Grass Valley School District Unsafe School Facilities?

Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Response to Finding 1: The Board strongly disagrees. No credible evidence exists to substantiate this finding. More particularly, the only information the Grand Jury presented to the Board in support of Finding I above were photocopies of photographs taken by unjdentified and unknown members of the 2013-2014 Nevada County Grand Jury. Not only did the Grand Jury fail to provide any information to authenticate these photographs, the Grand Jury provided no documentation in the way of licenses, certifications and/or other qualifications, if any, the unidentified and unknown members of the Grand Jury possess with respect to conducting inspections of school facilities. The Board further has no knowledge of the specific dates, times and locations pertaining to the photocopied photographs, as the Grand Jurors who, according to the Grand Jury's report, "conducted site visits to observe current conditions at three specific GYSD facilities" and "took 97 photographs at the three sites" did not comply with the Board' s policy no. 1070, adopted pursuant to Penal Code section 627.2, which requires all outsiders to register with the school Principal or designee in the main school office prior to entering the remainder of the school grounds. Based on the above-described fundamental uncertamtles and deficiencies pertammg to the information that the Grand Jury provided to the Board in Sllpport of Finding 1, the Board cannot responsibly deem sllch information adequate to support the Grand Jury's broad, general finding that Grass Valley Charter School facilities conditions expose all persons who enter the grounds to "dangerous health and safety issues." Moreover, upon receipt of the Grand Jury 's report, the District engaged the services of licensed, professional experts to conduct inspections of each one of the specific items identified in the Grand Jury's report by narrative description and corresponding copies of photographs. NOTE: Although the Grand Jury did not ask the Board to respond to Ule factual assertions (Fa. J through Fa. J9) underlying the Findings contained in the report, the Board feels compelled to generally respond to those assertions by clarifying that, as with the Findings discussed below, the Board has very serious concerns regarding the accuracy of, and lack of evidentiary support for, those purported statements of fact. In particular, the Board disputes the veracity of the Grand Jury's factual contentions (in whole or in part) found at Fa. 3 through Fa. 7, Fa. 15, and Fa. 19. Therefore, the absence of individual responses to each and every factual contention contained in the Facts section of the Grand Jury's report should not be construed to indicate the Board's agreement thereto or adoption thereof. 005937 00009 124 645492 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 2014 Page: 3 With respect to the allegedly unsafe conditions at Grass Valley Charter School, the District engaged a licensed electrician qualified to conduct code inspections, as well as a licensed general contractor qualified to conduct facilities and construction inspections. The licensed electrician inspected the conditions depicted in photographs #18 (described as "live electric box within play equipment area") and #41 (described as "broken electric conduit at ground level is at risk for high flooding from the adjacent Veteran's Hall parking lot"). Based on his inspection, the electrician's conclusion was that minor repairs are recommended with respect to both items, but that in his professional opinion, the items requiring repair do not pose any significant safety risk to people occupying the areas. The licensed contractor inspected the conditions depicted in photograph #17 (described as "dangerous conditions present at the playground including roned support beams"). Based on his inspection, the contractor concluded that the playground support beams are located below the deck walking surface and thus not observable. The contractor further inspected one (1) post above the deck level that showed some damage, and concluded that the post should be repaired to prevent any further deterioration and potential for some safety risk in the future. The District's maintenance staff is in the process of placing a smooth cap over the damaged post. Based on all the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the facilities conditions at Grass Valley Charter School expose all persons on the property to "dangerous health and safety issues."

