LAUSD CONSULTANT HIRING UNDER FIRE UNIONS, OTHERS QUESTION COST, SAFETY.

Byline: Beth Barrett Staff Writer

Labor unions and others are protesting the Los Angeles Unified School District's use of consultants to inspect new and modernized schools, claiming it violates labor contracts, is more costly, and could jeopardize students' safety, the Daily News has learned.

The protests come as the LAUSD prepares to ask the board to spend up to $43 million on 13 private firms over the next three years as a backup to the district's inspectors.

The outsourcing plan comes on the heels of disclosures last week that the LAUSD last year paid consultants in its building program $71 million out of voter-approved bond funds, at a cost up to twice what it would have been to hire staff. The private construction inspectors would also be paid from bond revenue and other funds.

Critics charged last week the district's plan would put too much of the inspection portion of the $5 billion new construction program in private hands, and questioned the oversight.

But LAUSD officials say the outside consultants are needed to provide the kind of ``flexibility'' the new construction program demands.

They said district inspectors will be used first, that proper oversight will be provided, and that the private consultants will be used and paid only on an ``as-needed'' basis, which they contend will be more cost- effective than hiring district inspectors to handle all the work.

Jim Delker, LAUSD's acting deputy chief facilities executive and the consultant overseeing existing facilities, said the district has to be prepared for a building peak, driven by anticipated awards of some $1 billion in projects over the next six months.

``We don't know the requirements that will hit us on inspections. We know we're going through a peak,'' Delker said.

He said the inspectors would only be paid for the work they performed.

``We don't have to use all that capacity. It's there to help us manage the upcoming workload,'' Delker said.

The school board is expected to vote later this month on the inspection contracts, each of which would pay up to $300,000 through June 30, with three $1 million-a-year options.

Teamsters Local 572, which represents the district's construction inspectors, has filed a grievance protesting the outsourcing of inspection work in general, contending the LAUSD is violating the terms of the labor agreement, said union General Counsel Lourdes Garcia.

``The work belongs to LAUSD inspectors,'' Garcia said. ``This is more mismanagement of funds.''

The union's position is that it should inspect schools, whether they are LAUSD or charter schools, and that outside consultants should not be brought in unless district inspectors lack specific expertise.

``It certainly violates our contract,'' said Patty Mohawk-Davis, business representative for the union. ``My feeling is they don't care,'' she said of the district. ``They'd rather fight us in court.''

The union's contract states: ``The District shall not subcontract or contract out for services or work currently performed by employees in this bargaining unit, except in compliance with state law.''

Delker, the head of LAUSD's facilities, denied the district is violating the labor contract.

``We plan to use our inspectors to the maximum extent possible,'' he said.

In August, the union won a grievance in which it protested the district's plan to use outside inspectors at two new school sites.

Delker said that case was unusual because the inspectors were part of a procurement package for the schools, and that the use of outside inspectors had ``slipped through the cracks.''

Anita Ford, classified personnel director for the LAUSD, said she will investigate whether the proposed inspection contracts properly confine consultants to relatively short-term work.

``If it lasts several years, then, yes, it should go through the (district's) promotional ladder,'' Ford said.

The LAUSD Personnel Commission also is investigating the propriety of the contracts, said its chairman, Joseph Paller. ``We hope to be in a position to act shortly.''

Connie Moreno, the labor relations representative for the California School Employees Association, said the union sees an ``incredible web of contractors'' operating without checks and balances.

``The danger is that the district is being seen as the cash cow with no, or very little, oversight,'' Moreno said. ``The danger is of contracts going to friends of friends.''

Board member David Tokofsky criticized the use of consultants as risky.

``Using outside inspectors under the efficiency argument is a path to shortcuts that could injure our kids in the next major earthquake,'' Tokofsky said. ``The inspectors who have worked their whole life in the district have a loyalty to the kids and the respect of the institution.

``Those who come in just for a hurry, hurry job are on to the next gig before they even learn to spell LAUSD.''

Tom Leslie, who recently retired as the district's chief construction inspector, warned against inspectors being placed under the control of project managers, or other departments.

``Inspections should be totally autonomous from any other department,'' Leslie said. ``Project managers have a different goal: to get schools done quickly.''

Leslie said private inspection firms were used sparingly during Proposition BB construction work, primarily where the district had limited expertise.

John Gilbert, the LAUSD's interim chief construction inspector, said the contracts are essentially a safeguard if inspection work becomes too much for district inspectors.

``There's a tremendous volume of work anticipated,'' Gilbert said. ``If we have the capacity with district personnel we'll continue handling the work. Only if we don't have the personnel will we go to an outside source.''

The district has about 50 inspectors certified by the State Architect's Office, but more may be hired as was the case under Proposition BB.

The private contracts, called ``task order'' contracts, would provide a backup system with inspectors used and paid only on an as-needed basis, Gilbert added.

``This is only if the need arises,'' he said. ``We want to be ready.''