HBCSD Corruption

The Misleading Information:

Hermosa Beach City School District Measure S Informational Meeting Partial Transcript,  May 25, 2016 - Run time 1 hour 36 minutes

http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4167

Part III:  Question and answer information for HBCSD Bond Measure S regarding District Facilities led by Superintendent Pat Escalante* with assistance from School Board President Mary Campbell.

*NOTE: Pat Escalante did not have a Doctor of Education degree, nor did she have any superintendent experience.  Please see Pat Escalante Complete Discussion and facts.

01:04:19 [Member of the audience (a plant by the school district?)] “Hi Pat.  Question.  It’s been suggested that North School can be moved in to, um, because it doesn’t have to be satisfied by Ed [California Department of Education] code.  Can you give some highlights as to what the Ed code is and why North School specifically does not meet Ed code?  Um, no worries about Pier because that a separate issue, we know that.”

01:04:37 [Pat Escalante – HBCSD Superintendent 2012-2020] “The very first thing that comes into my head and is the most critical is there is no ADA access.  So if your disabled you can’t get n that campus unless you come in, um, even if you come in the back way, they can only access one, in one of the buildings, so that’s critically important component.”

This statement by Pat Escalante is incorrect.

CORRECT INFORMATION: North School has ADA access to each building it also has three handicap parking spaces and one handicap accessible toilet.  It is illegal for North School NOT to be ADA accessible.  According to the 2014 Facilities Master Plan all District schools require additional ADA upgrades.  The need for additional ADA upgrades is not a reason to tear down the entire campus.   (TL-2016Aug NS ADA accessibility)

[Pat Escalante – HBCSD Superintendent 2012-2020] “Um, the other is that the, um, the um, the building has been modified, so that whenever there is any modification to an original structure, the State has to come out to do an investigation, and they have to, um, the district is responsible for bringing it up to code so there’s a number of things the electrical systems aren’t up to code, the water fountains…”

These statements by Pat Escalante are MISLEADING.

COMPETING INFORMATION:  North School is grandfathered-in as a public school.  Grandfathered-in means that it is considered code compliant as is.  The CDE does not require that school districts bring all existing schools up to relatively new (since 1993) Title 5 standards.  Title 5 standards only apply to new construction.

COMPETING INFORMATION: The Division of State Architect oversees the structural safety for all public school building projects over $42,218.00.**  The Field Act passed in April 1933 made it a felony to build public schools without the approval of the Division of State Architects and without the use of licensed architects and structural engineers.  North School was reconstructed in 1934 by renowned architect Samuel Lunden to stringent Field Act specifications.  (TL-1934Jul27 NS Field Act approval).  All building modifications at North School have been overseen by the Division of State Architects. (TL-1934-2001 DSA F19-45 list) 

None of the North School buildings were identified by the Department of General Services, Office of Public School Construction in their letter to Pat Escalante on March 26, 2014 as NOT approved for District use as is.  Office of Public-School Construction regulation 1859.78.7, Additional Eligible Utility Cost for 50 Years or Older Permanent Buildings.[1]  Neither updating of electrical systems nor replacement of water fountains would require the complete demolition of North School in order to renovate the facility for students.

**NOTE: The threshold for DSA review of public school structural projects increased from $42,218 to $100,000 in 2016.  The threshold for DSA review of public school nonstructural projects also was increased from $168,187 to $225,000 in 2016.  (TL-2016Jun27 New DSA project thresholds)  HBCSD could have made up to $225,000 in non-structural improvements and $100,000 in structural changes at North School without using an architect and engineer before triggering a DSA review period.   The elimination of the DSA review period would allow the district to use North School immediately for students rather than wait for a month-long review period.

NOTE: The HBCSD had approximately $2 million in reserves (savings) over and above the CDE 3% requirement for district savings.  HBCSD also spent approximately $1.14 million dollars on short term portable classrooms from 2013 to 2016.  Therefore, HBCSD had a total of approximately $3M that could have been spent renovating North School or the Community Center for district use before passing a $59M bond to demolish and rebuild North School for $29M.