Bell Hill Academy property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Response to Finding 2: The Board strongly disagrees. No credible evidence exists to substantiate this finding. With respect to the Board's concerns regarding the infonnation it received from the Grand Jury in support of this conclusion, please refer to the explanation provided under "Response to

These hazardous conditions are endangering the health and safety of students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors because no one has taken responsibili ty for repair even though administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing. Response to Finding 3: The Board strongly disagrees. No evidence whatsoever exists to substantiate this finding. First and foremost, the above conclusion presupposes the fact that there are "hazardous conditions ... endangering the health and safety of [all persons]" at Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy. As explained more particularly in the Board's responses to the Grand Jury's finding nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein, no evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's underlying determination concerning the existence of"hazardous conditions" at these sites. Second, the Grand Jury's above conclusion assumes the truth of the allegation that "administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing" regarding the items identified in the Grand Jury report. The Board does not have any evidence, documentary, testimonial, or otherwise, supporting this allegation regarding prior written notice to the Board and District administration. To the contrary, the Board's receipt of the Grand Jury report was the first time that the Board or the District's administration was informed about the allegedly unsafe conditions identified in the 00593700009 12464549. Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23, 2014 Page: 6 anonymous complaint that prompted the Grand Jury's investigation. Had the anonymous complainant, or any other knowledgeable person, brought those items of concern to the attention of the Board or the District's administration sooner, the District would have been able to conduct its investigation and make the recommended minor repairs where applicable far earlier than it has been able to do following its receipt of the Grand Jury report. As the report states in its Fact 18, during the District Superintendent's interview with the Grand JUly , he stated that "he is unaware of any notifications of sub-standard conditions in any classroom or building within the district." There are no facts alleged in the report that controvert the Superintendent's statement, and neither the Grand Jury nor the District have produced any evidence to the Board to substantiate the Grand Jury's contradictory finding concerning prior written notice. The Board therefore disputes this factual assumption. Finally, with respect to the Grand Jury 's conclusion that "no one has taken responsibility for repair," the District Maintenance Supervisor, and District maintenance staff, are responsible for identify ing the need for, and ensuring the completion of, District facilities maintenance and repair projects. (See attached job descriptions for Director of Maintenance and Operations3 and for General Maintenance Person4 ) Please see the attached Work Order Flow Chart and narrative description, which illustrate and explain the District's above-described system for facilities maintenance and repair. The District's Superintendent relics upon the maintenance supervisor and staff to report and promptly address any issues or concerns with respect to facilities. Again, as explained above, had the District's Superintendent been given earlier notice of the items identified in the Grand Jury' s report for which the District's licensed inspectors have recommended minor repairs, either by the District's former Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds or by the anonymous complainant, the District would have been able to complete work orders for those repairs much sooner. NOTE: there is one limited exception relating to the storage of chemicals in the workshop and the Safety Data Sheets identifying all chemicals on site. As explained in the District Superintendent's May 5, 2014 written response to the Grand Jury's request for information (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto), the District'S previous Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds was directed to address these issues during the period of his employment, but he did not do so. As is further explained in the Superintendent' s response, the District has since taken appropriate steps to implement the prior directive regarding the Safety Data Sheets, and the District has already completed the purchase of a special storage container to house the chemicals in the workshop depicted in the Grand Jury's Photographs #7 and 8, and that storage container will be arriving very shortly. However, the Board emphasizes that despite the former District Supervisor of Maintenance and Grounds' failure to complete these tasks as directed, there is no evidence that either of these issues have ever constituted an actual health or safety risk to anyone. ) See, in particular, Essential Functions #12 ("Conduct inspections of buildings and facilities to determine maintenance and repair needs and quality of work performed") and f! I 6: ("Determ ine safety and fire hazards and recommend corrective action"). See, in particular, Duties and Responsibilities #14 ("Advise supervisor of safety hazards or items in need of replacement or maintenance work"). u()5937 0U009 1~464S49 2 Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23,2014 Page: 7 Nevertheless, with respect to those items identified in the Grand Jury report for which the District's licensed inspectors recommended minor repairs, the District has made or is in the process of repai ring all items. Based on all the foregoing, the Board must disagree with the Grand Jury's finding that "no one has taken responsi bility" for facilities repairs despite alleged prior written notice to the Board and administration. There is no evidence to support the conclusion.

