District Gives Belmont Files to 4 Prosecuting Agencies

The top auditor for Los Angeles schools turned over investigative files to four prosecuting agencies Monday, recommending civil charges against former school boards and criminal or civil charges against the developer of the environmentally plagued Belmont Learning Complex, sources said.

The school district has referred the cases to the Los Angeles city attorney, the Los Angeles County district attorney, the California attorney general and the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

Don Mullinax, director of internal audits and special investigations for the Los Angeles Unified School District, has refused to disclose the name of any person or firm targeted in the referrals or the nature of the violations being alleged.

But sources said the referrals named former school boards; Temple Beaudry Partners, the developer of the $200-million high school west of downtown; and El Capitan Inc. and Intera Inc., environmental firms that worked on the site. No individuals were named.

Intera was hired by the district to locate abandoned oil wells and prepare a plan for sealing them. El Capitan was hired to remove underground storage tanks. Neither company could be reached late Monday.

Representatives for the city attorney and the district attorney confirmed that they had received the files, but said they had no idea yet what they contained.

“It’s 15 volumes,” said Mike Qualls, spokesman for Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn. “We obviously have not read it all yet.”

Along with the support documents, the agencies received a four-page letter listing seven possible violations of state and federal law, but not suggesting which agency should handle which allegation.

Prominent criminal defense attorney Harland W. Braun questioned the referral to all four agencies at once, comparing it to a crank letter to the mayor, the governor and the president.

“It sounds like a hysterical approach to me,” Braun said. “Why would you want to bring the Feds in at this stage? That seems to be a little over the top.”

Braun said it would make more sense to pick the one agency most likely to prosecute.

Although it could be argued that the job would fall to the district attorney’s office, such a decision could be politically volatile, Braun said. One of Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s opponents in the upcoming election is the school district’s environmental attorney, Barry Groveman, who participated in the investigation.

Deputy Dist. Atty. John Bernardi, who received the material Monday afternoon, confirmed that he had been working with Mullinax on the investigation, but said he had not opened a criminal case.

Sources said that the district attorney had inquired this spring into reports from district officials that contractors on the site had mixed dirt saturated with oil into clean dirt to dilute the contaminants.

“We were waiting for them to complete their investigation and report their findings,” Bernardi said. He said he had not evaluated the new materials.

William Carter, environmental coordinator in the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, said it is office policy neither to confirm nor deny receipt of a referral.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general said the office had been informed that the documents were shipped Monday to Sacramento. She said they were not expected until today or Wednesday.

Recent studies have shown that explosive methane and toxic hydrogen sulfide permeate the 35-acre campus, making costly mitigation necessary to ensure the safety of students and faculty.

A commission of civic leaders is now studying whether the district should complete the $200-million project, now about 60% done, or cut its losses.

After concluding a six-month investigation, Mullinax recommended last week that the Board of Education discipline nine Los Angeles Unified officials, including General Counsel Richard K. Mason and Chief Administrative Officer David Koch, for allowing construction to begin without adequate environmental assessments.

He also recommended civil litigation against five district contractors.

The board’s first--and so far, only--response was to file a malpractice suit Thursday against O’Melveny & Myers alleging that the law firm misled an earlier school board about the gravity of environmental problems at the school, located on a former oil field.

A 200-page summary of the Mullinax investigation said district officials and O’Melveny attorney David Cartwright negotiated the purchase of the property knowing that the environmental assessment was faulty. The report also said Cartwright and O’Melveny failed to provide any protections to the district such as environmental insurance.

Further, it said, they downplayed the importance of environmental problems in urging the board to approve the project.

O’Melveny has issued a statement saying it represented the district capably.

The board also announced Thursday that it was setting up a process to review the recommendations for discipline.

The Mullinax report, however, gave no specific indication of suspected criminal violations, and Mullinax declined to be more specific.

He said that a second report delving into the finances of the Belmont project will be released this fall.