan Rosenberg and Daniel Ginsborg of Executive Environmental Services Corporation on June 9, 2006. All TRHS staff members were invited by memo to attend the meeting, and all staff members were encouraged to ask questions. As stated earlier, between 15 to 20 TRHS staff members attended the meeting. The findings of the report were made in writing to the District in a letter dated July 28, 2006, from Executive Environmental Services Corporation. A copy of the letter has been provided to all TRHS staff members and has been posted on the District’s Web site. Recommendations from the report were implemented and now walls of two-by-four studs, fiber board, and plastic with negative air machines are used inside the construction zone. Additional air sampling has been done between abatement phases, which monitored the air outside the construction zone as safe to be occupied. No other complaints were reported until the spring of 2007.

Information in Response to Concerns regarding Construction and Modernization
at La Habra and Troy High Schools
July, 2007

Troy High School (TRHS) students, parents, and staff members and a few La Habra High School (LHHS) staff members have expressed environmental concerns regarding construction at TRHS in 1997 and 1999, at LHHS in the spring of 2006 and at TRHS during the 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years. Concerns were expressed regarding activities related to asbestos abatement and nuisance dust. Concerns regarding pesticide spraying were also expressed. Letters were sent home to every TRHS household in June, 2007, to provide parents and students with details of how the District has managed the construction projects to address the legal requirements to maintain a safe and healthy environment for all students and staff members, to provide information of results regarding testing and investigations, and to inform all of the steps being taken by the District regarding any concerns. In addition, the District has created a link to the District Web site (www.fjuhsd.net). You are encouraged to access the Web site for more complete information regarding responses to concerns and questions.

Concerns were first brought to the Superintendent and District staff members by a TRHS staff member in late February, 2006, about construction that had been taking place for almost six months and recent pesticide spraying. Documentation on the District’s Web site explains the steps that were taken in the spring of 2006 and in 2006/07 at TRHS to address the concerns. These steps went well beyond the industry standard construction requirements, which do not include ongoing air monitoring. Then in April, 2007, concerns arose again regarding construction that was completed almost a year earlier (concerns which were thought to have been resolved in June, 2006) and recent pesticide spraying at TRHS. Concerns at LHHS were expressed about five days of concrete demolition and addressed in the spring of 2006.

As verified by Executive Environmental Services Corporation, Erickson-Hall Construction Management Company, and Winzler-Kelly Consultants, hazardous materials abatement (including asbestos) and construction have been and will be completed under the regulations as specified by the State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), the Air Quality Management District (AQMD), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other applicable Federal and State guidelines.

During the asbestos abatement process, air quality and other environmental issues are controlled and monitored by independent inspectors and hazardous material abatement contractors approved by DOSH, licensed construction management personnel, and District staff members. These groups always monitor the abatement process that best ensures the maintenance of a safe environment. During construction and modernization, noise and nuisance dust occur, and measures were taken to monitor, mitigate, and control the impact on the learning environment.

1. In order to be doubly certain that all construction was completed within legal requirements that ensure the safety of students and staff members at TRHS, the District’s liability insurance carrier contracted with Executive Environmental Services Corporation (EESC) to complete an analysis in the spring of 2006. The letter from EESC, which may be accessed through the District’s Web site, responded to concerns expressed by TRHS staff members in 2005/06, and, in part, states, “Acting as an impartial third party, EESC reviewed the air monitoring reports for TRHS, ranging from October 2005 through June 2006.” Two important findings of this review include:

“Based upon the documentation and steps taken by Winzler & Kelly (the State-approved company hired by the District to monitor the removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials) and the District, EESC is pleased to report that the steps undertaken have resulted in the surrounding construction zone being maintained as required by all federal and State regulations without any risk of attendant health issues to the occupants in the adjacent spaces.”
On June 9, 2006, a meeting held at TRHS was attended by 15-20 staff members.
“This meeting centered on concerns about construction dust from the work area that may have entered occupied spaces and what hazardous materials the dust may have contained. Staff members were invited to contact EESC directly by telephone to discuss confidential health concerns. As of July 28, 2006, no specific staff member had contacted EESC requesting any information or otherwise communicating health allegations.” Then, on May 31, 2007, one TRHS staff member made a written allegation of health-related concern.

2. The District hosted two meetings in June, 2007, at TRHS to review hazardous materials abatement and construction procedures that included presentations by Erickson-Hall and EESC. The third meeting at TRHS took place on July 16, 2007, at which Dr. R. J. Maurer, Medical Director of Occupational Health at St. Jude Heritage Medical Group, spoke on general health issues in and around construction areas.

