COVER-UP AT EL PUENTE? October 25, 2008 8:06 AM
In our column on Sept. 27, The Investigator questioned the wisdom and morality of situating a school on a contaminated site; we also suggested possible collusion between property owner (Laguna Investment Partners), lessor (John Price) and the Santa Barbara County Education Office (SBCEO) -- not least because it appears middleman John Price leased the premises from Laguna Investment Partners specifically to sub-lease it to SBCEO. SBCEO scrambled to distribute a press release—unsigned and undated, but on SBCEO letterhead—styled as “El Puente opinion column in the News-Press patently false.” It’s title and content are reminiscent of a line delivered by the Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” The Investigator had telephoned Superintendent of Schools Bill Cirone and El Puente’s principal for comment in advance of publication; they had the opportunity to set the record straight. By not returning a call from the media, which reports to the community, SBCEO’s Superintendent also conveyed an above-it-all disposition. Maybe, after 26 years as Superintendent, Mr. Cirone has forgotten an important truth: He is an elected public servant; taxpayers provide his annual salary ($181,427.26) plus generous benefits; he is accountable to them. Maybe we should have term limits for elected school officials, as we do with councilpersons, supervisors, the mayor, state senators and assemblymen. Let us examine why SBCEO’s press release is patently lame: It refers to this column as "opinion." As its name suggests, this column investigates wrongdoing and lays out factual findings. It remains a fact, not our opinion, that all parties knew in 1999 that the El Puente site was contaminated. We know this because it was factually stated in the lease agreement under a clause headed "Environmental Disclosure." SBCEO's press release proffers vague obfuscation. Let's cut to the chase, with Mr. Cirone's answer to this question: What is the precise timeline of contact between SBCEO and the DTSC and/or HAZMAT regarding contamination concerns at El Puente? Parties knew the site was contaminated before the lease agreement was signed on Oct. 1, 1999. So the truth is easy to verify, if only SBCEO would present any correspondence it had with HAZMAT and/or DTSC prior to October 1st, 1999. In an e-mail to SBCEO on Oct. 20, The Investigator offered to pay for photocopies of such correspondence and arrange collection. We continue to await their response. If SBCEO will not provide such correspondence, we must question whether such correspondence exists; if none exists, SBCEO's press release could be construed as a cover-up. Thea Tryon, an engineering geologist with Central Coast Water Board, told The Investigator that tests conducted at El Puente were not comprehensive. We repeat her words: "There are contaminants in the ground water. No one made us aware that a school would be on this site. We found out from a member of the public." Furthermore, we understand from HAZMAT that if they had been informed a school was planned for this site they would have required testing far beyond a soil sample in the parking lot. SBCEO's press release asserts that DTSC "has reported that there is no health hazard to the health of students or staff in the long or short term at this site." But a letter dated Aug. 26, 2008, from Steve Hariri of DTSC states: Huh? SBCEO's stance is evocative of George Orwell's "1984" newspeak. SBCEO has chosen to mischaracterize this column as opinion, so here Now let's examine the case of a teen whom the schools are trying to send to El Puente. We'll call him John. John had been in special education since elementary school because of learning problems. His father died when John was 11; his mother is recovering from breast cancer. John has been treated for unremitting cancer for two years, including surgeries and chemotherapy. He lives in chronic pain; the school he attended gave him almost no supporting services. School administrators tried to do the dirty -- expel John and place him in El Puente by default -- without consideration for his disabilities or proper notice to his parent, which is actually illegal. John is not a troublemaker, not involved with gangs. He was found with half-a-gram of marijuana in his pocket. (John is now on medical marijuana to increase his appetite and ease his pain.) The assistant principal and principal decided to expel John, even after an advocate got involved and pointed out legal violations. To expel a special education student, a school must first conduct a Manifestation Determination IEP (Individualized Education Program) meeting. A “complete assessment” is supposed to be conducted, though John’s Manifestation Determination Report blew off the family’s cancer issues in one sentence: “John has been on home hospital in the past because he has cancer.” The “complete assessment” does not mention that John has been suffering chronic pain and severe fatigue for several years, but conveniently concludes that John’s expulsion has nothing to do with his disabilities, which the school had not addressed, itself a violation of state and federal law. Decisions like this are taken to make like easier for the school bureaucracy, not to assist the low-income student, who rarely has means to protest. A huge slice of money from our taxes goes into public education. Yet this bloated bureaucracy pleads for more money – which it lavishes upon itself, and on paying attorneys to fight parents’ pleas for help, while purporting to look after needy students placed by our community in their charge. We would have written “care” not “charge.” Except their seems little care involved.
|