posted by Tom Moertel at 10:50 PM /
Reader Pam Scott, who has been a member of both the Educational Specifications Committee and Design Advisory Committee for the high-school renovation, writes with the following letter:
Dear Blog-Lebo Editors:
Saturday afternoon I wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioners urging them to vote “No” on the Shared Parking Agreement with the School District. The reason I asked them to vote “No” is because the District has too often shown itself to be dishonest and/or inept when it comes to managing its facilities.
The School District should change its way of thinking and just come clean with the community about the true state of the high school buildings.
Why should the Commission, parents, students, staff, or residents trust a District to properly manage such a large project when the District does the following?
1. Goes out of their way to discredit and misrepresent their relationship with Dirk Taylor. Anyone reading the papers or watching the Board meetings will be familiar with this incident.
2. Misrepresents the amount of asbestos in their buildings. For example, much talk has been made of the sprayed-on asbestos in Building C, but no mention of the same sprayed-on asbestos in Building F (see results for Sample F-07-01: “Tan, Fireproofing, Homogeneous: 4% Chrysotile [asbestos]” on page 34 of the RTK-requested document “Report of Bulk Sample Analysis for Asbestos”).
3. Cuts corners with asbestos regulations. For example, after a bucket overflowed, causing ceiling tiles to collapse into the student activities director’s office in September, the District substituted their own hodge-podge air clearance testing instead of the required-by-law air clearance testing for this asbestos-release episode. (See see SE Technologies’ log on page 4 of MTLSD RTK Request #2010-84.) This is dishonest and/or inept. (Under the asbestos-in-schools regulations (AHERA) that have been in place since the 1980s, a major fiber-release episode consists of the falling or dislodging of more than three square or linear feet of friable asbestos-containing material. If these episodes are less than 160 square feet or 260 linear feet or less, air clearance for these episodes may be done using the PCM method instead of TEM, but five samples are required to be properly collected and analyzed; the District merely collected and analyzed two.)
4. Makes up their own standards. The District claims to have followed the appropriate protocol with respect to radon in the high school while substituting their own hodge-podge testing instead of standard accepted protocol. The lab report they received for their “long-term test” is clearly marked “Delay between end of testing period & return to the lab may increase reported radon concentration. Consider retesting. Your Alpha Track results are valid but do not meet the EPA protocol for long term testing of 91 to 365 days.” For the District to then go out and tell staff, students. and the community that they have “followed the appropriate protocol” is dishonest and/or inept. (See the AccuStar Labs report on page 3 of MTLSD RTK Request #2010-79.) Similarly, the District regularly substituted “Modified AHERA” for genuine AHERA air clearance testing during the elementary school renovations. (See the asbestos reports which AHERA requires to be available for viewing during regular office hours at each school as well as the District’s administrative offices.)
Sincerely,
Pam Scott,
Member, High School Educational Specifications Design Committee
Member, High School Design Advisory Committee
Dear Blog-Lebo Editors:
Saturday afternoon I wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioners urging them to vote “No” on the Shared Parking Agreement with the School District. The reason I asked them to vote “No” is because the District has too often shown itself to be dishonest and/or inept when it comes to managing its facilities.
The School District should change its way of thinking and just come clean with the community about the true state of the high school buildings.
Why should the Commission, parents, students, staff, or residents trust a District to properly manage such a large project when the District does the following?
1. Goes out of their way to discredit and misrepresent their relationship with Dirk Taylor. Anyone reading the papers or watching the Board meetings will be familiar with this incident.
2. Misrepresents the amount of asbestos in their buildings. For example, much talk has been made of the sprayed-on asbestos in Building C, but no mention of the same sprayed-on asbestos in Building F (see results for Sample F-07-01: “Tan, Fireproofing, Homogeneous: 4% Chrysotile [asbestos]” on page 34 of the RTK-requested document “Report of Bulk Sample Analysis for Asbestos”).
3. Cuts corners with asbestos regulations. For example, after a bucket overflowed, causing ceiling tiles to collapse into the student activities director’s office in September, the District substituted their own hodge-podge air clearance testing instead of the required-by-law air clearance testing for this asbestos-release episode. (See see SE Technologies’ log on page 4 of MTLSD RTK Request #2010-84.) This is dishonest and/or inept. (Under the asbestos-in-schools regulations (AHERA) that have been in place since the 1980s, a major fiber-release episode consists of the falling or dislodging of more than three square or linear feet of friable asbestos-containing material. If these episodes are less than 160 square feet or 260 linear feet or less, air clearance for these episodes may be done using the PCM method instead of TEM, but five samples are required to be properly collected and analyzed; the District merely collected and analyzed two.)