3. In addition, the Board of Trustees has authorized independent investigation(s) of the concerns related to construction at TRHS and LHHS. The primary purpose of the investigation(s) is to provide an independent and thorough examination of the specific incidents, documents, and actions related to the environmental concerns that have arisen during construction and modernization at LHHS and TRHS; and to identify both appropriate and any improper actions that may have occurred. The findings of the investigation(s) will be shared publicly as appropriate.

An area where the District has already improved the process is notification of asbestos abatement. The federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) of 1986, with the enforcement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “requires an annual written notification to parents, teachers, and employee organizations regarding the availability of the school’s asbestos management plan for review and any asbestos abatement actions taken or planned in the school.” According to an EPA publication, “a great deal of flexibility exists with respect to methods for notifying the parents, teachers, and employees. This notification could be in the form of newspaper advertisements or an article in the school district’s newsletter.” While the District’s notification practices, first put into place in 1988, may have met the minimum notification requirements, the practices do not meet the District standards and parent/staff member expectations for effective communication. Therefore, the number and kinds of annual notifications have already been increased.

Bags labeled “asbestos” in a mechanical room at TRHS were shown to the Superintendent by a TRHS staff member on May 11, 2007. Within four hours after the bags were shown to the Superintendent, the bags were removed by an abatement company, and the AQMD was notified. The origin of the bags and how long the bags were in the room are currently under investigation by the AQMD. The bags were properly sealed, ensuring that no individuals came into contact with asbestos.

The District complies with the Healthy Schools Act of 2000, which requires notification of pesticide spraying. Effective in mid-May, 2007, all scheduled pesticide spraying at District sites has been and will be conducted on Sundays only. To the best of our knowledge, the District is the only one in Southern California to have Sunday-only spraying.

At the Board meeting on July 17, 2007, the Board of Trustees approved the Request for Proposal (RFP) for an investigation to provide an independent and thorough examination of the specific incidents, documents, and actions related to environmental concerns that have arisen during construction and modernization at La Habra and Troy High Schools.

The Board of Trustees is making a concerted effort to secure the most qualified person or firm to conduct a thorough, credible, and independent environmental investigation. We have provided a comprehensive distribution of the Request For Proposal (RFP) for environmental investigation of new construction and modernization projects, seeking qualified individuals or firms specializing in environmental investigations.

Specifically, the Board of Trustees has distributed the RFP to Exponent Environmental, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and the Association of Professional Industrial Hygienists Inc.; as well as, complying with public notification requirements by posting the RFP contact information in local media publications. The Board of Trustees has distributed additional RFP requests to more than 30 individuals and businesses that inquired.
Here are the explanations of the organizations selected as the source of potential proposals:
Exponent Environmental represents a multidisciplinary team of approximately 800 scientists, physicians, engineers, and regulatory consultants specializing in 70 scientific and engineering disciplines.
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) is one of the largest international associations serving the needs of occupational and environmental health professionals practicing industrial hygiene in government, labor, academic institutions, private industry, and independent organizations. AIHA includes more than 11,600 members worldwide. AIHA is dedicated to health and safety in the workplace, community, and environment.
Association of Professional Industrial Hygienists, Inc. (APIH), was established to maintain, publicize, and distribute a registry of those persons already working in the field of industrial hygiene who meet stringent education and experience criteria. The APIH provides the industry standard for professional certification of Professional Industrial Hygienists.
As Board President, Dr. Singer personally conducted two pre-proposal conferences with interested vendors on July 30, 2007, and August 13, 2007. Four companies were represented at the July 30 meeting and two companies were represented at the August 13 meeting.
The Board will use a Project Manager as its direct agent for initiating and managing the study. Lisa Sachs, President and CEO of Construction Controls Group, Inc., will serve as the Project Manager for the Board of Trustees. Lisa has specific experience relative to investigations of this nature for school district construction projects, including working with investigations of the following districts:
o North Orange County Community College District
o Anaheim Union High School District
o Inglewood Unified School District
o Beverly Hills Unified School District
o Compton Unified School District
Lisa has Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Architecture degrees from Rhode Island School of Design, additional construction management courses at UCLA, and is a Certified Construction Manager and State of California Licensed Architect.
As a reminder, the application deadline for proposals is August 23, 2007, at
4:00 p.m.
The Board of Trustees will itself review the proposals and make the decisions how to best proceed with the independent investigations.