WEA chimes in on district staff relocation
According to the Woodland Joint Unified School District minutes of the March 27, 2008, board of trustees meeting, the WEA showed support for the relocation of several employees. Here is the agenda item:
"PUBLIC COMMENT - Ms. Karen Taylor, representing the Woodland Education Association, spoke in favor of the proposed relocation of Pupil Services division. Several members of the Association are assigned to that department and they have grave concerns for their health and safety. The Association is working with legal counsel through CTA regarding this issue."
There is no mention of the association contacting the Yolo County Health Department or CalOSHA.
BACKGROUND - A Demand Letter from Philip J. Henderson of Miller, Brown, Dannis Attorneys of San Francisco, representing the Woodland Joint Unified School District, was sent to the districts landlords on March 17. Henderson demanded that Cottonwood Investors "take immediate and decisive action to ensure the health and safety of District employees." The letter listed several actions to be taken within five days of the receipt of the certified mail.
Henderson wanted all air and heating maintenance records and air test reports in addition to immediate servicing of the ventilation system and a follow-up air test. He also wanted a complete health risk assessment within 14 days. At the core of the issue is Building 628, the office space on the site of a former dry-cleaning business. Provided as part of the letter was an environmental survey conducted by Schutze & Associates of Oakland.
On March 21, Scharff, Brady & Vinding representing Cottonwood Investors, Inc. sent a response letter refuting claims that the building is unsafe. They claimed that the Schutze report of PCE levels of 2.7 ug/m3 in Unit 628 is not surprising. The letter states, "Tetrachloroethene (“PCE”) is found in virtually all residential and workplace environments. In fact, a joint study conducted by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) found that the mean 24-average residential air PCE concentrations in California range between 2.27 to 6.72 ug/m3. Thus, the 2.7 ug/m3 in Building 628 is within the normal expected range. Furthermore, this normal concentration of PCE occurred without the presence of carbon filters on the ventilation system."
The landlord's attorneys also clarified that the district is responsible for the air and heating maintenance and the air testing, and therefore are in possession of the reports they seek.
16 comments:
Interesting that this item has gone without comment. Where are our zealous recall boys who, though they couldn't find a school without a map, now pretend to be experts on all things educational? Losing your spirit boys?
I'm surprised of the lack of comments, too. I'm not sure what's up with the recall, however I don't believe the proponents of that claim to know "all things educational." In fact, the issue is about a very poor and secretive real estate deal.
I thought some teachers might comment on the waste of union dues on an attorney... if there really were "grave concerns," why hasn't the county health department or CalOSHA stepped in?
The WEA only goes by what the district has told them. Not a whole lot of leadership there.
At this point the question will need to be answered whether the course of action taken by the district is justified given the results of the testing.
12:47
The thing is... the district already spent over $90,000 on test results. Those results only reveal normal readings found in any office space, according to the landlord's specialist. One would think if there are truly grave concerns, the results from the Schutze survey would have been delivered to the county or the state. Then, one would expect those agencies to step in if conditions were not healthy.
I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong about the "normal" environmental results that are based entirely on someone else's opinion. It's just ridiculous, to me, that:
1) The results weren't provided to the county or state if the district was really concerned about health, or
2) The county or state have not stepped in already if the results are unhealthy as the district claims.
These things aren't adding up, which is why I believe the landlord's interpretation of the environmental results.
Well, I havn't commented because I am not surprised the WEA is going along with the district.
This idea of contamination is just a joke. The blue shield purchase is still the bigger focus.
The line behind me keeps getting longer for signing recall petitions.
Mr. Parson
If you look at Schutze report you find NO comment to remove people from the building the only thing they suggest to do is more testing of the building
Mr. Parson:
I suggest you do more research.
All the research has been done and if you would look at the report you would see that there is nothing there it is a ploy to get into the blue shield building. if yoyu look at the district fatilities needs assessment you see that there are other places the district own that could be use in this financial situation
Dear 8:14,
I have searched high and low for anything that points to contamination there. I can not locate anything. Maybe YOU have some additional information to share with us.
You guys have your hands caught in the cookie jar. Trying to get us to look the other way while you grab your hands full, will not work this time.
Those of you (you know which ones you are) WILL get your slaps on the hands.
Mr. Parson
I don't know who you're talking to Mr. Parsons but it ain't me. You're not slapping my hand no matter how much you may want to. I don't work for the district, am not related to anyone who works for the district, am not a member of the board or anything else. I do remember from many years ago a number of newspaper stories about contamination on the site so this notion that it doesn't exist only means that you're not much of a researcher.
And while we're at it I don't recognize your name as being someone who has been involved with the schools. I hope you're not in with most of the pro-recall people who are in on every political controversy that takes place in this town.
Hand slaps indeed.
8:57
The contamination is not a health hazard. The district and the teachers union are trying to come up with opinions that prove otherwise. Until the county or state shuts the site down, I believe the prevailing opinion.
Sorry, Dino. That may cut it with you but not me. As Senator Patrick Moynihan once said: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own set of facts."
Some of us (We are apparently not among the exalted "prevailing") remember the reports of contamination. Simply because we lack the time to go to the County Health Dept. and pull the reports does not mean we are wrong. The notion that it has been "mitigated" only indicates two things:
1.) That it happened in the first place, and;
2.) That it remains a health threat.
Moynihan said that? Wow. Did he say that on his balloon trip back from Oz?
The facts are in. The site is safe.
If the district lacks the time to notify the County Health Department or CalOsha, then they really must not have grave concerns. Or, if the district has contacted the agencies with their facts, then why hasn't the site been shut down?
Sorry, you've missed the boat on this one.
Right on Dino you hit the nail on the head. If you were to go with that reader because the site was contanination then I dont think the reader would be in favor of the blue shield building with the old railroad siding where it sits then. look at old photos of what was there before the blue shield was built.
Anon :
Speaking of research, you need to do some.
I encourage you to find a regulatory body (OSHA, EPA, ASTDR. etc.) that states exposure levels of PCE in the amount of 2.4 micrograms/cubic meter of air(current highest reading) is either an actionable level of exposure for a cancer or acute health risk. Can you find one?
Examples:
ASTDR (Agency for Toxicology and Disease Registry) has derived an acute inhalation MRL (Minimum Risk Level) for PCE of 1,357 ug/m3, while ATSDR has established a chronic-duration inhalation MRL for PCE of 271 ug/m3.
EPA Chronic MRL 35 ug/ m3.
OSHA is at 100 ug/ m3.
At its worst ( 2.4 ug/m3) the district’s report shows it is not even close to a risk by these regulatory bodies standards. Can you find anything anything that says otherwise.
Thank you! That's what I've been hearing - that the levels are way below standards - but it's nice to see it all spelled out like that.
I also like what the previous commenter wrote... there's probably more petroleum waste underneath the Blue Shield building than there is dry cleaning residue underneath the Cottonwood site.
Post a Comment