4. Makes up their own standards. The District claims to have followed the appropriate protocol with respect to radon in the high school while substituting their own hodge-podge testing instead of standard accepted protocol. The lab report they received for their “long-term test” is clearly marked “Delay between end of testing period & return to the lab may increase reported radon concentration. Consider retesting. Your Alpha Track results are valid but do not meet the EPA protocol for long term testing of 91 to 365 days.” For the District to then go out and tell staff, students. and the community that they have “followed the appropriate protocol” is dishonest and/or inept. (See the AccuStar Labs report on page 3 of MTLSD RTK Request #2010-79.) Similarly, the District regularly substituted “Modified AHERA” for genuine AHERA air clearance testing during the elementary school renovations. (See the asbestos reports which AHERA requires to be available for viewing during regular office hours at each school as well as the District’s administrative offices.)
Sincerely,
Pam Scott,
Member, High School Educational Specifications Design Committee
Member, High School Design Advisory Committee
Labels: high school, letter to the editor, mt. lebanon school district, pam scott
23 Comments:
I think asbestos may be an extra touchy subject for the Superintendent at the moment, for perhaps personal reasons.....look up the following court record or docket number in Allegheny County court records : AR-10-003296.
Bill Lewis
When it comes to the School District, Teflon comes to mind. Let's be fair though. In the Mt. Lebanon Leadership Operating Principles, the word "honesty" is never mentioned.
Elaine Gillen
I'm no fan of this school board, but I would offer up a couple questions:
1) What does the shared parking agreement have to do with the need for asbestos abatement in the high school?
2) Doesn't allowing the project to move forward (in whatever form) start the process of resolving the asbestos issues?
3) If the project was capped at $75million would you trust the SB to handle it then? Why? What makes them any more qualified at the level of spending?
4) Have we really stooped to the point of searching the courthouse docket hoping to find cases involving our local officials and their personal lives? Really?
It arrived, unsearched for & unsolicited, Dave. And I pass it along in response to notice of an asbestos situation at a public school that does not seem to be being handled properly by the District with a local one not seemingly being handled properly in the private sector either.
The question is, can we trust either the public or the private sector in asbestos recognition and abatement ?
Bill Lewis
Bill, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "arrived", but I guess I could interpret it to mean that someone else dug it up (or accidentally stumbled upon it) and sent it to you (perhaps anonymously) with the hopes that you would publish it. And you did.
Regardless of the source, you want me to now believe that you elected to publish the information here (out of the goodness of your heart) solely because you want us all to be wary of the residential real estate and home inspection industries? Come on . . . .
Any way, even with your "explanation" I guess I would still pose the same questions to the letter's author.
Dave,
Regarding the asbestos issue alone, which is what caught my eye in the Pam Scott post, I put forth the docket link so folks could have a comparison to observe and judge if they wish....will the guy in charge of both properties be as prompt and forceful in responding to a possible asbestos-related issue in a school building as he has been in his personal property.
I'm a bit sensitive to asbestos matters. I've delt with asbestos inspections on 3 residential buildings and 1 commercial building I've been involved with over the past 14-months.
I received the unsolicited docket info by phone recently from someone who said they received it anonymously....I looked it up and felt sorry for the super; but, it seems he may have signed the inspection waiver on asbestos visability, but filed suit anyway. Then I noted the Pam Scott posting and got to thinking.
Is Pam Scott correct, will the District respond in either case, and will Pam let us know? We'll see.
And, are the super's claims correct ? We'll find out on the docket record.
The super is a public official, the court record is public, and the public schools are just that..public. All are open and subject to public inspection.
Bill Lewis
Bill, you can couch it in whatever explanation makes you feel better. In my opinion, it's cheap TMZ.com stuff at best, and bizarre voyeurism at worst. Frankly, I've come to expect more from you.
And I still await Pam's answers to my other questions.