Mold not properly removed continues to pose an inherent danger to students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors. Response to Finding 4: The Board strongly disagrees. The Board does not have credible evidence to substantiate this finding. With respect to the Board's concerns regarding the information provided by the Grand Jury in support of this finding, please refer to the explanation provided under "Response to Finding I" above, as the Board harbors identical concerns with respect to the Grand Jury's support for its

Repairs have been done without benefit of required State oversight placing anyone entering these facilities at risk. Response to Finding 5: The Board strongly disagrees. The Board does not have credible evidence to substantiate this finding. The Grand Jury report, in its Fact 9, indicates that the repairs to which the foregoing finding makes reference were mold remediation and related repair projects which the District completed in or about 20 I 0-20 II. The Board does not have any evidence showing that such projects were subject to approval by the State of California Depal1ment of General Services' Division of the State Architect ("DSA"). To the contrary, the Board is informed and believes that the mold remediation and repair projects referenced by the Grand Jury were specifically exempt from DSA approval based on the type and the extent of the work involved. Moreover, the District engaged the services of licensed, certified mold inspectors to complete the above-referenced mold remediation projects, which resulted in the issuance of a mold clearance certification. Based on the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the District's previous mold remediation and related repair projects "placed anyone entering these facilities at risk" based on the absence of State oversight. No credible evidence exists to support the Grand Jury's conclusion.

Inadequate inspections have placed students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities in danger. Lack of detail in observing and accurately reporting sub-standard and dangerous conditions are obvious even to a layperson and should have been reported by experts hired by GVSD. Response to Finding 6: The Board strongly disagrees. No evidence exists to substantiate this finding. 005937.00009 12464549. Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Nevada County Superior Court September 23 , 2014 Page: 9 Once again, the above conclusion presupposes the fact that there are "dangerous conditions" at Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy. As explained more particularly in the Board's responses to the Grand Jury's finding nos. 1, 2 and 4 herein, there is no credible evidence to support the Grand Jury's underlying factual determination concerning the existence of "dangerous conditions" at these sites. As such, the Grand Jury's conclusion that the District's facilities inspection experts did inadequate work rests on a factual foundation that has not been and cannot be substantiated. Based on the foregoing, the Board disagrees with the Grand Jury's finding that the District's previous facilities inspections were "inadequate" and therefore placed all persons present at these sites in "danger." The evidence does not support the conclusion.

Because GVSD officials created a MSDS book with unnecessary and inappropriate information, this places first responders at risk during emergencies as well as students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors attending school facilities if immediate fU'st aid is needed to be applied while awaiting medical care. Response to Finding 7: While the Grand Jury did not direct the Board to respond to Finding 7, it is clear that Finding 7 is directed to the District. The Board has substantively responded to the allegations contained in

Techniques for effectively dealing \\'ith a \'ariety of incli\'iduals from nlriollS socio-economic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. in person and over the telephone.

Coordinate responses to emergency calls.

Prepare and maintain records, files. logs, spreadsheets, and reports related to personnel. i11l cntory supplies. Ilork requcsts. work performed and safety issues as assigned. II. Establishes and maintains current and accurate imcntor) of cquipment and assets. Implemcnts procedures for uelil'ery, and imentory control to compl;. with district requircments for asset managemcnt.

Observe proper lise and care of hand and power tools.

Conduct inspections of buildings and facilities to determine maintenance and repair ncecls and qualit) of work performed. U. Assists the District's Administration to develop. implement and update long range plans for deferred maintenance, facilit;. construction and remodel i ng.

E\periellce working with \arious public agencies, such as DSA (Dept. of State Architects) and DGS (Dept. of Gelleral Services), as it pertains to public st:hool facilities I-I. Il1\clltorying and ordering equipment, supplies and materials and rccordkecping techniques. Pre pari ng cost esti mates, budgets. correspondence and status n:ports.

