Employee Group Seeks Cure for ‘Sick’ County Courthouse : Environment: Death and illnesses of some courthouse workers have raised concerns about asbestos and air-quality problems at the building. But the county denies it is a hazard.

The deaths of several courthouse workers and judges, and the mysterious illnesses that have plagued other employees, have sent Superior Court Clerk Chuck Martin looking for an antidote to the “sick building syndrome.”

Each dead or sick employee had one thing in common: They all worked inside the aging downtown County Courthouse.

In 1990, Martin and a group of employees tallied the deaths because of cancer of six workers, including a Superior Court judge. Over the years, the group has reported 26 cancer deaths among the approximately 800 employees and judges who work in the building. Most of the deaths occurred in the past five years, Martin said.

According to the latest figures provided by American Cancer Society officials, national cancer deaths average 171 per 100,000 population, so the expected number of deaths among 800 people would average out to 1.4.

Dozens of other employees and judges have also complained of health problems blamed on asbestos contamination and the 30-year-old building’s air-conditioning system.

Although asbestos was used in the construction of the building, none of the deaths or illnesses has been linked to it. Air samples taken by the county’s Occupational and Radiological Health Division have also shown that asbestos and the building’s air system do not present a health risk to employees, officials reported.

However, doubts about the building’s safety persist. Martin and the Courthouse Asbestos Removal Effort committee, or CARE, continue to log cancer deaths and illnesses of employees. CARE is an employee advocacy group formed about three years ago, with Martin as co-chairman.

San Diego County Superior Court Executive Director Kenneth Martone has echoed some of CARE’s concerns. The “environment of the courthouse” has been a longstanding concern, he said.

“We have had courtrooms made unavailable due to asbestos monitoring requirements. . . . This facility has more public use than any other county facility,” Martone said. “Not only are we concerned about employees who work in this courthouse, but we are also concerned about litigants, jurors and the public who have to come to a building that doesn’t work.”

Despite repeated denials by county officials that the courthouse is a health hazard, the committee has tried to convince the San Diego County Grand Jury, Cal-OSHA and anybody who will listen that the building is killing people and making them sick. The courthouse, argued Martin, has sick-building syndrome--a catch-all phrase used by critics who cannot prove the building is responsible for the deaths and illnesses.

So far, CARE has been unable to convince anyone but its members of the building’s hazards. In June, the previous county grand jury acknowledged the danger posed by cancer-causing asbestos and proposed several stop-gap measures, including giving maintenance employees physical examinations every six months and annual exams to other employees.

However, the grand jury report stopped short of blaming the courthouse for employee deaths or illnesses. The report’s recommendations were dismissed by county officials on grounds that the county already had an acceptable plan to monitor asbestos.

In September, the current grand jury refused the committee’s request to conduct its own investigation. Foreman Reno J. Testolin noted that the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health approved the county’s plans for asbestos removal from the building. Testolin also said that air samples taken by county officials showed that “no health dangers exist.”

Rejected at every turn, the employee group has asked the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for help. AFSCME Local 3500 represents most Superior Court employees. The union is the workers’ last chance to prove that their working environment is making them sick and killing them, Martin said.

“At this juncture, we are looking for a Lone Ranger type of intervenor,” Martin said in a letter to AFSCME Business Agent Ed Lehman. “ . . . If you have any silver bullets left, we need them.”

But CARE is being stymied once again. Although Superior Court employees work in a county facility, county officials argued that they are under no obligation to negotiate health and safety issues on behalf of the workers with the union that represents them.

Both sides have differing interpretations of confusing state laws that apply to court workers. County officials believe that legally they are authorized to negotiate only economic issues on behalf of Superior Court employees. Other issues have to be discussed with Superior Court judges, county officials insist.

What the county can or cannot legally negotiate with the union has been a sore point with both groups since the union organized the workers last year.

“It’s a very frustrating experience,” Martin said. “The county has a self-interest in all this, so you know they’re going to minimize the danger. But, if they really believe there’s nothing to worry about, what’s wrong with letting the union conduct its own tests?”

About 18 months ago, an asbestos expert from the union’s international office did a visual inspection of the courthouse, Lehman said. The county would not allow the union to do more scientific testing, he added.

“There definitely were suspicious materials present in many locations,” Lehman said. “People would come to work and find a layer of white dust on their desks. They didn’t know what it was and were told to wipe it off. We decided to do a seminar for the employees to explain what to look out for and what to do if they suspect asbestos is present.

“Here we are, representing employees in a county facility,” Lehman said, “and no one wants to talk to us about health or safety issues.”

Larry Marshall, chief of the county’s Occupational and Radiological Health Division, and county Labor Relations Manager Madge Blakey declined to comment.

However, both sides met with an independent hearing officer Dec. 5 to argue the issue. The officer is expected to decide late this month whether the union can negotiate health and safety issues, Lehman said.

Meanwhile, workers have received the support of some important allies in their quest to learn if the courthouse is a health threat.

“The main cause for concern is that we have an inordinate number of respiratory problems. We’ve also had a number of cancer problems,” said Superior Court Judge Laura Hammes.

Hammes has recommended that CARE conduct a health survey of all courthouse employees and make the data available to an independent epidemiologist for review. “Meanwhile, pray for a new courthouse,” Hammes said in a letter to CARE.

Although Hammes stressed that she was not endorsing the union’s right to negotiate health issues with the county, she saw some good in it.

“Any large organized body that raises the issue will probably get more ears than just a small group” like CARE, Hammes said. “We talk constantly about this building. It’s a constant dismay.”

Municipal Judge Elizabeth Kutzner’s health “markedly improved” when she was transferred to Juvenile Court from the downtown courthouse. Before her transfer, Kutzner suffered from persistent nasal problems, Dr. W. Thomas Coombe said in a letter to the group. Coombe, who has been treating Kutzner for three years, attributed her previous health problems to the courthouse’s “state of poor cleanliness.”

On Oct. 23, Martone asked the county Department of General Services to clean the courthouse’s air-conditioning vents.

“We receive many complaints of headaches and poor air quality at the downtown courthouse,” Martone said in a letter to the department. “In addition to cleaning, it is requested that the (county) Department of Health Services continually monitor air quality.”

Martone said he has yet to hear from the county.