EDITOR: At the school board meeting on Sept. 22 the question of
state certification of Barrett Elementary School was one of a
number of issues addressed during public comments by John Coyle. He
explained that the School Board would be held personally liable in
any construction-related litigation as long as the school remained
uncertified by the State of California.
EDITOR:
At the school board meeting on Sept. 22 the question of state certification of Barrett Elementary School was one of a number of issues addressed during public comments by John Coyle. He explained that the School Board would be held personally liable in any construction-related litigation as long as the school remained uncertified by the State of California.
In response to his comments district Superintendent Carolyn McKennan is quoted as saying; “These are doomsday possibilities at best, and very unlikely to occur … I think it sounds much more dramatic than it really is.”
Here is a point of fact. If there is litigation concerning Barrett Elementary School prior to certification, Superintndent McKennan will not be sued, the board will. If the “unlikely” did occur, the School Board members will be held personally liable. It’s the law. It can be reviewed on the State of California website – Division of State Architect (DSA)
Recently I requested a copy of the state certification of Barrett and found that the school remains uncertified after 14 months of occupancy. According to the district, they were made aware by Jacobs quite some time ago that the certification was in process, but they don’t have any written record.
The district’s response went on to say, “(They) will contact (Jacobs) in writing and let (me) know if the process (certification) takes place.” Here’s an interesting twist, certification is the district’s responsibility, not the contractor’s.
After reading through related sections of the state Education Code I also requested a copy of the report that should be filed with the state Legislative Analyst as required by Education Code 17250.50. It states that a school district shall not commence any additional design-build projects if 60 days has elapsed after the completion of a design-build project without having filed the report to the Legislative Analyst Office required pursuant to Section 17250.45.
Under Public Contract Code Section 7107, which defines completion as occupancy, Barrett School has been occupied for 14 months. The district’s answer, “We have no such copy of this report.”
This brings up another question. Could the district legally move forward on the Live Oak remodel and the Sobrato High School construction projects without filing this report?
If the Board is really interested in verifying that the “professionals” have done their job they can find all the information concerning state law and procedures the same way I did, go online.
Harlan Warthen, Morgan Hill