Dave,
You really disappoint me ! You are apparently totally unaware of the lack of transparency, behind the scenes dealings and multitude of mistruths and misrepresentations that have taken place in the District and community over the past 2 years...likely because you are a spectator. You have not attended or directly participated in the vast majority of public meetings...District & Muni, SB & Commission, including Committees and Boards & Authorities...that have taken place. Nor have you likely viewed or listened to the vast majority of recorded meetings and certainly have not reviewed the multitude of documents...minutes, etc. and citizen submissions. I have to a far greater degree than you could ever imagine
You are a spectator dealing with incomplete and probably oft-times inaccurate information and issuing oft-times flawed opinions and comments...but thats your right, and I respect that right. And I have heretofore not criticized you publicly for it. But you now want to pontificate from your spectator seat in the bleachers and take a whack at me ? Cheap, bizarre voyeurism you accuse me of ? How dare you !
There is something very wrong in this District and this community; and, I will employ my rights to provide as much "sunshine" as possible to make known what is actually going on.
Tell me Dave, in your infinite wisdom and from your spectator seat, were you aware that the HS project until just last week...a project 18 months into design based on 15 design criteria and at the 90% construction drawings and documents completion stage, almost ready for bidding...had not complied with the Mt. Lebanon Fire Code ? Did you hear anything about this in SB meetings, architects updates, Commission meetings, Planning Board meetings ? Like parking and lot coverage, the District had been fully advised and warned long ago, and it was disregarded. After weeks and weeks of prodding by some Muni officials and when the District probably realized this particular noncompliance might reach the public...and the likely public reaction...they finally took the required and cost adding steps to comply, all very quietly. None in the general public the wiser.
Enough said. You don't have a clue.
Bill Lewis
With all the legitimate debate that has gone on (and continues to go on) about the HS project, the inappropriate tangental foray into the Super's personal life is as ludicrous as proposing 2800 parking spaces are necessary for the project.
Tom Moertel...you once told me what you loved about the blog was that it "shed heat and light." An examination of Dr Steinhauser's personal dealings when moving to Lebo is neither Heat nor Light. It's just gas.
-Rob Gardner
Bill, I honestly agree with 95% of what you just said. I am a spectator, I don’t go to many meetings (I do watch some) and I don’t participate in the process like you do. To be honest, my life has other priorities at this point. And frankly, with the exception of maybe Bill Matthews and a few others, I don’t know anyone who does participate as much and as often as you do. I have – in fact – applauded you on this blog for your advocacy and participation. It is certainly no easy task. In some respects our community is better off because of the light that you have shined on the process. If there’s a huge lack of transparency, I’ll have to take your word for it. I’d like to think that it’s not that significant, but you would know better than I would. I don’t think there is something “very wrong” with the school district or the community. Maybe I am naïve, but I start from the position that our elected (and paid) officials are good people, trying to do the right thing in a job (at least for the elected officials) that no one is ever well-trained or fully prepared to perform. Dare I say that none of these folks anticipated that they would grow up and be asked to manage the largest construction project in our community’s history. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made and - like you - I expect folks to own up those mistakes and not bury them. Own up and move on. I agree with you that this project has suffered from a lack of leadership and direction, but I also believe that it has been equally hamstrung by an over abundance of community oversight and argument. That’s just the way I see it from up here in the bleachers.
What I took issue with was your seemingly unnecessary advertisement of Steinhauer’s litigation surrounding a pre-closing home inspection of his personal residence, and trying to tie that to the purported asbestos “conspiracy” at the high school. Allow me to make a few analogies to demonstrate my point. If Chief McDonough received a speeding ticket on his way home from his family vacation last Summer, should we broadcast that fact and conclude that he’s going to be soft on traffic enforcement? If one of our Commissioners purchased a home that turned out to have a lousy sewer line, should we broadcast that fact and conclude that he is unfit to review and vote on the municipality’s sewer line repairs? Of course not.
Bill, most of us are spectators. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know there. And most of us spectators would probably conclude (with very few exceptions that we could all agree upon) that what happens in Steinhauer’s personal and private life is irrelevant to the performance of his duties as Superintendent. If folks want to address issues regarding his job performance, have at it. You’re certainly entitled. I simply have no interest in engaging in the personal inspection and inquisition that a few in this community find to be good sport these days. Anonymous emails and letters - - - it’s nonsense. I’ve received them myself. Most of us spectators tune out when the same people clamor about the same things, over and over and over again. And I can assure you that most of us tune out more quickly when the conversation turns ugly. Perhaps this is why the Community Relations Board is proposing a community-wide forum next Fall that would promote civility in public discourse. It’s disappointing that we even need to consider it.