Monitors and participates in operations in assigned sections including inspecting projects, developing and implementing modifications and impnwemellts, recommending specifications and scheduling for contracts, negotiating prices and inspecting contractor's work to ensure that safe work practices and standard operating procedures are follO\led.

Conduct imestigations. identifications, documentations, schedul ing. and oversee the removal of all hazardous m,lterials including, but not limited to, asbestos, lead, and chemicals. mold remediation and air quality. Reeord findings inYolving mold Issues.

Determine safelY and fire l1awrds and recommend correcti\e action.

Participate in the establishment and implementation of a systematic pre\entive maintenance program. Investigate vandalism as necessan. IR. Oversees the district procedures for storage. disposal and rec) cl ing.

The Jury showed the Superintendent current photographs illustrating hazardous conditions in Nevada County schools. Findings Fi. Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Fi. Bell Hill Academy property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues. Fi. These hazardous conditions are endangering the health and safety of students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors because no one has taken responsibility for repair even though administrators and the Board of Trustees have been notified in writing. Fi. Mold not properly removed continues to pose an inherent danger to students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors. Fi. Repairs have been done without benefit of required State oversight placing anyone entering these facilities at risk. Grass Valley School District Inadequate inspections have placed students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities in danger. Lack of detail in observing and accurately reporting sub-standard and dangerous conditions are obvious even to a lay person and should have been reported by experts hired by GVSD. Fi. Because GVSD officials created a MSDS book with unnecessary and inappropriate information, this places first responders at risk during emergencies as well as students, teachers, staff, parents, and visitors attending school facilities if immediate first aid is needed to be applied while awaiting medical care. Recommendations R. The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools should direct staff to adhere to the requirements of their office including: • conducting required site visits, • verifying SARC reports for accuracy, • complying with requirements mandated by Eliezer Williams et al v. State of California et al (2000). R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review existing contracts with construction consultants to determine if there is a bad-faith clause and demand a refund because hazardous conditions were not repaired. R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to review the contracts for work on Grass Valley Charter School and Bell Hill Academy to remove mold, mildew and rot from these sites and verify the work was done according to contract. R. The GVSD Board of Trustees should verify all this work performed was state approved, inspected, and complies with codes concerning safe schools. R. The Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees should direct the Superintendent to update each MSDS Book to reflect site specific hazards. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Grass Valley School District , 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Recommendation 1 Due Date: August 30, 2014 Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 5, and 6 Recommendations: 2, 3, 4, and 5 Due Date: September 30, 2014 Grass Valley School District #4 “MSDS” book. 1 ½ inches thick. Includes all chemical MSDS sheets. The use of this document is for WHAT IS ON SITE for use by emergency responders. #07 #08 WORK SHOP. Non-Rated cabinet with flammable chemicals. No CAUTION sign posted on outside. In case of fire, this is in one of the main EXIT routes. Grass Valley Charter School #17 - Rotted support. #18 Live electric box within play equipment area. #41 Broken electric conduit at ground level is at risk for high flooding from the adjacent Veteran’s Hall parking lot. Bell Hill Academy: #51 - Siding is separating from wall structure. This is evidence of water penetration to interior of wall structure. # 57 Rot at foundation. #61 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #62 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #63 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #67 Mold repairs were not done correctly. #85 - Siding is separating from wall Roof flashing on pipe is absent, structure. This is evidence of water allowing water to enter building. penetration to interior of wall structure. #86 Frayed and broken insulation used to carry 110 volts of electric power. This exposes the live wires to elements. Note also the routing is under the roofing material, no anchors to keep the wires from pulling away. #87 MAIN BUILDING Roof – conduit supported by 4.x, untreated blocks. The blocks rest directly on the roof material. Needed are Roof Pads to absorb movement between the 4x4 and the roof coating. #97 Rain Gutter drains water; in immediate area of live electric power. None of the drains routed roof water AWAY from the structures. HOlLY A. HERMANSEN, SUPERINTENDENT 11 2 NEVADA CITY HIGHWAY Nevada County NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 Superintendent of Schools 530-478-6400 ' fox 530-478-6410 August 26, 2014 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury Nevada County Superior Court 210 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, This letter serves as the response from the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools on the findings and recommendations of the June 30, 2014 Grand Jury Report on the subject of "Grass Valley School District Unsafe Facilities?" for purposes of readability, we have shown our responses in bold. FINDINGS: 1. Grass Valley Charter School property conditions expose students, teachers, staff, parents and visitors attending school facilities to dangerous health and safety issues.

