Panel Attacks Use of Corps for School Construction

Adding fresh fuel to a simmering power struggle, the citizens committee overseeing the spending of $2.4 billion in Proposition BB school bonds clashed Wednesday with the Los Angeles Unified School District’s chief operating officer over using the Army Corps of Engineers to speed construction of new schools.

Committee Chairman and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Steve Soboroff chided Howard Miller for bringing in the corps to break the gridlock that has kept the vast district from moving forward with construction of new schools.

Soboroff complained bitterly that the federal agency was displacing private contractors who have been overseeing the BB-funded school repair and construction program. “This is a sole-source contract between big bureaucracies,” he said of the agreement with the corps.

In an effort to end the friction that has been evident between the BB committee and district officials, Miller acknowledged that his decision to use the corps was made without “appropriate discussion” with the committee. The panel was created by the voters when they approved the massive school bond issue in April 1997.

“Clearly there is an uneasiness on this committee,” Miller told the panel. “I don’t want to have a conflict over this.” But the olive branch he extended was rejected. Despite Miller’s pledge that the corps would not build schools, would not displace the current program manager, 3DI/O’Brien Kreitzberg, or do community outreach, the BB committee voted 7 to 2 to approve a resolution criticizing the school board for hastily entering into an “open-ended” deal with the federal agency.

The committee urged the school board not to take selection of new school sites and construction of new schools “out of the hands of the competitive private sector” and suggested that the district reconsider its decision to use the corps. “We’re going to pay the Army Corps to go out and look for school sites?” Soboroff asked.

Miller said he needed the corps to assist the district with trained staff, to respond to environmental problems at school sites and to complete an application for $431 million in federal funding to wire schools for technological improvements.

When committee member David Abel objected to the process used to speed the application for the federal funds--a goal the committee itself had championed--Miller retorted: “People are hired to get results. We met the target.”

After Abel persisted in criticizing the process for a lack of openness, Miller shot back: “You are not part of the executive team of the Los Angeles Unified School District.”

When the committee member likened Miller’s handling of the application for federal technology funds to district officials’ promotion of the Belmont Learning Complex, Miller retorted: “It’s a cheap shot to mention Belmont. It illustrates a kind of hostility from this committee that I really have to think about.”

Miller called the application’s on-time delivery “a miracle.” Even Soboroff labeled it “a stroke of genius.” But that was the extent of the agreement evident during the three-hour meeting at Dorsey High School in the Crenshaw district.

Soboroff, committee member Michael Lehrer and others criticized expenditure of $250,000 for an audit and probe by the district’s chief investigator, Don Mullinax, of spending on bond program and project management fees.

In an effort to rebut Miller’s contention at last month’s meeting that the fees were excessive, Soboroff presented a report saying the 2.2% fee paid to 3DI/O’Brien Kreitzberg was within acceptable industry standards, as is the 12.1% fee paid to the firms that manage school repair and construction projects.

Soboroff also demanded that the district return the BB funds used for a new high school project in South Gate that the board voted to scrap because the site is polluted.