So Bill, it’s true, I will never ever have the depth and breadth of knowledge about this community and its processes that you do and I still applaud you for sharing it with us. To borrow your words, maybe I don't have a clue. Maybe things really are a complete disaster and the rest of us are just blind and deaf to the reality of it all. If that's the case I'm all ears. However, please understand that we’re all more likely to listen if you tell us in the right way.
Rob,
Actually, what I said was that most comments on the blog contain both heat and light. What I love is that readers can be trusted to tell the two apart for themselves.
Cheers,
Tom
Hmm! The high-rise High School ignored the fire code safety provisions; the zoning code was ignored in favor of a lawsuit that delayed the project and squandered $27,000 in legal fees paid for by the community. A mom was sued over a Right-to-Know request regarding an illegal executive session, the High School Project has asbestos problems - and the Superintendent’s own lawsuit is just gas.
Thanks for giving the case number, Bill Lewis. I was able to review the Superintendent’s asbestos lawsuit and found out the suit was filed by the same law firm that did our teacher contract negotiations. I won’t mention the big flaw in the suit but the fact that that law firm took the suit to arbitration reduces my confidence in the negotiation of the teachers contract conducted by this firm.
Also, the two real estate agents, the home inspector, and the former homeowner named in the arbitration have each brought the flaw to the attention of the judge.
I think we can agree that gas has an odor; the odor of lawsuits seems to be coming from the corner office. What a poor example to teach our children!
Do spectators lobby the commission and the school board to provide amenities for the athletic supporters?
John,
You are correct, there is a very strong odor of gas on this thread!
While all the prior comments are interesting, I'm still trying to rationalize an answer for Pam Scott's (member of both the Educational Specifications Committee and Design Advisory Committee for the high-school renovation) first question.
Why should the Commission, parents, students, staff, or residents trust a District to properly manage such a large project when the District does the following?
1. Goes out of their way to discredit and misrepresent their relationship with Dirk Taylor.
It is a good question. Why discredit and misrepresent Mr. Taylor? And furthermore, why no mention that the CAC committee agreed with his findings!
Dean Spahr
Dean asked a great question. Dan Remely was rambling about why individuals who want cost cuts in the District didn’t apply to for positions on the cost committees?
I think the answer to Dan’s question is folks who could contribute the needed skills saw the board let the professionals get CAC’ed. Then they saw the Board and PTA folks help Mr. Taylor get Dirk’ed and Mr. Hart get Mark’ed.
Remely, Kubit and Silhol were especially disloyal to Mr. Hart one November Saturday morning in Remely’s office. All three had promised their vote to Hart for a second term as president of the board until Rodella called and told Remely and Silhol he didn’t want Mr. Hart to be board president. Rodella had promised to back their reelection if Mark were not president.
Silhol told Mark he would switch offices with him (President for Vice President) and Mark could have what he wanted but he didn’t want Rodella against them in the election.
Remely told Mark he thought Mark would be busy selling the Steelers and besides he thought Mark might be moved up to General Manager and would not have time to be board president.
Kubit said he was afraid if Mark were president Mark would become the focus of the election and if one of the guys lost reelection then they could not vote down the girl’s agendas.
Remely and Kubit don’t deserve the political cover of an ad hoc committee!
Dean,
The answer to Pam and your question is this: Dirk Taylor is a threat to anyone who is for the current renovation plan. He knows what he is talking about. Two school board directors (Rose and Posti) have gone out of their way to discredit Dirk Taylor by publishing letters to the editor in the Almanac. I believe, and others do too, that they have violated Policy BBAA. I brought it up at the last Policy Committee Meeting. You can listen to it here. Policy_Meeting At this same meeting, Ms. Posti has the nerve to ask a resident with a financial background, "Do you know what a TIF is?" She knows more than structural engineers and finance guys. She is an expert on everything. The school board majority is out of control. They pay no attention to zoning codes, fire codes, building codes, radon protocol, or asbestos regulations. Pam Scott filed a Right To Know for all this information. She is lucky that she wasn't a mom that was sued.
