Max Duran wrote
12-26-07 Subject: Bernie's Blog & Jim Connely's Guts
Greetings. As a rule, most newspapers slant the news to benefit their side. By and large most newsworthy articles are presented as facts. The CJ slants her bias so much that it's a shame she even calls herself a newspaper. Tana, as you pointed out, she gave the pro people so much press that she failed in her attempt to be fair and impartial. What bothered me the most was her refusal to print my letters. I subsequently shortened it, because they said it was too long and submitted it with plenty of time before the election...
Also, what surprised me was the support received from both Melissa and Steve Harbeson. These were people who were members of the previous board for many years. Each held the presidency for several years. As such, they were able to charter new and exciting courses for this district.
These are the same people Distaso talks about that were incompetent and a failure; still they support this measure. What does that say about these people? It says that they were ineffective in their service to this community. That the time served by them was wasted. These are the same people who, under the auspices of Linda Wagner's administration, closed the Gym.
Recently, I shared this section with Distaso and suggested that they need not buy liability insurance. He looked at it and shrugged it off. Allow me to share Section 17285 of the Ed Code:
17285. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of law except Sections 17286,
17287, 17405, and this section, a leased building that does not meet the requirements of Section 17280 may not be used as a school building, as defined in Section 17283, after September 1, 1990.
(b) A school district may lease a commercial building prior to January 1, 2003, that does not meet the requirements of Section 17280, for use as a school building, as defined in Section 17283, if the governing board of the district finds that all of the following conditions have been met:
(1) The building was constructed in accordance with seismic safety standards for commercial buildings constructed within an earthquake zone.
(2) The building permit for the initial construction of the building was issued on or after January 1, 1990.
(3) A structural engineer has inspected the building and submitted a report to the governing board of the school district that certifies that the building is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Field Act. This certification requirement is satisfied if the structural engineer affixes his or her seal of approval to the report and he or she attests in that report that to the best of his or her knowledge:
(A) He or she has reviewed the design calculations, construction documents, and the local government construction inspection records of the building to the extent available.
(B) He or she has authorized testing and has observed or reviewed the test results and the inspections of an adequate sample of the structure's welds, anchor bolts, and other structural elements.
(C) He or she has observed that the overhead nonstructural elements, including, but not limited to, light fixtures, heating, and air-conditioning diffusers are adequately braced or anchored.
The governing board of the school district shall submit the report to the Division of the State Architect for its review. The Division of the State Architect has one month to review the report for compliance with the above requirements, and to provide feedback to the structural engineer regarding any insufficiencies with the report, and whether or not the building is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Field Act. If the Division of the State Architect does not respond within one month of the final and complete report being submitted, the Division of the State Architect will be deemed to have concurred with the structural engineer's report. A final decision by the governing board of the school district to occupy the building for school purposes shall not occur until the governing board has reviewed and considered the feedback of the Division of the State Architect, or the one month review period has passed.
No member of the governing board of a school district, nor any employee of a school district, shall be held personally liable for injury to persons or damage to property resulting from the fact that the governing board of the school district used a commercial building pursuant to this subdivision for a school and the building was not constructed under the requirements of Section 17280.
This exemption from personal liability for members of the governing board and employees of a school district is not intended to limit the liability of the school district for injury to persons or damage to property resulting from the fact that the governing board or any employee of the school district used a commercial building pursuant to this subdivision for a school and the building was not constructed under the requirements of Section 17280. This exemption from personal liability for members of the governing board and employees of a school district is not intended to limit the liability of the school district, the governing board or the district's employees pursuant to Section 835 of the Government Code. Section 17312 is not applicable to a person who, pursuant to this section, leases or uses a building for a school building that meets the requirements of this section but does not meet the requirements of Section 17280. Approval and use of a building pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 17285 does not constitute a violation of the Field Act.
1) The building is a leased building. OK so we plan to eventually buy it but it is currently being leased.
2) The district has a report on file, from a structural engineer stating that the Gym meets or exceed the requirement found in the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
3) Read the underlined part.
This is another example of incompetency on the part of this board.
Max Duran
Bond - Closure index
Acton Agua Dulce School District
Vanguard News Home page