Conduct annual fire extinguisher inspections and semi-annual fire alarm inspections and re-service as necessary. Contact fire department for certification acti\ities as requireci.

In [cracts professionally \\ i til the publ ic maintai ning effective \lorking relationships and works in cooperation \\ itil the management team [0 effectivdy meet departmental objectives.

Prmides input into the den~lopmen[ of the operating budget for the assigned area of responsibility. Orders materials and supplies. Assists in the monitoring and tracking of expenditures D. Implements and monitors the Injury and Illness Pre\cntion Program for District. 2-1. Ensures that safety training is provided to staff and that proper safety practices <Ire folkmed. Directur of l\l3incenance and Operations 7-13.Joc Page I of--1 25 Responds to emergencies as requested. Coordinates activities with other responders. Directs the work of staff and utilization of resources to effect repair and ensure the safety of the Grass Valley School District. Establishes and maintains procedures for system seclirity and protection of district facilities and property. In collahoration with the District's Administration, leads the District's Emergency Planning and implementation process. including but not limited to the formation of the District's Safety Committee.

Adheres to Board policies anci regulations and maintain a thorough working knmdedge of the district procedures.

Responds accurately and diplomatically to inquiries and requests from District staff. other agencies, and memhers of the puhlic consistent \\ith district policies and department practices,

Prepares reports, statistical data, and maintain pertinent files related to Buildings, Grounds and Operations: check documents and transactions to ensure compliance \vith legal and inventory requirements; adhere to district requirements for contracted sen ices; and assist in the preparation of annual reports for the district, count) and state. :II. Ensure that mail and packages are delivered each school day between the school sites and the District Office.

Methods and procedures related 10 Hazardous Materials and asbestos abatement. Read, interprd amI work from construction drawings ancl blueprints.

Estimate materials and labor costs. 38, Work independently \\ith littk direction.

Obsene legal and defensi\e driving practices, Oi rector of \Iaint.:nance and Operaliolls 7 ·13 .doc of .f REASONING ABILITY: I. Ahility to apply common sense understanding to carr) out instructions furnished in wrilten. oral or diagram form. Ability to establish and maintain cffecti\e working relationships Ilith students, c(HI orkers, stafr and community . .l. Ability to perform duties Ilith awareness of all district requirements ancl Board of Education policies. +. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularl) required to stand; walk; lise hands and fingers to handle or feel ohjects, tools, or controls: and talk or hear. The employee frequently is required to reach with hanels and arms. The employee is occasionally required to sit. The employee frequently mllst squat. stoop or kneel, reach aho\e the head and reach fommd. The employee continuously uses hand strength to grasp tools and climhs on to ladders. The employee II ill freqllently bend or twist at the neck and trunk more than the 3\erage person II'hile performing the duties of this job. S. The employee must frequently lift and/or mOl'e up to 50 pounds sllch as cleaning supplies. pails and unloading trucks Occasionally the employee II ill lift and/or move up to 75 pounds to 100 pounds occasionally sllch as bulk furniture. The employee Ilill sometimes pllsh/pull items sllch as tables. bleachers. scruhhing machines. Specific vision ahilities required by thi s joh inc lude close vision. color \ ision, peri pheral vision. depth perception. and the abil it) to adjust focus. LANGUAGE SKILtS: I. Abilit) to read and interpret documents such as safety rules, operating and maintenance instructions, and manuals.