Bill Lewis is absolutely right. There is a lack of transparency with the School District. You can hear two School Board Directors make snide remarks about the three residents recording the meeting at the link I gave. There are a half a dozen of us who have been recording meetings now. They are unedited and are available to listen to 24 hours a day. I strongly urge people to listen or watch the meetings on TV when they are available.
Elaine Gillen
One more reason why some school board members are trying to discredit Dirk Taylor is because of what Dr. Steinhauer said in February. This was on KDKA.com: Community members spoke out at a meeting about the Mt. Lebanon School District's plan to renovate the high school. The projected cost is $113 million. Dr. Timothy Steinhauer, the district's superintendent, says the upgrades are necessary.
"Several of the buildings are asbestos laden and the exterior veneer is failing," he said. "Roof structures need extensive replacement – all which negatively impact the educational process for our students."
But listen to Celli say that after roof testings, the roofs are good for another ten years easily. Architect_Update It could save us another $600,000.
Gee, isn't that what Mr. Taylor and the CAC argued, that the building wasn't as bad as the board was saying it was?
Also, remember after the CAC presentation, Ms. Cappucci stated (despite the CAC findings) she "had no intention of revisiting building C!"
But silly me. I guess Ms. Posti, Ms. Rose, and Ms. Cappucci certainly know more about construction than the CAC, a group of people who group collectively had over 300 years of design and construction experience among them. I keep forgetting that they are the experts, not Dirk Taylor and the CAC.
Elaine Gillen
Is it not telling that the District does not respond to -- or attempt to deny -- the situations I wrote about?
Again, why should the Commission, parents, students, staff, or residents trust a District to properly manage such a large project if that District is dishonest and/or inept? Unfortunately, our District makes up its own standards, engages in misrepresentation of the state of its buildings, cuts regulatory corners, and goes out of its way to discredit and misrepresent individuals who publicly disagree with them.
If the District folks who are managing this project never "anticipated that they would grow up and be asked to manage the largest construction project in our community's history", then maybe they shouldn't be managing it. One wouldn't ask a person who cannot read music to manage a marching band; why give free rein to folks with weak qualifications but lots of power to manage our buildings? Obviously, it's because of the power they hold, but how smart is that?
Pam,
The School Board majority does not deny or respond to anything here. They take the bully approach and fire off a letter to the editor and sucker punch you. Maybe your response is coming in an upcoming Almanac letter to the editor. They all read Blog-Lebo, but take the coward's approach to respond. You write, "Why give free rein to folks with weak qualifications but lots of power to manage our buildings?" They will tell you that we elected them, but what they fail to say is that the School Board majority comes down with School Board Disease, and they forget everything they said before they were elected. Don't worry, Pam. You will probably get "Dirk'ed" too.
Elaine Gillen
Elaine,
Your reference to campaign platforms & promises led me back to the "We have a PLAN !" campaign literature from the "Vote for Dale, Alan & Dan" gang. Here is what they promised if elected :
"* Will bring the High School project in under $95 million
* Will insist on impartial and responsible teacher negotations
* Will represent the Taxpayers"
Bill Lewis
Bill, the District has not responded.
Dave, the process of resolving the asbestos issues won't start until the District starts taking asbestos best practices to heart. The price of doing it right and according to regulations should be lower than the price of doing things wrong.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html
Other than the floor tile and mastic removed from the Wrestling Room in February, the School District is saying that there is no asbestos in the quarter of the 1970s addition that they are planning to imminently demolish while school is in session. Do you believe them?
This is one of the additions that is a sibling of asbestos-laden Building C (fireproofing alone: 296,832 sq.ft.) and Building F (fireproofing alone: 51,948). Duct insulation? Pipe insulation? In 2010, the District was saying that Building F's fireproofing was non-hazardous, ignoring 1988 and 2009 (and perhaps more) documentation saying that it was ACM (asbestos-containing material).
In the '80s, the District wanted $21.4 million from W.R. Grace to cover the cost of removing the ACM fireproofing from the 1970s additions. I've been asking the District to cite inspections or show evidence that they have done due diligence in avoiding discovering "unanticipated" asbestos with this 1970s building's demolition work along Horsman Drive. Their response has been platitudes.
When you see the District in 2008 not consider material "concealed by a false ceiling" in the Stadium Maintenance Facility (is that part of the 1970s additions, too?) resulting in a $32,000 change order on a $43,000 summer project, it's hard to have confidence in them.
Post a Comment
<< Home