The expenditure of some of the district reserves on either North School or the Community Center could have immediately eliminated the overcrowding problems at Valley and View Schools.  Any expenditure to improve either North School or the Community would be a lasting improvement on a community asset versus “throwing away” $1.14M on temporary overcrowding solutions.  Did school board members withholding of $2 million of district funds from being spent on student needs and facility improvements act to pressure the community and panic parents into voting for a $59M bond?

01:05:21 [The same member of the audience (a plant by the school district?)] “Is there a kitchen?  Is there eating areas at North School?”

[Pat Escalante – HBCSD Superintendent 2012-2020] “There’s not a cafeteria, there’s not a library, there’s not a, um, it’s not set up as a functioning school. 

This statement by Pat Escalante is false.

CORRECT INFORMATION: There is a kitchen with a serving bay and tray return at North School.  There is an indoor eating area adjacent to the kitchen.  Please see the floor plan of North School and photos of the kitchen.  (TL-NS floor plan), (TL-NS kitchen)

The absence of a formal library would not prevent the district from using North School as is for students.  The District’s other school for K through 3rd students, View School, did not have a dedicated library building either.  Any existing room at North School can be set up as a library or a separate library can be built. 

[Pat Escalante – HBCSD Superintendent 2012-2020] “It is set up as a school from 1987, that’s remained as 1987, with $15,000 year put into it to maintain it.”

MISLEADING INFORMATION:  There is no problem with a school set up as a school from 1987.  Plenty of schools in California were built before 1987.  How is this be an issue?

The statement that HBCSD puts $15,000 year into maintaining North School is not verified by district documents.  Monthly Purchase Orders over $500 show that in 2013 approximately $4K was spent to maintain North School.  In 2014 no funds were expended to maintain North School.  In 2015 approximately $11K was spent to maintain North School.  Please see information on North School maintenance expenditures.

[Pat Escalante – HBCSD Superintendent 2012-2020]  “And that’s it.  And so, um, you cannot put students back into that school.  Um, pub… [Public school students]”

This is an incorrect statement by Pat Escalante. 

CORRECT INFORMATION:  North School is grand-fathered-in as an HBCSD campus.  It is considered compliant as is.   It is safe for students as is.  It has always been used as a school even if the campus was leased out to private schools.  ALL the school board members should know this.  There is no excuse for school board members not to have done their homework on the use of North School for HBCSD students as is.

01:05:49 [Mary Campbell - School board member 2013-2017]  “Public school students.  You can put children there in a private, private business.” 

This is an incorrect statement by Mary Campbell and Pat Escalante. 

CORRECT INFORMATION: North School is grandfathered-in as a public school.  It has always been used as a school even if it is leased out to a private business.  Therefore, North School is still CDE code compliant and can indeed be used as-is for students.

Both Hermosa View School AND Robinson School in Manhattan Beach were leased out to private school organizations before they were renovated in early 1990 and early 2000s, respectively, for students.

NOTE: School board members Pattie Ackerman, Maggie Bove-LaMonica and Monique Ehsan (former member of the Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee) all stood by as Superintendent Pat Escalante gave misinformation to the community.  None of the school board members corrected her statements.   Had school board members even verified the district’s facility facts before they put a $59 million dollar bond on the ballot in June 2016?

01:05:50 [Pat Escalante] “Yes.  Thank you.  Thank you for reinforcing that…”

(The meeting continues but was not fact-checked due to time constraints.)

NOTE: This meeting, and the misinformation contained in it was videotaped and downloaded to the HBCSD Website under Measure S videos.

[1] Architect’s Submittal Guidelines, March 2011, Prepared by the Office of Public School Construction. Regulation 1859.78.7.  The Board shall provide funding for upgrading existing site utilities work necessary for the modernization of 50 year or older permanent building(s) equal to the lesser of 60 percent of verified eligible cost to upgrade utility service or 20 percent of the funding authorized by Section 1859.78.6.  Plumbing & Electrical.