L.A. Unified Rushed Its Environmental Studies, Critics Say

In a double dose of bad news, critics Wednesday attacked the Los Angeles Unified School District’s environmental work on potential new school sites and its recent firing of key staff who worked on its massive school repair and construction program.

Appearing before the Proposition BB Citizens Oversight Committee, Barbara Coler, a division chief with the state Department of Toxic Substances Control, said the district had rushed to complete a review of potential new school sites and had failed to perform adequate environmental assessments.

As a result, 58 of the district’s 60 initial applications were rejected by the state and will require much more detailed environmental analysis, Coler said. The district’s work was substandard, missing critical information about potential contamination and in some cases even lacking on-site inspections, she said.

Coler’s blunt critique of the district’s environmental work, was followed by sharp words from Alan Krusi, president of O’Brien Kreitzberg, one of the partners in the joint venture that serves as the district’s school repair and construction manager.

Last week the district fired six employees of the joint venture, 3D/I-O’Brien Kreitzberg. Krusi charged the firings were retaliation for the employees’ pointing out problems with the $2.4-billion school repair and construction effort. The money was authorized by Proposition BB, which voters passed in 1997.

Krusi called on Supt. Ramon C. Cortines to rescind the firings and warned that the staff cutbacks would damage the effort to repair and build schools. “It is vital we reestablish a strong working relationship,” he said.

Howard Miller, the district’s chief operating officer, said later that Cortines would not rescind Friday’s order that directed 3D-I/O’Brien Kreitzberg to reduce its staff and replace program manager Rob Robinson.

“There will be no change in his position,” a spokeswoman for Cortines added.

Both the Proposition BB rebuilding effort and the district’s quest to pick sites for new schools have led to recriminations between the district and other agencies about who is at fault for repeated problems.

Both Krusi and Coler pointed the finger at the district’s staff.

“We are not the impediment,” Coler repeated several times, rejecting suggestions that the toxic substances control agency had worked too slowly. The agency, she said, has a responsibility “to ensure that schools are safe for kids.”

District consultants had not checked agency records for pollution problems nor included aerial photos or fire insurance data on properties they had proposed for schools, she said. Because many of the parcels are residential and are not owned by the district, actual inspections of the properties did not occur, she noted, adding that contamination with lead-based paints, asbestos and pesticides is possible.

William Panos, the district’s environmental health and safety director, denied that the record on the initial reviews was embarrassing, but said the district has hired major consulting firms to assist in such assessments.

David Abel, a member of the oversight panel, expressed concern about the district’s ability to compete for state school construction funds by a June 30 deadline without a clear standard for what is environmentally acceptable. “I’m beginning to doubt we can get over the bar,” he said.

Coler agreed that the district’s goal of building 150 new schools in the next six years is “questionable.”

Coler also said the state has “pretty much stopped” its assessment of hydrogen sulfide and methane gas contamination at the proposed Belmont Learning Complex site, which the school board has voted to close down.

“I think it could be made safe,” Coler said, but it would require “many millions of dollars.” In addition, she said she would have continuing concerns about the operation and maintenance of systems to mitigate the site’s environmental problems.

Steven Soboroff, the chairman of the oversight committee and a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles, said the district faces “a crisis” in its school facilities program. In response, the oversight committee urged a 60-day cooling off period to work at improving the relationship between district officials and its program managers.

The committee did not specify what a cooling off period would entail.

Soboroff had previously criticized Cortines’ decision to fire Robinson and the other 3D-I/O’Brien Kreitzberg employees. At the time, Cortines said Robinson had threatened Lynn Roberts, who until this week was the district’s facilities director. Robinson denies doing so.

“Without due process, it has been alleged I’ve done something I’ve not,” Robinson said.

Despite Robinson’s and Krusi’s protests, Miller said he and other district officials remain concerned about how much the outside program manager and 10 project managers in the Proposition BB program are charging.

Soboroff repeated his past assertion that the private firms are charging an appropriate amount--about $63.7 million out of $635 million spent on Proposition BB projects so far.

Miller, who has disputed Soboroff’s numbers, said the district’s chief investigator Don Mullinax will ultimately determine what has been paid and whether the amounts involved are appropriate.